The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-01-25
SHOULD BE ONE CODE FOR ALL,
 SAYS MIR. KELLY
Architect Makes Plea For Uni. formity of Building Laws
 Proposed Code is Vague

Kelley LOOK C0e SC0nQ ChaL . oCdteS- man had once said. "what is the Con- stitution among friends?" and that if the building code was passed in it's present proposed form that the qries- ton would often be asked. What is the Building Code among friends?"
 Among other things he said: 'When you sit down to play a game of cards you play 1t according to Hoyle. But this building code leaves it to one of the holders of cards to make his own rules. This code should be made def mite by the Common Council. / No general rules should be left at the dis cretion of the Building Commissioners. We don't need to have any loopholes left where the Building Commissioners can use discretion. When we draw set of specifications and the building must be put, up according to specifi cations. There is nothing left to the discretion of anyone. Why should there be? Why should there be any different condition under a. code2 It should be the duty of the Building Commissioners to enforce the rules of building according to a coda. They should not be allowed to ntake laws as they go along"
 MT. Kelley said he had ridden the goat" for two years in trying to find, out what the Building Commissioners demand in the way of construction. He declared that Some builders have to do a great many things that others do not have to do, and therefore he was emphatic in his appeal that there 5h9u 5h9uld be o0s building law for every
 He pointed out scores of instances in the code where section would end with the words "at the discretion of the Building Commissioners .'as di- nnfa hr- 41, E,,ilI ro,, ers''. or shall be decided as the Build ing Commissioners may direct and declared that the statute laws oe the State do not leave chances for the police or law enforcement officers to decide what shall be the law. > MT. Kelley said that for years build 'ings have been going up under the discretion of the Building Commission and that he wanted to make 6 state ment to the effect that there is not a tenement house in the city of Bridgeport where the tenants are obliged to gay their rent because the tenement house laws of the State are not lived up to. and the law pre- scribes that no rent shall be paid un- less the tenements are constructed ac- cording to law.
 Samuel H. Wheeler. builder of the Stratfield and the Security building. said he concurred with MT Kelley in several statements that he made be- fora the commission. and said that tne Building Commissioners had refus- d to permit the construction of a type of apartment houses that would be sani- tary and possible to reduce the cost cf rents in the city
 MT. Kelley. to sur port his claim that the type of dwellings erected in this city are not up 70 the standard. pre- scented to the Aldermen a table show ing a comparison beween Bridgeport where the Building Commission rse discretionary powers in issuing uer- mits, and New Haven and Hartford where there is one rule for everybody. He showed where Hartford erects three brick buildings to Bridgeport'a one. and that the third citv.. of fh2 State makes material increases in ss grand list by the higher type of build-y ings it erects under specified rules. Hartford erected BOT dwellings in 1910 and Bridgeport erected 359. With 51 less dwellings. the fieures show that Hartford added s70O.00O more to its grand list thar Bridgeport did. The table submitted b-r MT. Kelley was taken from the Commercial Record, and is as follows:
 ONE FAMILY HOUSES.
 New Haven. 129 buildings, .. $571. .2SO Hartford. 89 buildings. . 476, $50 Bridgeport. S5 buildings. .... 275,OO0
 TWO FAMILY HOUSES
 New Haven. H. 152 buildings. :..:: sss,os5 Hartford. 130 buildings. ......2 809, 100 Bridgeport. 1SO buildings. 628,200 THREE FAMILY HOUSES
 New Haven. 97 buildings. 6S9 $50 Hartford. s8 buildings. .. 536, 500 Bridgeport, 93 buildings. ...... 219, 900
 CHARACTER OF BUILDINGS. New Haven. ....7s3 wood. 2s7 brick. Hartford ...61S 's 4S5 Bridgeport. ......781 126 |"
 MT. Kelly said that he had spent 40 hours going over the proposed code and had found S5' objectionable fea- tures.. He had only finished a part of his examination. He submitted con siderable data that he had prepared and the ordinance committee announc- ed after the meeting that if there are any citizens who have found any ob- jectionable features to the code the committee will be glad to receive their objections in writing. All such objections should be sent to City Clerk Stephen F. Boucher.
 Messrs. Clifford B. Wilson, Charles H. Botsford, Abram Wellington, Rob- ert H. Hurley and Joseph B. North rop who make up the committee which drafted the code were present and ex- plained many of the sections which were LID for dispute.
 Relative to a Central fireproof sec-
 
 been reading over the code and he felt that he was going to be hampered in putting up good buildings by the stringent rules laid down in the code. He made no specific objection to any. of the sections of the code./
 MT. Northrop said 1t was very de- sirab1e to have a central f1reproof sec- tion. He. added that fireproof ma- terials were gradually becoming less expensive while inflammable building materials were increasing in price.
 "Any person can go to the Common Council now and get permit to put up frame building in the fire. linn its," said MT. Kelly who added, "It has done very little good to have fire limits in the past. I believe 1t is a good thing to have fire limits but I believe that no one should be given the consent of the council and the endorsement of the Fire Marshal and the building commissioners
 MT. Kelly attacked the proposed es- tablishment of the boundary of the fire proof district in the center of Elm street and Robert Hurley defend ed the line, stating that if the line had been run through the middle of the block bounded on the north by Golden Hill street and south by Elm street that the rear of the fire proof buildings would be only short dis tance from inflammable buildings fronting in Golden Hill street. He argued that the putting of the line through the center of Elm street es- tablished a distinct section for the fire proof buildings with an entire street separating one building district from onOfhor