The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-04-13
BUILDERS PUT UP
FIGHT FOR APPEAL
EXTENDED HEARING IL GRANTED
ny COMMITTEE HAVING CHARGE
or MATTER.
eaEET AGAIN MONDAY
GILMAN SUBSTITUTES ORDINANCE
PROVIDES BOARD OF THREE
TO PASS ON DIsPUT-
ED QUESTION:.


noon, the Council Committee on
Ordinance was in session, getting all
the light possible on the so-caiied
Gilman substitute ordinance. which
would give Richmond builders the
right Of appeal to some other tribunal
than the Police Court from the ruiz
ings Of Inspector Beck. The hear
ing will be resumed Monday after
noon at 4:30 o'clock.
The builders had their inning first.
Lawyer George Gregory led for them.
setting forth the several clauses in
the ordinance. which the builders
regard as Of most vital interest to
them. He endeayored to show that
the proposition OF the builders to
create a board of appeal, In place
OF the Police Court. Is eminently rea-
sonable and fair. One member OF
the board would be selected by the
appellant. one by the building In
spector and third by these two. Only
architects, builders and engineers
could be named.
The party noting the appeal would
be required TO put up $50 within
twenty-four hours, this sum to be
equally divided among members Of
the board for their services. The
members must be named without de-
lay and report submitted In three
days. II the deciaion goes against
the appellant. he must abide by 1t or
else be hailed into Police Court to be
penalixed.
Apoell.nt Paws Cost.
The man who appeais." Mr.. Greg
Dry pointed out. lis willing to pay
the cost. even though In other cities
where similar appeal boards ara in
operation the municipality pays the
cost II the decision is against the
building inspector. In Baltimore the
sum OF 345 Ii required to be put up"
Mr.. Gregory said that the cities OF
Chicago. Cleveland. Philadelphia.
baltimore and Washington had such
boards Of appeal.
In his opinion the Richmond board
Of public safety Is no appeal at all,
for at least two Of the members, the
mayor and fire chief have no tech
fiical or practical knowledge OF build
ing material and operations The
other member OF this board IL the
city engineer. 1t is rare that the
oua'u 40 Saiiru upon 10 settle QueS-
tions In dispute.
Others who spoke in favor Of the
Gilman ordinance were w. A. Ches-
G. Ridgway Moore. the latter two
speaking on behalf of property own
ers.
Opposition Heard.
The opposition to the builders plan
was represented by w. l.. Carnea1,
NJ. e. Wright. architects. and Robert
Lecky. Jr., member Of the FIRE board.
and also Of the commission whica
drew up the building code. Mr.. Car
neal said he represented twelve
architects, this numper being about
one-third Of those doing business in
1t developed. The Archi-
tects Club. it seems. takes in mem
bers only by invitation. and thus makes
itself very exclusive Mr.. Carneal.
speaking on behalf of the club. said
that it much preferred to let things
remain as they are. out II there II
tn be -recial appeal board he would
prefer one composed OF three MEM
bers selected AZ follows: The mayor
to pick one from list Of three sub
mittAd by the builders annually. ana
from list 81 three selected
by the achitects. The third member
would be picked b. these two. al
the Gilman ordinance privides.
The ounosition win hc given further
to air Its views Mon
day afternoon when II In likely the
inspector himself win also
be heard.
The hearing yesterday afternoon took
place in the council chamber which
was well filled with builders. archi-
tects. property owners and others in
terested IN the matter.