The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-10-02
BUILDING CODE HEARING
Related Instrument For Which City Paid Taken From Its Dusty
 Archives

The building code drawn up by 8 special committee at considerable cost to the city, was taken from the pigeon hole, last night, dusty and yellow from age. and given 8 hearing. The code was charged with a variety of -ebjec- tions. In fact, one architect who ap peared at the hearing had prepared in writing just ST specific objections. For the last few years the city has been retrogressive enough to get along with 8 code adopted years ago, one of the most antique things inf Bridgeport. Then the happy thought struck some one that new code was needed. Forthwith an energetic Common Coun- eiI started something. A special com mittee was selected and appropria- ton made. The committee included the present Mayor, Clifford B. Wilson, then an Alderman, together with arch itects and members of the building commission. This committee fused pleted it's work. The new code was turned over to the Common Council and the Council turned it over to the Ordinance committee. This commit tee then chucked eit in pigeon hole. first having paid the bills of the spe- cial committee, and there it has re- committee decided to hold public hearing on it. The hearing was held last night.
 At different stages during the prep aration of the code and since it's com pletion there has been a good deal of public agitation to get something done. There seemed to be much interest in the matter Inactivity. however, deadened this. and last nights meet ing was a failure so far as attendance was concerned. The building commits sioners, three architects, and one AL derman besides members of the Oaaf- nance committee were at the meeting. ~
 Architect Thomas F. Kelly stated that he had read the code and given it much study. As a result he offer ed 87 objections to it's adoption. Then the committee questioned him about the objections and much time was taken up in the subsequent discussion MT. Kelly said that there are some excellent things about the code but many poor things. He didn't like the section which allows the building commissioners to withdraw any lini- tations of the code at their discretion. He thought the Common Council should have that authority alone. The building commissioners should have few discretionary powers, he thought. :
 Architect J. w. Northrop was which prepared the code. Naturally he was prejudiced in it's favor he stat ed. He urged the necessity of inn m mediate1y adopting a code. This code was not perfect but it is better than none at all, he argued. He agreed to some extent with Architect Kelly that too much authority was given the building commissioners with regard to nullifying the code.
 Alderman Robert E. DeForest got away from the code a minute so to
  1nunication sent to the press infer1ing that the Ordinance committee had some ulterior motive for delaying Architect Northrop said he had heard many rumors to that effect. Then t1e meeting got back to a discussion about the code. MT. Nerthrop, said that he thought the section having to do with cement blocks was too strict and sug- gested one two other sections that he thought could be changed with good results. He thought the code a bit more stringent than those in use in other cities. though it compared fla vorably. It was modelled after the one used in Cleveland. Ohio.
 Chairman Charles H. Botsford of the building commission thought that Architect Northrop had covered the ground pretty well. missioner W. s. Bowling of the same board has never seen a copy of the proposed code Architect Bernard Doerher urged the immediate adoption of a code. MT. Botsford was asked what he thought about the section allowing the building commissioners to with draw the limitations, and said that he. thought this section out Of place, as the code should not be amenable to the wishes or discretion of the build 1r1cr Zi