New Britain herald., 1925-03-26
Mrs. Hagearty and I, wexler.

Mrs, Hagearty and l, Wexler. chairman of the building commission at the time the hearing was held on. the garage question, were put on the witness stand and were asked ques- tons relative to the case. Mir, Wex- Ter, when asked why the permit was refused, said that the board decided against 1t on grounds of deprecia- tion of surrounding property, fire hazard and the fact that the corner Of High and Lake streets a danger ous one, is not many feet from the site of the proposed building.
 He said he guessed that about 7S per cent of the landowners within 800 feet of the property objected. Mr. Mangan snapped him up on this, asking him 1T he only guessed at it. Mir WeXler stated that many persons present at the hearing last Septem- her spoke of the fire hazard and gave instances Of such occurrences under similar conditions.
 Judge Kirkham moved for a dis missal Of the appeal. He said the court could only decide on the ques- ton Of law, whether the decision of the building commission and its workings In connection with the case were legal or not. He asserted that the plaintiff failed 10 make out case of illegality and that she meeting of the commission in regard to the question had been legal and every thing had been considered.
 Even if 75 per cent of the land owners didn't object to the proposi- tton, the plaintiff gets nowhere, since that matter was not the only angle from which the proposition was con- sidered," stated the corporotion counsel.
 He referred to an ordinance to the effect that in a residential district a public garage which shall have a tendency to depreciate property shall not be built. He expressed the opinion that it would have been ille- gal for the commission to have granted the permit under the cir cumstances.
 If the building commission is given the right to issue permits. that commission is responsible for them, he sad. Are they automatons and must they grant every permit applied for?" he asked. Continuing, he said that the right to issue permits is vested in the building commission and the commission must use discre- tion.
 He pointed out that the fire hazard in such locality is great, located as the property is, next to the Landers plant on High street, south of the railroad tracks. A garage erected right up against factory is hazard, he said. "Is 1t unsound exercise of discretion to re- fuse it?" he asked.
 Mir. Mangan charged that the building commission, with the right to use its discretion entirely, has the power to take away property rights of any citizen in the city. He said the ordinance, under which that power is given, would not hold water in any court in the country. By it the commission is given absolute power. he said.
 "The building commission has powers that the federal government itself cannot have. according to that ordinance" stated MT. Mansan. Re ferring to the question at hand, the attorney for the plaintiff said that the commission assumed powers it did not have and made mistake in law out of necessity.
 "If the situation were not so ser ious 1t would be laughable" he said. 4 short time before the passage Of the ordinance under which the case in question came, he said, an ordln- ance was in force. whereby no ap- peals could be granted. He said that another ordinance was passed so that something could be blocked and spoke at length on the situation which he characterized as deplor- able.
 He said, in closing that the com mission used powers that it had no right to employ. All the commission had to do was to think it was right to make it's decision.
 Attorney Roche reserved decision in the case.