New Britain herald., 1925-09-25
AND THE COUNCIL ONLY ASKED: HOW COME?

Something went amiss in the
 drafting of ordinances intended in-
 tended ito stave off the erection of
 buildings which, when zoning was finally adopted, would not conform to tho. general character of build ings in the immediate neighbor- hood. Just what happened, no one seems to know, but when the new restrictive ordinances came up, Judge. John H. Kirkham made known for. the first time that the existing rules did not, as was sup posed, remove all discretionary privileges from the Building Com r1iissions but on the contrary, they called for discretion in certain mat ters. according to the city's legal adviser..,
 That this was not the impression of the mayor and of other mem bers of. the Common Council was very apparent at the last session of the Council. when that body de- clared without equivocatlon that no discretionary powers were vested in the commission. The statement of Judge Kirkham was received with amazement. Finally convinced. the members only asked: How come?
 The quasi-zoning ordinance has somewhat interesting history. When 1t was definitely decided to zone New Britain, it was feared real es- iafe sharks and others would seize upon the opportunity to squeeze high prizes for a building lot under a threat to erect an un- slightly ,non-comforming building. It was decided the best method would. be one giving the Building Commission power to refuse a per init if in its opinion, tho house would deteriorate the value of sur rounding properties,
 A few months of this plan brought loud and violent protest. It was claimed discretion was being abused. Mayor Paonessa called meeting of the Common Council, the BhiIding Commission and the ordinance committee. Some uncom- plimentary things were said. It was finally agreed the discretionary ordinance was wrong. From the standpoint of property owners there was believed 10 he danger of il building not to their liking; from the sIandpoint of the Building Commission and the city. there was the possibility of an intimation of fayoritism by dissatisfied persons.
 A discrctionary ordinance having been found wanting there was but l one ternatiyG-adopt a law talk ing from the Commission all dis cretion. A poll Of tho city officials concerned indicated sentiment | favorable thereto. Mayor Paonessa wanted such an ordinance and the majority side of inc house called for one.
 Judge Kirkham was called into the case and advised of the city's wants, In due time he submitted an ordinance which was adopted under thc general impression that the vote of property owners, of their failure to register opposition, would , be the factors to determine whether . or not permit woud issue.
 For several weeks the Commis- siou operated under thls scheme, In t, the event of a register Of opposi- ton by 40 per cent ol the property i within a radius of 500 f"ct. a puu- ! tie hearing was held, whtrcupon . opposition by 75 per cent of tho ncighborhood was required 10 pro vent issuance of d permit. If the 76 per cent was not placed on record permit iyeuod in every instance; if thrce-quarlcrs Of Inc property owners opposed, permits were is- sued in no instance.
 Then, on the last night Of the ordinances lifc, with zoning before the Common Council ready for adoption, an appeal 10 Inc Council { brought the question of building laws before that body. Judge Kirk ham was asked by Mayor raonrssa if, as had been claimed, the Com mission might have refused a per init in spite of ihs absence Of 75 per cent opposition, or If it Was not true the ordinance had removed all discretionary rights from Inc Com mission. Mayor Psonessa sat back in his char and smiled, anticipating a reply backing up his appointed