Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-06-06
deficiency Report Makes Def
mite Accusation of NAL
administration.
ALLEGES EXACTING OF FEE
WITHOUT LAW AUTHORITY
Say Businesses Operated Whether
Use of Building Agreed With
Regulation or Not.

A 7-rlonth-old report of the Bureau
of Efficiency, charging lax adminisGra-
ton OF the coming regulations, incom-
plete records containing insufficient in
formation and lack of definite policy
as to the Interpretation Of various am
blguous regulations, came to light in
the District Building today.
The report was made November 2
1928
The report makes definite charges
of maladministration of the zoning
regulations. particularly those relating
to certificates of occupancy, naming
names. dates and places. It charges
that fees have been exacted in certain
cases for certificates without authority
of law, that buildings have been erected
contrary to the plans approved by the
Building Inspectors ONCE. and that
buildings have been put to uses not
allowed by the coming of the property.
The report states that certificates of
occupancy, which are required by law
to be prominently displayed in all
places for which they are issued, except
dwellings and churches, are seldom so
displayed.
Hits Zoning Regulation.
The report deals principally with the
coming regulation allowing business al
ready set up and functioning by Au-
gust, 1920, to continue, whether the
use to which the building was being put
was in agreement with the coming or
not.
During the month of August, $780,"
the report states, the Police Depart
ment made survey of the District and
prepared a loose-leaf record of business
occupancies. In the case of vacant
buildings the las5 prior use was given.
In view of the frequent necessity for
further references to the Police Depart
ment, it is evident that this record was
not complete and. Judging by the pres
ent disorder in which it is kept, very
little use is being made of it.
In 1924 the Police Department, at
the request of the Engineer Commits
sioner, again made a canvass Of the
District and reported all businesses that
did not have certificates of OCCUPANCY
This rather bulky list Is filed, at pres
ent. in the Engineer Department files.
Apparently no use is made of 1t by the
inspector of buildings.
Impossible TO Check Claims.
"As a result of this lack of adequate
records in the building office, 1t has
been impossible for the Office to check,
with any degree of accuracy, claims by
applicants for conforming certi-
flcates, that the use was established
before the zoning regulations became
effective. Applications for original non
conforming certificates have been COM
ing in with diminishing frequency right
UP to the present t1rne-eight years
after the regulations became effective.
The following procedure is usually fol-
lowed in these cases:
81 The applicant is required to pre-
sent affldavits from three residents Of
the District of Columbia in support OF
his claim
% The Police Department is re-
quested to make survey and report to
the building Office, stating the present
and past uses.
These police surveys, usually being
incomplete, are of little value. Doubt
less it is very difficult for policeman
or any one else-to ascertain what the
use Of building was six or eight years
ago"
The inspector of buildings" the re-
port says in another place, has been
compelled to rely to large extent upon
the police for aid in the enforcement OF
the coming regulations. He expects the
police to see that the certificates Of oc-
cupany are posted conspicuously in busi-
ness establishments as required, and
that no new business establishment be
opened before the owner secures a GER
tificate We have been unable to locate
a single certificate so posted and we
have found a number of new businesses
that did not have certificates. indicat-
ing that the police have not been very
successful in this work"
Recites Abstract Case"
To illustrate the apparent lack of any
definite policy controlling issue of Ger
tificates of occupancy, three forms of
which are issued by the inspector of
buildings, the bureau presents what 1t
describes as an abstract case, based on
actual cases as shown by the records
of the building Office"
John Doe was conducting grocery
store on August 30, 1920, In location
which was restricted by the coming reg
ulation to residential use. InaSmucn
as his business was already Established
before the coming became eftectlVe, ne
was by law exempt from compliance
with the regulations and not required
to secure a certificate OF occupancy.
The inspector of buildings, however, re-
quired him to submit an application
and issued him non-conformlng cer-
tihcate free of charge.
Two years later John Doe sold MS
business to Richard Roe, who was also
exempt from compliance with the zon-
ing regulation. However, Roe was IN
formed that he should have a certificate
of occupancy displayed in his store, and
he applied for one. He was issued
certificate on form A as a transcript
copy of the one issued to Doe and
charged a fee of so cents.
Two wears later Roe closed out his
grocery store and sold the building to
James Smith, who opened lunchroom
there Smith applied for certificate
of occupancy and was issued one on
form A and charged fee of So.
Each of these three n4en was al
lowed to conduct a first commercial
business i'll a residential district on the
ground that the building was erected
CONTINUED on Page 2, Column So