Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-12-11
Continued From First PAGE

OF commissioners OrQerS and
the fact that Mr.. Hart seems
to be branching out into legal
interpretations that may be
highly devious"
Mr.. Lowe said he would ar
range a conference of affected
parties early this week Ito be
sure whatever is wrong gets
Strengthened out" He said he
would invite to the conference
Assistant Engineer Commissioner
Robert E. Mathe, the housing
co-ordinator; Mr.. Gwathmey,
Chief Murray, Fire Marshal
Roberts, Corporation Counsel
Vernon E. West and Mr.. Hart.
These are the main bones of
contention:
APPEALS-On November 81,
Mr.. Hart wrote Mr.. Gwathmey
a long memorandum complain
ing that he had gotten no bust
ness since the housing code went
into effect and Suggesting" that
all notices to householders list
ing deficiencies and all disap-
Iprovals Of licenses should be
stamped with a notice advising
recipients Of their right to
appeal.
Mr.. Gwathmey objected that
such a notice would be an invi-
tation to Stalling through filing
appeals. II everybody appealed,
he said, both the license Office
and the appeals board would bog
down. Hundreds of license mat
tiers. he said, have been straight
ened out annually by bringing
together the applicant and the
disappearing officials.
The same. he said, was ex-
Ipected to apply to housing. The
plan. he said, was to invite the
householder to a conference
where the defects could be ex-
Iplained and arrangements made
to give sufficient time to correct
defects. He visualized appeals
only where there was controversy
over Interpretation Of the hous-
ing code. For instance. he did
not believe a leaky roof finding
is appealable. Mr.. Hart believes
| it is.
Mr.. Lowe agreed with Mr..
Gwathmey. He said the housing
code was designed to be flexible
enough for variations from the
code to be granted without re-
course to the appeal board.
But last week. Mr.. Gwathmey
reluctantly conceded a point to
Mr.. Hart. He said he would make
the first disapproval notice an
advisory, giving applicants for q
license or householders five days
to come in and talk it over. Then,
If they didn't come in. he would
send out a formal notice of dis
approval. advising them of their
right to appeal within 30 days.
After making the agreement, he
commented that he still did not
believe all findings are appeal
able and does believe that the
notice OF appeal is an invitation
to use delaying tactics.
DELAYS-Appeals on license
matters have been delayed up to
q year. In October. Mr.. Hart adj
vised those awaiting appeals de-
cisionS that II they applied for
q new license. they could remain
in business while their appeal
continued to pend. Thus. some
appellants whose licenses were
disapproved o year ago are still
In business.
Robert z. Robson, chairman
OF the old appeals board and q
District employee on the new one,
said the board couldn't act until
Mr.. Hart reported. He said he
thought all the delays were oc-
lcasioned by the appellants. He
expressed surprise when told
that Mr.. Hart, when asked why
he had not processed an April
appeal, replied. II thought other
matters were more urgent"
In another case. Mr.. Hart held
a hearing in December, 1854, and
wrote his preliminary report in
February. 1855. 1t was never
brought before the board. Mr..
Harris explanation: Since we
knew the board was to be recon-
stituted with a heavy non-Dis-
trict employe representation. we
thought 1t should be decided by