.MjM4.MjM4

CITY OF ATLANTA REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS OFFICE FOR THE MONTH NO.. OF PERMITS OF June 1969 CLASSIFICATION COST _ _ _ _ _ _3_6_Frame Dwellings, 1 Family. _ _ __ _ _l_ NO . OF FAMILIES HOUSED 725,585 36 8,750 1 S - - - - - - -- Masonry Dwellings, 1 Family S-------- - - - - - - - F r a m e Dwellings , Duplex. S- - - - - - - -

Masonry Dwellings, Duplex S-------- _ _ _ _ _ _6_ $ __ 7 _,4_7_3_,_6_10_ _ Apartment Houses .

Churches & Religious Buildings. S-------- _ _ _ _ _ _l_ $ _ __25,000 _ __ __ Add-Alter-Repair Churches . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Amus ement & Recreation Buildings S-------- BUSfME&S BUILDINGS ______1_2_st~&-Gdle~M~~e-.nitnc~tdiags-. 2,072,802 -11-------- _ _ _ _ _ _l_ service Stations . $ _ _ _30,000 _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _l_l_Residential Garages & Carports 7,935 S-------- - - - - - - - P a r k i n g Garages. $ -----'----- 11 100,000 $ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - - - - - - - Garages . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hotel & Motel Buildings . $ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ School & Educational Buildings . $ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ Add-Alter-Repair Schools . $ _ _7_2_9_,7_1_3_ _ $ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - - - - - - - O f f i c e Buildings . J1~o'tJo\ $ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - - - - - - - O f f i c e & Warehouse . $ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - - - - - - - U t i l i t y Buil!fings . _ _ __ _ _ _ Jndustrial Buildings . S-------- _______6_swimming Pools . . . 29,300 S-------84,076 88 $ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - - - - - - - F i r e Escapes E levators & Signs 392,685 ______?_.7_3,_ Add-Alter-Repair, Residentia l . $-------1,421,004 $ __ _ __ _ __ ______ 8_7_Add-Alter-Repair, Business Bldgs . . 18,175 _ _ _ _ _ _ _9_Demolitions-Business Buildings . S-- - - - - - - _ _ __ _ _4_5_Demolitions-Residential Buildings . 16,850 $ ____ _ _ __ Total Permits ----'5'--8"-4 __ 748 Tota l Cos t -58 $13,169,485 785 Total No. of Families Housed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ W. R. WOFFORD F ORM N O . 4-2 In spector o f Buildings �, P E RMI T S Large Bldgs. June - 1969 1924 Piedmont Rd. NE Steak & Ale Company Erect Mas. Restaurant 100,000 2786 Old Hapeville Rd. SW Pendley Bros. Inc. Erect Frame Apt.-52 Units 400,000 \. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc· • . Erect N/C Truck Terminal 1,353,800 2971 Macon Dr. SE Merton Development Co. Erect Frame Apt.-206 Units (20 Bldgs.) 1,L~oo, ooo 380 Martin St. SE Ebenezer Charitable Foundation Erect F/R Apartment - 96 Units 1,168 ,000 380 Martin St. SE Ebenez er Cha ritable Foundation Erect Fr. / Mas. - N/C Apt. 96 Units (12 Bldg s.) 1,320,000 796 W. P'tree. St. NW Capital Auto Co. Repair Of fice - Show Room · and Re roof 175,000 1899 Stewart Ave. SW Central Park South Ere ct F/R Store Bldg . 300,000 3251 Haverty Furni tu re Al t er Mas. St ore Bldg. 250 ,000 2050 Bankhead Hwy. NW C & S Nat'l. Bank Erect Mas. Bank 153,952 165 Bailey St. SW Flowers Baking Co. Alter Mas. Bakery 120,000 505 Englewood Ave. SE Warner Dev. Co. Erect Frame Apt. - 294 Units (20 Bldgs . ) · 2300 J6n~~boro Rd. SE . P 'tree . Rd . NE 3,161,610 �\. June 2 , 1969 MEMORANDUM TO ~ FROM Mr. Jim Hendel'son, Special City Attorney Iva n Allen, Jr . A ttached i some inform tion I h ve received reg rding the City's Hou ing In pection Department . . P le e mak IAJr:a m .Enclo ur complete inve tigation of thi situation. �MEMO TO MAYOR ALLEN : I r ece ived a c a l l Th ursda y , ,Jay 2 9 , f r o m Ur s . J uani t a ( .' rs . J ames Banks ) of 123 Or mand t . e , tele ph one 524 5810. Sh e li ves in t h e Mo L 1 Citi es area and she t el ls me sh e i s d es j ro us of ge t t in ~ a l oan t r.a t wi ll e :a b le h er to enlar g e a nd i mp ro ve h er ho me , whi c h she owns . Sh e evi den tl y apn r oac l e d the t od e l Cities pe op le a bo ut g e t i n g a l oa n a n d was a l i t t l e unhappy t hat no one had rus h e d out to see her . Rut that w3 s :1 1 t h e b i g co mplain t. , he sa y s a bu i l ding i nsp ector by nam e of o. C . Lon g d id c ome t o ins p ect h er h ou s e and w' , ile t he i r quest ·; oned he r about h er wi stli g ness t o sel l t he hou'"e . 1-, e to l d h e r , s e s a id , hat "the y wanted ·t o us e my ho 1s e for a model hous e . ' , h e t o l d l o ng sh e d i dn ' t ut lat er o n , wa n t to s ell her house , j su t to rep air i t. er , all o r mo st o f t em s h e sa i d , other me n c a me by to see a ga i n askin g whether she ' d se 1 er . house . Sh e d"d n ' t r e mem ber t hei r full names . J ust Lst ed t h em as " ' c Gi 1, 11 "L i tt l efie l d" and"Hen l ey ." , he said she ' d gi ven no o ne an c ause e ve r to be li e v e sh e ha d any desi r e to s ell her ho me . he fouw the behavor of !'lOme of the s e :n en at ]e ast a little suspicious . Banks • I have since checked with Jonny Jo h nson . Banks I ho .. e i s n o t in a c J e r an e e a r . a but in a reh a bj J itation ar ea . Th e men ti on of the -arn e 'H enley " SU f~g ested to me the i olve ment of the Atl anta l!ousinp, Aut hor i ty and th e poss ibility the y we re at tempting to a cqui r e . rs . Banks ' ho me for c le~ran ce . That ou l d not seem to be the c ase , thou g h Johnny is c heckin r, fur ther . J rs . Panks t o ld ~ ~ a l i t t le more about her e ff rts to obtain a c h eap l oan . ~he ~a i d she f i nal ] wus c ontacted by the project manager of ,• c Danie l :~tr eet Homes .:ind t hat he finally told her she wouldn ' t qua lify for a loan be c ause h er l o t is too small . She said s h e has D 50 foot lot and i n her judgment she c an make the expansion she wants to mak e. ~h e sa i d she ' d been bothered s o mu ch by c it people co ming thee to b e g her to sell her house that as of then , Th ur sd ay, she wa s spendin g the day with her mother elsewhere in to wn to keep from bejng pestered to death .

?a lei gh Bryans

�HA· June 2, 1969 \. Mr. Jac k W . Crissey Fulton Plumbing Company 443 Stone 11 S t reet , S. W. Atl nta , Georgia 30313 Dear Mr~ Crissey : Attached i menwrandum from Mr. C . M . Smith A sistant Building Official , concerning your letter of several day go. l don•t eem to ble to under tand your proble1n,. and would uggest that you try to take it up ith Mr. Wofford. or ith th Building Committee;that is provided for this purpo e. If this cou.r i . not a ti factory. I ill gl d to meet with you nd Mr . Wofford nd try to get a better kno 1 dg o f hat you ar lking bout. Sine l"ely. I n n ·n. Jr. IAJr:am Encloaur cc: r. . R. fiord , �CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 WILLIAM R . WOFFORD, P.E ., R.A. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS May 29, 1969 CHARLES M. SMITH, E . E. \. ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS MEMORANDUM TO FROM RE • The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. c. M. Smith, Assistant Building Officia ~ Letter from Jack W. Crissey Fulton Plumbing Company In accordance with an ordinance adopted December 16, 1968, to amend the Heating and Ventilating Code it is necessary for Mr. Crissey to secure a permit for the installation of the gas piping at a fee of $3.75 as well as a permit for the clothes dryer at a fee of $4.50. The required inspections are set out in the ordinance. However, the number of individual inspections will depend on the way he schedules his installation. Our inspectors will be glad to cooperate in making as few as is necessary for a conforming installation. In this case we can see no reason for the reference to Mr. Mitchell since clothes dryers and the gas supply lines are handled entirely by the Heating and Ventilating Division. Only in the case of hot water heaters does an installation fall within the jurisdiction of the Heating and Ventilating or the Plumbing Divisions: domestic hot water heaters under 75,000 BTU a r e handled by the Plumbing Division,. those 75,000 BTU and over are handled by the Heating and Ventilating Division. 1/ c:?"u.K �CITY OF P.t..TLA1 J'I"½. CITY HALL June 3, 1969 ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR R. EARL LANDERS, Administrative Assistant MRS. ANN M. MOSES, Executive Secretary DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Dir~tor of Gov~rnmental liaison MEMORANDUM To: Mr. R. Earl Landers _.,., \: Dan Sweat '~ , . ) _ From: Subject: Review of Code Enforcement Policy in Model Cities Area Atta <..hed is a copy of a memorandum from Jim Wright to me spelling out the revised policy of the Atlanta Housing Authority and the City's H o using Code Division in the Model Cities area. This came about as a result of problems being called to our attention in the A d air Park Area whe're the city had completed a house by house rehabilitation program within the last few years. You might recall" at the time we were discussing the Model Cities Program with residents of that area, they were very much concerned with housing code activity which was going on at that time. We assured them we would not place them in double jeopardy when the Model Citi e s Program start e d. The re were indications that we were doing this by requiring the same property owners to bring th e ir property in line with the new code standards of the Atlanta Housing Authority und e r the M o_d e l Citi e s Program. This revis e d policy was adopt ed after a m ee ting in my office with officials of the H o using Authority, the Building Departme nt and M o d e l Cities . DS :fy cc : Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. M r. Johnny R o binson �C Ma y 2 9 , 1969 OFFICE OF MODEL CITIES PROGRAM 673 Capitol Avenue, S.W. Atlanta, Ga . 30315 404-524-8876 Ivan Alle n Jr., Mayor J. C. Johnson, Director \. . MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Dan Sweat Directo r of Governmental Liaison FROM: James L. Wright, Di rector o f ,P hysical Deve lo~~ e nt SUBJECT: Atlanta Ho using Authority a n d Housing Co de Division Activitie s in the Mo d e l Ne ighborhoo d Area Jr.~tw,n..,. Attached hereto, is a revised copy o f the policy regarding AHA and Atlanta Housing Code Division in t h e Model Ne igh borhood Area. The adde n dum to the origin al p olicy which wa s dev e loped in Feb r u a r y o f 1 969 , refers t o propert ~e s which h a v e , in r e c e n t y ears , b een brought up t o City Housin g Code standards . Th is p o licy i s o utlined i n paragr aph 2 under t h e h eading Reh ab i litation Policy - Mo de l Ne i ghbo rhoo d Area . The Atlanta Hou sing Autho r ity will obt a in a list of str uctures which h a v e met Code Enfo r c eme nt s t and a r d s o f t h e City of At l anta Bui ldi ng Department i n rec ent years . Owners who se pro perties currently meet these standards will hav e the o ption of e ithe r t ak ing advantage o f possible grants or loans u n d er the At l anta Hous ing Authority r ehabilit a tion p r o gram to meet proj e c t s t andards o r continui ng t o mai n t a in s tructures i n c ompliance with the City Hous i ng Code. As you know, it was formulated by Messrs. Lester Persells, Exe cutive Director of At l a nta Housing Authority; C. M. Smith, Architectural Engineer; James Smith, Chief Housing Code Inspe ctor; Ma lcolm Jones , Chairman of Ho using Resou rces Committee; and myse l f, representing the CDA. This agreement was reached during the meeting with y ou in your office o n May 26. The purpos e is to provide th~ most equitable arrangement t o bene fit property owners in the rehabi litation program. · cc: Mr. Mr . Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. William Wofford Lester Persells c. M. Smith Malcolm Jones James Smith Johnny Johnson �. , • . ' ,.- ... : t.J .- ,/·,. :_ . ',, . t r1 ~ ...... ·•. ,:?,. .} .-... . .~ .. ..•.1'")_,

.•.·.., ., .,;/ ' ,. . . _.,,..,S:r..,. · ,;:; May 29, 1969 ... ·:,:. ',?'So- OFFICE OF MODEL CITIES PROGRAM 673 Capitol Avenue, S.W. Atlanta, Ga . 30315 404-524-8876 Ivan Allen Jr., Mayor J. C. Johnson, Director \. Policy Regarding Atlanta Housing Authority and Atlanta Housing Code Division Activity in the Model Neighborhood Area Rehabilitation Policy - Model Neighborhood Area The Atlanta Housing Authority will obtain a list of structures which have met Code Enforcement standards of the City o f Atl a nta Building De p a rtment in r e c e nt ye a rs. Owners who se p rope rti e s currently meet these standards w~ll have the option o f either taking advant age of possible grants or loans under the Atlanta Housing Authority reh ab ilitation program to meet project standards or continuing to maintain structures in compliance with the City Housing Code. In rehabilitation areas other th a n thos e of current ye ar action areas; the City Building Department will participate on a complaint investigation basis only. New enforcement cases will be undertaken in ac cordanc e with De partment personnel capability and on a f ull code complianc e basis. Demolition Po l icy - Mode l Ne ighborhood Area The Atlanta Housing Authority is fully responsible for demolition activities in NDP current year clearance action ar eas. When emergency situations occur necessitating prompt action on particular structures in the cl ear a nc e a r eas , the City Building De partment will become involved f or e n f o rc ement effort s. In d emolition areas other than those o f current year a c t ion areas~ the Buildi ng Department will become involved only on a compliant b asis t o effect full c o de compliance with the exception that generally no inst a llation o f additiona l equipment will be required. A pos sibl e except ion wi ll aris e if i t is d e termi n e d tha t the fa i lure · to install addi t iona l equipme nt may res ult in j e opa rdy to the health, safety on g eneral welfare o f a structures inhab ita nts. �DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING , ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 June 3, 1969 ~:i?&11 bf the Regional Administrator IN ~ ~ L Y REFER TO: Mr . Edward S. White Nall , Miller, Cadenhead & Dennia Attorneys at La~i 2400 National Bank of Georgi Building At l ant a, Georgia ~0303 \_ Dear Mr . White: This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1969, respecting interpretation of a provision of the plumbing code of the City of Atlanta. You point out in your letter that Section 114, covering the provision in question , was revised some time ago and that , as presently orded , the section is verbatim from the Southern Standard Flumbing Code . According to your letter the question revolvtSs around the interpr tation of that section as applied in practice in that wiped lead tubs are still required on all floors above grade by the Plumbing Division of the City of Atlanta . Your 1 tter ft~rther advises th t this "interpr tation and pr ctice are a ttributed by the Plumbing Divi ·ton to a recomm ndation made by HUD . " Some two or thr y~ rs ago, o result of some rather lengthy discussion between the code staff of thi of ice and that of the City of At lant , th Atlanta plumbing cod was amended in everal respe~ts so a to bring it more nearly in line with n tionally reoogniz d model code . (A you know, the policy of mm is to ncourag loc lities to dopt mod 1 cod which are nation lly recognUI d or locally d v loped code th tare r a onably comparabl to the model code , provided such tandard do not ignificantly incre th cot of hou ing con truction or re triot th u of mat ri la and tbod uthoriz d by uch nation lly recogni ed code . ) How v r, n xarnin tton of our COIT pondenc fil with th City of Atlanta how nor f rence to any int rpr cation by HUD of S ction 114. Th interpr tation o S etion 114 hich r quir s the u of wip d lead tub ~n all floor bov grad is , th refore, that of the cod dep Ttm nt of th City of Atlant • W thank you for your int r t. Sine r ly ,~~ , ttLrfw.t. 11'k,1cc: Mayor Ivan Allen , Jr . V I Edwa.rf H. xt R tonal Ad ini trator �June 5, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO Jim Hender on FROM Ivan Allen, Jr. l have bad n annonymou call stating that the Supervi or of the We t Di tdct from the BUilding Department is in collu ion with other in pector in th buying of pc,e rty. Please check into thi • �CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL TEL. JA. 2-4463 EXT. 321 ATLANTA, GEORGIA June 10~ 1969 ~ The Honorable GeorBe Cot aki , 150 Ottley Drive, N. E. Acl nta. Georgi 30324 Dear Mr . Cote ki Wa ve de an inve ti ation of t he power f ilu hich recently occ\lrred t the Gr dy Ho pital Building and find th t. the e.l ctrical install tion including ll of the pparatus nd equipia nt was properly int lled nd that th r is no indic tion of th qui nt' being av rlo de<l. The power f ilure occurr at ni ht and the p k load for the building i during the iddle of the day when · ir conditioning uipm nt r ~ires or pover. Th inspection rcveala that th in ele.ctrieal dietribution pan l in tb building consi t of two power circuit br akors nd tvo hting circuit bre kers. Of tr s four br . k r on li hting breaker and ergency lighti~ fune ioned prop rly throughout the entir incident. It i th opinion of the alectr1cal insp etor, after inv etigation nd consultation with :Ir. DeV in, int nanc En in r~ th t tho circuit br k r could hav be n turn off. Th entir cl ctric l ayst is upplied from o transfo vault located und r round jut outeid th buildin. r ring the r ency the standby en r tor kick din and operated auccusfully for approx.im t ly 30 ainut •· Th inspectors and th intananc engin r believ th t the c ua of th gen rator•s ov ~hes.ti w • attributable to def ctiv solenoid va1v in the cool1u ay t This valve be ince h n r pl e-ed end the ayat check~ out nd 1e ow op ratin properly. Very truly yo ra, W:at w. . Bild Woffol'd Official �OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 WILLIAM R . WOFFORD , P.E ., R.A. June 13, 1969 IN S PECTO R OF BUILDINGS \. CHARLES M. SMITH, E.E. ASST . INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS MEMORANDUM ~~ff Allen, TO FROM The. Honor~b~: W.R. W o f ~ RE 1542 Pineview Terrace, S. W. Jr. . Following the complaints from Mr. and Mrs. Gober of 1542 Pineview Terrace, S. W. I had a special investigation made of the conditions at this location. Attahced is the report made by Mr. Otis F. Jordan following the inspection he made of the premises. • �C OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 WILLIAM R . WOFFORD, P.E., R.A. June 6, 1969 INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS CHARLES M . SMITH , E . E . ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDI N GS S T A T E ME N T \. • I, Otis F. Jordon, Housing Code Inspector of W-5 sector, City of Atlanta, did on 6-6-69 go to a dwelling located at 1542 Pineview Ter., S.W. I inspected this dwelling, except for the terrace apt. ,and 3 rooms of the front apt. The occupants were away, and talked with Mr. & Mrs. B. Gober, Mrs. Sheldon and the postman for this route. When I approached the house l met Mrs. Sheldon, I asked for Mr. Gober and she directed me to their apt. After knocking on the Gober's door and being asked to come in, I entered. Mr. & Mrs. Gob'er then immediately started a string of complaints after I introduced myself. The complaints included the Police Dept., the Parks Dept., the Postmaster General and the Post Office in general, the State Patrol, the Traffic Engineering Dept., and others including near neighbors. After listening to these people for about 25 minutes and completing my inspection, I came to the conclusion that I had just been listening to two people that should be under a mental health program. After leaving the Gobers, I went to the front of the house to talk with Mrs. Sheldon and inspect the front apt. Mrs. Sheldon let me into her bedroom which was clean and tidy, except for a small area of plaster that had been loosened by rain water. This room was satisfactory. She explained that she would rather not show me the rest of the apt. until Mrs. Mccutcheon, the owner, returned. Mrs. Sheldon informed me that Mr. Gover had been using abusive and threatening language laced with profanity at almost every chance. She had revealed this also to Mr. Joe Lame of the Parks Dept., and Mr. George Timbert of the Traffic Engineering Dept. While talking with Mrs. Sheldon the post~an of this route came by and offered additional information. It seems that Mr. Gober wanted his mail put in a box he had mounted on the head of the stairs to this apt. (This the Department forbids). So he went down to the post office and cursed out everyone he could find down there and getting no satisfaction wrote to the Postmaster General and the President. These statements increased my belief that here were two mental cases . This dwelling has been recently painted inside and out and a 100 amp . electric service installed, will refer to electrical division for check . The above is a true account of my findings at 1542 Pineview Terrace on 6- 6-69. �TO: F~OM: 0 ~ '- Ivan Allen, Jr. For your information lease refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary reply. D FORM 25-4 sta s of the 'attached. �May 29, 1969 \. Mrs. Marion J . Gober 1542 Pineview Terrace, S . W . Atlanta, Georgia 30 30.7 Dear Mrs. Gober: May I afllroowledge receipt of your letter of May Z8 tating that the building inspector did not get th opportunity to inspect the item you complained about. f· I am sending a building inspector to your apartment building and am r q'!e ting that he a k for you directly.. 1 m sure, be will be out to ee you shortly nd will be of 11 po ibl a sistance. Sincerely, Ivan Allen, Jr. IA-Jr:hbd �. '--

. . -.~ -" "»:!"'~t~.
---- j

~-t/~~@143.215.248.55 - d--t-lVL.~.J lJ_ - - - -· --·- -- - - - _C ( _ ~x Lf:/'~ _3 ---~ ~ ~t r _c> 3 <? ;-- . '- �l. �\. &7-/7 ?n/4.A;/ ('LJ,-... d, �I CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS ARCHITECTURAL DIVISION 901 CITY HALL ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 June 13 , 1969 WILLIAM R. WOFFORD, P . E ., R . A . INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS FREDERICK R . SHEPHERD ELMER H . MOON , E.E ., P.E . ASST . INSPECTOR OF BUILDI N GS ADDY W. CHAN \. Mr. R. Earl Landers Administrative Assistant Mayor's Office Atlanta, Georgia Dear Sir: Re: City Hall Annex I I I Enclosed please find two copies of letters from Jimco Construction Company concerning the completion date of the above captioned job. Any future information regarding same will be forwarded to your office. Yours truly, ~ ~&'~ Addy Assi an ant Architect AC:gs cc: Mr. Nestor Siciliano Mr. Nat Welch Mr. J. w. Cox Mr. J. Howard Monroe ATLANTA THE DOGWO O D CITY �JIMCO . CONSTRUCTION Co. C D N Jf~ R A C T D R S G E N E RA L / !/ '" "':~1:J.., .:'"· " '"" I . PHONE • I \

627j 1~ 59 It.· . f _:~j _ -----"' b-4- June 12, 1969 Mr. Addy Chan Room 901 City Hall 68 Mitchell st., s.wo Atlanta, Georgia Re: City Hall Annex# 3, Atlanta, Ga. Dear Sir, In re g ards to our completion date of June 20th we are asking for this date be extended to the 27th. The reason for this request is due to the problem of poor soil condition and rain that has hindered the comple tion of out side stair well To meet this date of the 27th as we stated over the phone we are asking for a preliminary inspection Frlday, June 13th and our final inspection Friday June ?0th. This will give us a week to finish the work where the b u ilding will be acceptable June 27th. 0 This will assure you of a good job, and we feel the City will b e bett e r satisfie d, and this will g ive . us a dequate time to cau~ht up the necessary . ite ms on punch list to make the job complete 0 We trust this is acceptable and agreeable. d~~ H. R. Helton J I MCO CONSTRUC TION CO., INC. HRH:mh �- ' - JIMCO · CONSTRPCTTON COMPANY P.o.nox 65?7 LAKEWOOD STA'rION ATLAN~A, GEORGTA 30315 6?7-1359 \. May 21, 1969 Mr. Addy Che.n 901 City Ha.11 68 Mitchell St Atlanta, Ga. Re: 0 City Hall Annex# 3, Atlante., Ga. Dee.r Sir, In re~ards to your letter of May l6th In talkin~ to Mr. Jord a n we h a ve come up with a d a te of June ?0 0 If we can improve on this we wi ll, but as you know due to the soil condi ti0ns and weather we have not made the pro~ress we sho u ld have on the stai.rwe ll. 0 We trust this is e.~ree a ble. 7Y~ ~ Ho ·Ro He lton JIMCO CONSTRUCTION CO., I NC. HRH:mh

V O/&

MR. J oRD8N / <; Th'E- -J ~/3 ~UFE~11tJ reN"(l e-NT , ' J_ MAY 2 2 -1969 �June 17, 1969 \. Mr • NiAa King ill r Corn 1i'1 King & Son ZOO Auburn Avenue. N . E . Atlanta, Georgia. 30303 De Ml'a. Mill r: Wit ·e.tere ce to your I tter of J'une 10 r ar th condition of t p%' rty locat d t 1 70 ... 1 76 Aub\li-n Av u , I have r celv d the folio ing r port from Mr. oUord: 14 ac:cor · c _ ith Court 01'der ln 1964 1 the upper fl~or of the buildln t the bove ddr a vac t d d boarded up th

ua d portio - of the firat lloor

r tWi bualneea a • tao b rd d up. Th occup n the ftrat .floor. pr •e t own ii l r. Emory C ck vie s-. or o 1, barb ·d a r • T oaltio C m r of thla coin y. lap e t

&. ~- M.Uton, Cod

matter b d Court, I tlon ta e • •t•ly 1 • taura t. • n.y, �C OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 \. WILLIAM R . WOFFORD , P . E . , R . A . INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS June 13, 1969 CHARLES M. SMITH, E.E. ASST . INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS MEMORANDUM TO FROM The Honorabl: Ivar;.,~}fen, Jr. W.R. W o f f o ~ RE 170 - 176 Auburn Avenue, N. E. • In accordance with a Court Order in 1964, the upper floor of the building at the above location was vacated and boarded up and the unused portion of the first floor was also boarded up. There are now two businesses occupying the first floor, a barber shop and a restaurant. The present owner is now listed as The Exposition Company, and Mr. Emory Cocke is treasurer of this company. In view of the time lapse since the last Court Order I am directing Mr. C. L. Milton, Codes Compliance Officer, to bring the matter back into Court to see if further determination can be made concerning this property. • �TELEPHONE: 6B8 • 774B "PIO N EERS IN IMPROV E D RENTAL PROPERTY" CORNELIUS KING & SON RENTING AGENTS 200 AUBURN AVE., N. E. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 J une 10 , 1969 The Hon orab le I van Al l en, J r. Mayor of At l an ta City Hall At lanta, Georgia Dear Mayor Allen: At a meeting of s ome of the owne r s of the pr operty on Auburn Avenue between Piedmont and Butler Street, I was asked to write to you and bring t o your ~ttention a conditi on that greatly concerns usa For sometime, now, we have been interested in beautifying our block and several of us have gone to considerable expense attempting to do so. In spite of this, however, our efforts seem to be in vain because of the dilapidated and unsightly building known as #170-172 & 174 Auburn Avenue which is on the northeast corner of Pi edmont. It is my understanding that before the title was transferred to the present owner in September 1964 the previous . owner of this property had received a list of violations from the City. These violations were to be corrected and brought up to the City Code or the building demolished. Due to illness and some pressing financial obligations that prevented the owner from complying with the Code, it was necessary to sell. And, now, approximately five years after the sale of the property, the building still stands and those same viola tions, along with some additional ones, still exist. It seems that the present owner is ignoring the violations he inherited with the transfer of the title or he is not c once rne d about improving the appearance of our Great Ci ty and particularly the Auburn Avenue area. Withou t having mentioned this situation to any of the other property owners, I attempted to bring it to the attention of City Hall and made several telephone calls but to no avail. Each person to whom I talked regarding this matter referred me to someone else in his department or to an entirely different department. I am enclosing a copy of this letter with the hope that you will see that it reaches the proper official as I am honestly at a loss as to whom to contact �The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor of Atlanta June 10, 1969 Page 2 I feel sure that you are interested in the facts stated herein and will let me hear from you after having made the necessary i~quiries. Please, Mr. · Mayor, look into this matter and see that some action is taken to improve the northeast corner of Auburn and Piedmont Avenues. Very truly yours, (Mrs.) Nina King Miller encl .. �TELEPHONE MESSAGE 1-4 To_ __ _ __ _~,~~ - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - Name-----------------------Telephone No. _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ 0 0 Wants you to call D Is h ere to s ee you Returned your call 0 Came by to see you D { '- = I 1~/ Date:- - - H (;Y-+- /J,/R-' 1~' ---=-d_l_ -'----'L_). ---_ _ a.m./p.m. By----------ef4---~---1-------------FORM 25•6 �Jun e 27, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO Jim Henderson FROM Ivan Allen, Jr . Ple

investigate the mattel'S outlined in Mr . Thoma

B. Gober' s lett r of June 26, regarding the building inspectors . �June 27, 1969 Mr . Thomas B . Gober 1542 Pin view Te:raace, S . W. , Atlant , Georgia 303ll Dear Mr. Golf r: May I ackno ledge receipt of your letter of June 26 bringing to my att ntion certain conditions in the Building Department. I m having these charge inv your telling me about them. tigat d , and appr ciate Sincerely, Iv IAJr: m All n, Jr. �CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS ~ 800 C ITY HALL TEL. JA. 2-4463 EXT. 321 ATLANTA, GEORGIA June 27, 1 9 • , IP O - 'f llh lalnt Apinat Ml'. Sid y Ko l �OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS MEMO From th e de s k of - - ~ W. R . Wofford, Inspector of Buildings July 1, 1969 TO : R. Earl Landers Administrative Assistant to the Mayor Attached is a letter which came to the Building Department from the 4th Floor Mail Room. Since the letter is in reference to the Code of Ethics, I am forwarding it to you. Attached is Housing Inspector Jordan ' s report of June 6 , 1969, made as a result of a complaint filed with the Mayor's office by the tenant. FORM 4•22 �( .., . ., • ...,,._ ... . ,, I •. -- I �����I l .. ) ,· .;# --- I . ' . -. . )' ~ �CITY OF AT LANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL TEL JA. 2-4463 EXT. 321 ATLANTA, GEORGIA June 6, 1969 S T A T E ME P T I , Otis F. Jordon, Rousing Code I nspector of W-5 sector. City of Atlanta, did on 6- 6-69 go to a dwelling located at 1542 Pineview Ter., S.W. I inspected this dwelling, except for the terrace apt. and 3 r ooms of the front apt. The occupants were away, and talked with Mr. & Mrs. B. Gober, Mrs. Sheldon and the postman f or this route. When I approached the house I met Mrs. Sheldon, I asked for Mr. Gober and he directed me to their apt. After knocking on the Gober' s door and being asked to come in, I entered . Mr. & Mrs. Gober then inimediately started a string of complaints after I introduced myself . The complaints included the Polic e Dept., the P~rke Dp t., the Pos tmaster General nd the Post Office in general , the State Fatrol, the Traffic Engineering Dept .> and other including near nei hbor. After listening to these people for about 25 . mi nutes and completing my in pec tion, I came to the conclu ion tha t I had just been listening to two people that should b under a mental health program. After laving the Gober , l went to t he fro nt of the house to talk with Mrs . Sheldon and in pect the f r ont pt. Mrs . Sheldon let me into herb droom which wa clean and tidy, except for a mall area of pl ster that had been loosened by r in w ter. This room w sat isfactory. Sh explained that she would r ather not sho me the r t of the apt. until Mr • Mccutcheon, the owner, returned. Mrs . Sheldon. informed e that Mr. Gov r had been u ing abu ive nd threatenin · 1 nguage laced ~1th profanity at lmo t every chance, She had rev led this also to Mr. Joe L _ e of the Park Dpt., nd Mr. Geor ge Timbert of the Traffic Engine ring Dept. While talking with Mr • Shel.don the postman of th.is route came by and offered additional information. Its that Mr. Gob r wanted bi 11 put in box h had mounted on the h d of the t ir to th1 apt. (This the D p rtment forbid). So he went down to the pot offic and cured out ev ryon h could find down there and etting no aatisfaction ot to the Poat st r Gen r land th Pre ident. Th se tat ents it)Cre ed my b lief that here ere two ntal ca This dw lling he b en rec ntly p inted ins1d nd out and a 100 service in•talled, will refer to electrical divieion for check. Th bove i true account of my findings at 1542 Pinevi w T rr c Oti F. Jord 1 ctric on 6-6-69. �-1 ,, �- .I �August 18 , 1969 Mr . Herman E . Glass 3133 E leanor Terrace, N . W. Atlanta, Georgia Dear Mr . Glass : After our meeting of several weeks ago regarding the .c onditions of the property at 1307 Thurgood Street, S . W . , I have received the attached information .from. the City Attorney. U I may be of further assistance, please advise . Sincerely, Ivan Alle~ Jr. Mayor IAJr:lrd Att chxnent ,. �CITY OF TLA TA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 WILLIAM R . WOFFORD, P.E. , R.A. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS August 15, 1969 CHARLES M. SMITH , E.E . ASST . INSPECTOR OF.BUILDINGS MEMORANDUM TO FROM The Honorab!~ :X~~fAllen, Jr. W. R. Woffo~ RE 1307 Thurgood Street, S. W. • In regard to the matter of a group of girls living on the premises at the above address I advise that there is considerable difference of opinion in the neighborhood concerning this matter. We have had a number of complaints from adjoining residents contending that the current use of the premises violates zoning provision while, on the other hand, the operator of the premises contends that he is not in violation. Attorney Ward's review of the matter clearly points out that the girls can live on the premises as a family in the event the girls are sharing the rent and expenses and are cooking and eating together, which would be permissible under zoning provisions. However, if the girls are paying rent separately to the landlord, it would appear that a boarding house is being operated in violation of zoning laws. Based upon inspections made and information obtained it appears that Mr. Glass is operating an illegal rooming or boarding house. Mr. Glass has been notified of the above matter and asked to correct the situation. Due to the differences of opinion between the neighbors and the rooming house owner, it seems best to bring the matter before the courts in order to determine if a violation of the zoning ordinance exists. We are in the process of getting facts together in order to bring this matter to the municipal courts. The Police Department, through its licensing of rooming houses , has recently brought this matter before the Municipal Court for failure to obtain a license. It is my understanding that the girls thereafter vacated the premises for a period of approx imately one month. �• CITY OF ATLA DEPARTMENT OF LAW 2614 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 FERRIN Y. MATHEWS ROBERT S. WIGGINS MARTIN McFARLAND EDWIN L. STERNE RALPH C . JENKINS JOHN E . DOUGHERTY CHARLES M . LOKEY THOMAS F. CHOYCE JAMES B. PILCHER ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ASSOCIATE CITY ATTORNEYS HENRY L. BOWDEN CIT Y ATTORNEY August 5, 1969 HORACE T. WARD DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ROBERT A. HARRIS HENRY M . MURFF CLAIMS ATTORNEYS Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. Mayor City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 JAMES B . HENDERSON SPECIAL ASSOCIATE CITY ATTORNEY Dear Mayor Allen: This letter is written in response to your memorandum dated July 22, 1969, directed to Mr. Henry Bowden and Mr. W. R. Wofford. In this memorandum you requested advice concerning restrictions that might prevent a house located at 1307 Thurgood Street, S. W. from being used as a dwelling place for a number of girls. Attached to your memorandum were copies of petitions signed by Mr. Herman E. Glass and certain concerned citizens. The petition suggested that the girls be allowed to live together as a family on this particular property . The question to be answered in this matter is whether the girls a r e living t ogether as a f amily or occu pying a boarding or r ooming hou se . The above mentioned property is locat ed in a n R- ~ ' zoning di s tr i ct in which boarding or r ooming hous es a r e no t permitt e d. Ano ther City Ordinance requires t hat a licen se b e obtain e d in orde r to ope rate a boarding hou s e. In order for the a rra ngement to satisfy our zoning ordinanc e s, it must be established that the girls are livi ng together a s a family . Article III, Section I (20) define s family as follows~ �Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. August 5, 1969 Page 2 One or more persons occupying a dwelling and living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from persons occupying a boarding house, lodging house, or hotel, as herein defined. The key language in the above definition is "living as a single housekeeping unit. ,r This requires a degree of central management. In the event it can be shown that the girls occupying the house are sharing the rent and expenses and are cooking and eating together, the arrangement would satisfy our definition of family in my opinion. If the individual girls are paying periodic rents to the landlord or his agent for space, it would appear that a boarding or rooming house exists under the zoning ordinance. I trust that the foregoing H1W/cj cc : Hon . Henry Bowden, City Attorney Hon. W. R. Wofford, Bu ilding Official that you requested. �July az. 1969 MORANDUM TO BW FROM offo:rd n. Jr.

U r are y r etric1i<>u from b in ,a d for thla pur lAJra m 08 ul �TO THE H)NORABLE MAYOR AND BOARD OF AI.DERMEN OF THE CITY OF ATLAl'\JTA: Ge ntlemen: I am writing t h is letter asking you r h e lp along with the supporters and concerned citizens for the right of young girls to live as a f a mil y toge t her . They live on the same bas i s and principles that ou r colle ge s and u ni versities operate their hou ses. Thes e c ollege girls live on the west side in various places in t he communit¥ in numbers together when they find there is an overcrowded si tuation on their ca~puses, and this has existed for a l ong number of years. Bec ause of the shortage of living space in the City of At l anta , we have the evidence in writing of genuine support for t h es e girls from our leading citizens. J,01 Therekras an unjustifiable complaint made concernin g o ur hous e onAhurgood Street, s.wo, where some of these girls live d . It has been called to my attention that the person who made t h e complaint suffers from a degree of jealousy, evilness and envya I do n ot like t o i nvolve others, and I will call no names unles s a s ked to do so. But exactly four doors from this h ouse in q ues t i on there is a home for girls owned by a fellow comp etitor . The girls l ive and get along fine in number so 'Be tween 8 or 9 doors from t his s ame house in question, there is another house for girls b e ing conducted in the same mannera If a p erson creates a commotion, I think it is pr o per to c al l the p o li ce - that's what they are for. At Harvard, when t h e s t uden ts c r eat ed a commotion, they did not close down the university; they trie d t o cor rec t the s ituation . When a bank gets robbed , it is no t c losed; they try to catch the robbers and continue t he ir business ope ration. There might have been some loud music or v o i ces over a l o ng period of time, but this could be and was c o rre cted. COMPLAINTS FROM THE GIRLS: 1. The se g i rls her husba nd who They have proof on occ asions i s have h a d sever al complaints about this lady and live next door and who instigated the chargeso t h a t t his lady d r inks heavily and that her language a t roc i ous . 2. Her husba n d ge t s nervous when she gets on her benders and he starts shooti ng a t bi r ds and r ats in their back yardo The o ther day a distinguished citizen that signed the manifest o in support of these girls was inspecting this house whi ch is next to the complainanto This complainant comes from her front yar d up t o my c a r with her liquor glass in her hand and her breath reeking wi th a l cohol asking me i:f I wanted to sell the house. I stated t hat it was not for sale. I was courteous, kind and polite o This d ist ingui shed citizen will confirm that while on his i n spec ti on t our, t his did take place. (He just shook his head.) We recogn i ze t hat t wo wr ongs do not make a r i gh t . This lady and her hus b and have been s ucc es sful in getting a person in a high position t o inst r u c t one of t he police of:ficers of the License Department to s end o ne of h is men ou t t o ma ke a c ase . .,. �-ro On one occas i on an officer came out and asked one of the girls~let him in~ The young lady stated that he would h ave t o get i n touch with my office. He then asked for a p a rticular young girl; again the young lady stated t hat that person was not ino He then asked this young lady her name. She did not want to become i nvolved , so she stated that her name was not important since he wanted s omeone else. The of:ficer then said: "You give me your name or you're going downtown with me., " This frighte ned the young gi rl and all of the other young girls in the houseo She gave him her name , and he then left two summons to court in the mailbox. Out of the two cases that this officer made, both have been dismissed. However the Judge stated that the charges were improperly drawn and that he wanted this officer to get with the City Attorney and see if there were any violations. Because of this officer's belli gerent attitude and tone of voice, these young girls were frigh~enedo On account of his arrogant statement, these girls were so frightened that they moved out at night with no place to go . They stayed in cars all night, and some had n o place to go up to three dayso We ask the Honorable Mayor and the Board of Aldermen to use their powerful of:fice to issue a directive or order to whomever is in charge to see that such tactics cease by this of:fi cer or any other office r, and that these girls be allowed to live without being harrassed by someone who might not like the color of their skin or texture of their hair. Allow these girls the right to live together as a family. These girls ask your supporto The Concerned ·Citizens ask your prompt support and help for these girls and others so situated. Help t hese girls and concerned citizens today and they will help you tomo rr owo I remain, =- �July _/_Q_ 1 1969 TO: The Honorable Mayor and the Board of Al dermen of the City of Atlanta: Re: Co ncerned Youn g Women Citizens tlanta of the ··c ity of We wish to call to your attention that there are mor~ than 40,000 young girl s ·n the City of Atlanta v1ho d o ot have a ece plac12 to stay,. WHO ARE THESE GIRLS ? ~hey are our girls ranging from 18 t o 2 6 years of age WHAT DO T HEY DO? They work in hospitals, go t o school , wo rk f or the ·"'elephone co, pany, do secretarial wor k, work in laundries, f"ac t o ries 9 banks 9 gr oce ry stores, restaurants and various department stor es; and they are c o,-:t~s and maids in pr ivate homesQ When a girl comes i nto t own or get s t o be 18 years o_d she want' to

feel. as though s e is a b le to take c are of herself o She wa ts

02ccnt place to stay o:f her own c hoosing in a c ommunit y like ;:iny o ther ~;:::::2·_., These girls do not have the money to rent an apartment and :furn:· sh it .,, If they are luc ky en ough t o get a j ob payin g $50000 i::o $75000 · w-·ck) b y the time s~i al s ecurity a nd tll'i thholdi ng taxes are taken out? they hardly have anyth ing left e These are our gi r l s ; they are the· mo thers a nd wi ve s 0 £ tomorrow., a re a part o f us and our community., HAVE THEY. BEEN PROV I DED FOR? N O !' CAN THE YoW .. C. Ao Al\11) CDNCERNED CI TI ZENS DO IT ALL? NO! .~-- .ey WE NEED YOUR HELP These girls get t oget her a nd re nt a h ome toget he r .., T hey cook together., • They sleep in separate beds a s a :farnil.y., They share t heir c ommo problems They en joy one an o ther 9 s company because they are y oun0 girls .. HOW IS THIS DONE? There are a f ew men a nd women in this t own who have bought some decent h ouses in decent nei ghbor hoods and hav e provided t hese facilities and advantages : i:rst P d ecent neighborhoods o No .house notes ·':or t hem to pay~ no light bills, no gas bills, no telephone bills, no water bills, no fu rnitur e to buy or pay for, n o stove or refrigerator to buy o:r pay £or ~ The houses are complete l y furni s hed, and all bills are pai ) bY" the owner o r agent when the house is rented g r There are ,pproxima.tely 10 t o 12 gir ls in a twelve :roo 1 ho 1se o They pool their resources to pay their rent Out o-f their $50o t o $ 60000 weekly check, they can save a little, eat a nd live dec e . tl yo t nao 0 �been proven over the years that these girls can live together cheaper than a ny other way. No men can stay where the girls live. We have inspected some of the places where these girls live. We at the Y. w. c. A. and Concerned Ci tizen s r ecommend the ones that we have inspected and seen. No one will try to take advantage of these girls because there are number o f them living together as a family. They do not wish to live in commercial or apartment sections. They want to live together as a family in a decent neighborhood. The purpose of this communication is to ask The Honorable Mayor and Board of Aldermen to stand up for these girls to live together wi th supervision in a family manner in a decent neighborhood. We do not think the houses where these girls stay should be tagged as rooming or boarding houses. These girls are concerned. They wish to be left alone, and they wish to be good ci tizen s. There is a true report that there is someone from 143.215.248.55 12:45, 29 December 2017 (EST)Rij going around checking with these girls in some houses and checking with neighbors about these girls who live toget h er as a family. We hope and pray that the Honorable Mayor and Soard of Aldermen will see fit to lend a helping hand to these innocent girls in order that they may be left alone and not harrassed by sane "crackpot". IF THESE GIRLS HAVE TO MOVE, WHERE WILL THEY OJ? We need your kind understanding and help. Rev, Pub\1sher o+ AHahta Da,ly WD~lcJ Atfy, - (·· I t' t l �/ / r / �August 22 , 1969 Mr . Edward H . Baxter , Regional Admini strato r Departme nt of Housi ng and Urban Deve lopme nt Room 645 , Peachtree- Seventh Building Atlanta, Ge o rgia 30 32 3 Dear Mr . Baxter : A question has arisen regarding the correct interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta ' s Official Plumbing Code . Prior to December 20 , 1966, Section 114 required the exclu ive use of wiped lead stubs for floor outlet water clo et and urinal • At about that time HUD made a study of the Plumbing Code nd in the inter t of modernization recommended t~t the City amend numerous provisions, including Section 114. I have been informed that the 1·evi ion of Section 114 recommended by HUD followed verb tirn the corre ponding provision of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code . A Jdnended, Section 114 read follows : S c. 114. Fixture connections between dr inage pipe and water clo et , Floor•outlet ervicc inks , ped tal urinals, and earthenware trap etand rd shall b made by m an of bra • hard-lead or· iron flange • c lked, oldered or ac;rewed to the dr in g pip • Th connection hall be bolted, with an pproved ga k t or waeh r or e tting compound b tw en th earthenw re and th conn ction. Th u e of comm rcial putty or pla ter i prohibited . inc S ction 114 provid • that 11 th flooi- fla11g sh 11 b a t on an approved firm ba e", one cont ntion ia that th cboic of "br , hard-lead or iron fl nges, calked, oldei- d, or er ed to th dr in . ge pipe" applie1 only to a sl b on gr- d , which constltut • " n pproved firm b ". Und r that theory ection 114 do not permit a choice of the three m teri 1 on floor abov a Uab on ., d becau su<,:h oth r floor do not n c s arily con titute 11 an. approv d firm bas ". Under t view of ction 114 it would b p rmi eibl on fl :re abov lab on gr d to wip d le d etub • to re•tdct uch joint �Mr . Ed . rd H . Baxt r Pag z .A u aet 2Z, 1969 Tb oppo in interpr ation ia that the p\l,.PQ of th mendrnent of Section 114 in Dec;: mber. 1966, w to rmit the choice of u·brau , hard• l d or i ron Oan · s , calk d, old r . d , or er wed to th dr • e pipe" nd that th expres langua e o1. t e Section is uch to p rmit u.cb choice. Under th t eon truc tion tb.e pbr "an pprov d firm ba e" pplies equally to 11 of the materi l and not ju t to tho oth r n le d . Th qu . stie>n h s, tli refore, been r i ed to wb th r ,. unde:r Sec tion 11-l. the engine. r or plwnbin con.trac tor i re tricted on iloora above l b on grad to wip d l ead tub or h choic on uc:b floo.- . f u siug "bra 8 . , d or iron flan ,. c lk d , older d or ere d to th dr ina e pip "' · Sine HUD a in trumental in b ring bout the n ctm nt of S ction 114 in its pr • nt form. th City owd lik to know wh t HUD r I rd the corr c:t r to that que tion.. In ddiUon to th cor.-ect interpr Uon ol S ction 114, it will b h lpful if HUD will o it• Ju.elm.eat a to at the cod O\l&ht to provid on tbi• point, ntirely rt from. th pr • nt la.n ua e of S ction 1.14, in ord r to encouag the constructio of lo - r nt, lo .co t houaing without 1 . erin r 10 bl rd• Your elp nth •• •af ty arid durability. tt6l'I will be very muc ppreciated. Sine r ly. D n E . S eai. Jr. Chief · drnt · eb:'ative Oflic r D ~:J• �Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator Department of Housing & Urban Development Room 645, Peachtree-Seventh Building Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dear Mr. Baxter: A question ha.s arisen regarding the correct interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta's Officia l Plumbing Code. Prior to December 20, 1966, Section 114 required the ex clusive use of wiped lead stubs for floor outlet wat er clos ets and urinals. At about that time HUD ma.de a s t udy of t h e Plumbing Code and in the int erest of moderni zation r ecommended that the City amend numerous provisions, i ncluding Secti on 114 . I have b een i n f ormed that t h e revision of Section 114 rec ommended by HUD f ollowed verbatim the corr espon ding provi s ion of the Southern Standard Plumb ing Code . As amend ed , Section 114 reads a s follows : "Sec . 114 . Fixtu re connec tions b etween drainage p ipes and wa ter clos ets, floor- outlet ser vice s i nks , pedestal ur i na ls, and earthenwar e trap standards shall be mad e by means of brass, hardlead or iron f l anges , cal ked , s olde red. or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approve d gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base. Th e use of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited." Since Section 114 provides that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base", one contention is that the choice of "brass, hard- lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, �I -2- or screwed to the drainage pipe" applies only to a slab on grade, which constitutes "an approved firm base". Under that theory Section 114 does not permit a choice of the three materials on floors above a slab on grade because such other floors do not necessarily constitute "an a pproved firm base". Under that view of Section 114 it would be permi s sible to restric t such joints on floors above s lab on g rade to wiped lead stubs. The opposing interpretation is that the purp ose of the amendment of Section 114 in December , 1966, wa s t o p ermit t h e choi c e of "bra ss, hard-lead or iron fla nges, ca lked , sol de red, or screwed t o the dra i nage pipe" and tha t the express language of t he Section i s su ch as to permit such choice. Under th'at c ons t ruction t h e phras e "an approved fi rm bas e " applie s equally to all of the mat e r i als and not jus t to t hose other than l ead . The qu estion has, therefore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114, t h e engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above s l ab on grade to wiped lead stubs or has a choice on such floors of using "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe". Since HUD was instrumental in bringing about the enactment of Section 114 in its present form, the City would like to know what HUD regards as the correct answer to that question. In addition to the correct interpretation of Section 114, it will be helpful if HUD will express its judg- �-3- ment as to what the code ought to provide on this point, entirely apart from the present language of Section 114, in order to encourage the construction of low-rent, low-cost housing without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. Your help on these matters will be very much appreciated. Sincerely yours, �NALL , MILLER, CADENHEAD & DENNIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAMUEL A. MILLER A. PAUL CA DENHE A D D O UGLAS DENNIS J AM ES W . DORSE Y ED WA RD S . W HITE DON A LD M . F A IN THEOD O RE G . FR ANK EL MI C H A EL D . A LE M B I K ROBERT E . CORRY , JR . GERALD A. F RIEDL A NDER DENNIS J. W EBB T H O M AS S . C A R L O CK B AX TER L . D AV IS P RIC E S . W ILLIA M S , .JR . J ON 0. F ULLERTON LOW ELL S . FINE RO N NIE L . QU IG LE Y 2400 NAT IONA L B ANK OF GEO R GIA BUILDI NG ATLANTA , GEORGIA 30303 C O U NSE L August 21, 1969 A. WALT ON MO R TY N H AM ILT ON DOUGLAS (404) 522-2200 Mr . Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Of fice of the Mayor City Hall At lanta, Georgia 30303 Re: Inter pr etation of Sec t ion 114 of Atlan ta Plumb i ng Code Dear Mr. Sweat : On August 15, 1969, when I dis cussed with you the problem of the interpretation of Sec ti on 114 of the Plumbing Code, I stated that the Section was enacted in December, 1966, on the recommendat i on of HUD and t ha t the curr ent interpretation by the office of the Chief Plumbing Inspector which, incidentally, began dur ing t he admini stration of the former Chi ef Plumbing I n spector , is attributed by Mr. Wylie Mitchell to HUD. See the mi nut es of mee t ing s of the Plumbing Advisory Boar d held on March 18 and April 15, 1969, a c opy of each of wh i ch i s en c l os e d . Under t ha t i nt erp r et a tion t he u se of wiped lead stubs is r equired on all fl oors excep t s lab on grade. There is a seri ous que st i on a s to whe the r HUD intended or expected that such an interpreta ti on would be given to Section 114 . At your sugge stion I have drafted and enclose herewith a letter that you can use to ask HUD for its position on this matter . Your help in getting this issue cleared up will be greatly appreciated . yours, ' ESW : erm Enclosures N A LL K , ZIE TZ wtx_ �August 22. 1969 Mr. Edward H. Baxter. Regional .Administrator Department of Housing and Urban Development Room 645. Peachtree-Seventh Building Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dear Mr. Baxter: A question has arisen re gar ding the correct interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta's Officia l Plumbing Code. Prior to December 20, 1966, Section 114 required the exclusive use of wiped lead stubs for floor outlet water clos e ts and urinals. At about that time HUD m a de a study of t he Plumbing Code and in the interest of modernization recommended that the City am end numerous p r o visions , including S e ctiur"i ll~. I ha ve been informed that the revision of Section 114 recommended by HUD follo wed verbatim th e corresponding provisi on of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As Mn.ended, Section 114 reads as follows: Sec. 114 . Fixture connections between drainage pipe s and water clo sets , F loor •- out l et service sinks, pedestal urinals, and ear taenware trap standards s h a ll be made by m eans of bras s, har d-lead or iron flanges , ca lked, soldered o r screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with a n approved gaske t o r washer or s etting compound between the earthenware and the conne ction. The use of comme1·cial putty or plaster i s prohibited. Since Section 114 provides that "the floor flange shall be se t on an approved firm base 11 , one contention is that the choice of "braes, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered. or screwed to the drainage pipe" applies only to a slab on grade, which constitutes "an approved firm base" . Under that theory Section 114 does not permit a choice of the three materials on iloors above a slab on grade because such othe1· floors do not necessarily constitute "an approved firm base". Under that view of Section 114 it would be permissible to restrict such joints on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs. �Mr. Edward H. Baxter l?agc 2 Aug ust 2Z, 1969 The opposing interpretation ·1s that the purpose uf the amendment of Section 114 in Decen-iber, 1966, was to permit the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges , c alked, solder ed, or screwed to the d rainage pipe" and that the expreGs l anguage o! the Se ction is such as to permit such choice. Under that construction the phrase "an approve d firm base" a pplies equally to a ll of the materials and not juat to tho se other th.an l ead. The question has, therefore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114, the engineer o r plumbing contractor i3 restricted on floors above s lab on grade to wiped lead stubs or has a c h oice on such floors of u sing "bra ss, h a rd-lead or iron flan ges , c alked , soldere d or screwed to the drainag e pipe". Since HUD was instrumental in bring a bout the enactment of Section 114 in its present !orm, the City would like to know what H UD regards as the corre ct answer to that question. In addition to the correct interpretati on of Sec tion 114, it will be helpful if HUD will e xp ess its judment as to ;vhat the code ought to pr ovide on tnia pQ.int, entirely apart from the present language of Se ction 114, in order to enconra.ge the cons truction of low-i·ent, low-cost hou iug wi thout lowering reasonable standards 0£ safety and durability. Your help on th~se matters will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Dan E . Sweat. Jre Chief Administr tive Officer DESJr :je �.August 22, 1969 M r. Edwar d H. Bax t er , Re g ional A dministra tor D epar tment of Hou s ing and Urban D e velopme nt R oom 64 5, P e achtre e - S eventh Building Atlanta , Georg ia 3032 3 Dea r M r. Baxter: A que s tion h a s aris e n r e ga rding th e correct inte rpretation of Section 114 of Atla nta ' a Officia l P l u m b ing Code. Prior to Dec e mber 20 , 19 66, Sectio n 114 requir e d the exclus ive u se of wi p ed l ead s tub s for fl o or o u tl e t wa t e r clo se t s and u r ina ls . A t ab out tha t time HUD mad e a study of the P l umb i n g C ode and i n t he int erest of m oderniz ation r e comme nde d th a t the City anu~nd n umer ous p r ovi tduu l:i , iuduJlng S ec tion. 114 . I ha ve b een informe d that th e revision of Section 114 r e comm e nde d by H UD f o ll ow ed v e rbatin 1 the correspond i ng provi s ion of the S outhe r n Sta ndard Plumbing C ode . As htne n ded , Se ction 114 1·ead s a s foll owa : Sec. 114 . Fixtur e conne cti on s between d ra i nage p ipe s and water closets , F loo r- o u tl et se rvice sinks , p e destal urina l s, and earthenware t rap standard s s h a ll be made by m ean s of brass , hard- l ead o r i ron flanges , c a l ked, s olde1· ed or screwed t o the dra i nage pipe . The c onnec t ion shall be bolted, w i th an appr o ved gaske t or washe r or set tin g compound between the e a rthenware a nd the conne ction. T he use of commercial putty or plaster is prohtbited. Since Section 114 provides that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base", one contention is that the choice of " b1•ass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" applies only to a slab on grade , which constitutes "an appr o ved firm base". Under that theory Section 114 does not permit a choice of the three materials on iloors abovEl a slab on grade because such other floors do not necessarily constitute "an approved firm base ". Under that view of Section 114 it would be permissible to restrict such joints on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs. �i Mr. Edward H. Baxter Page 2 .August 22, 1969 The opposing interpreQaa.tion is that the purpose o! the amendn1ent of Section 114 in December, 1966, was to permit the choice of "brass , hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, s oldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" and that the express language ot. the Section is such as to permit such choice. Under that construc-tion the phrase "an approved firm base applies equally to all of the materia ls and not just to those othe r than lead. The question bas, the1·efore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114 , the engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above s lab on grade to wiped l ead stub2 or has a choice on such floo rs of using "brass, hard- l ead or iron flanges, c alked·, soldered o r ac1·ewed to the drainage pipe". Since HUD was iustrwnontal in bring a bout the e n actment of Section 114 in its present form, the City w ould like to know what HUD regards as the cor rect answer to that question. In addition to the correct interpretation of Sec tion U4, it will be he lpful if HUD will expcees its judment as to what the code ought to provide on this point,· entirely apart from the present language of Section 114, in order to gnconrage the construction of low- 1·ent, low-cost housillg without lowering reasonable standards 0£ safety and dura bility. Your help on these matters \trill be very rnuch appreciated. Sincerely, Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Of!icer DESJr:Je �.August 22, 1969 Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional .Administrator Department of Housing and Urban Development Room 645, Peachtree-Seventh Building Atlanta, Georgia 30 323 Dear Mr. Baxter: A question has arisen :reg arding the correct interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta's Official Plumbing Code. Prior to December 20, 1966, Section 11 4 required the e xclu s ive use of wiped lead s tubs for floor o u tlet water clo se t s and urinals. At about that time HUD m ade a s tudy of the P l umbing Code a nd in the inte r es t of moderni z ation recornmenci e d tha t t he C ity arne nd n umer ous p r uvi ~i on:.1, incluJlng S e ction 114 . 1 ha v e been inform.ed that the revision of Section 114 recommended by HUD follo we d verba t im the co rres ponding provi s ion of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As Mn.end e d , S e ction 114 1·eads a s follows: Sec . 114 . Fixtu r e conne ction s between dr a inag e pipes a nd wa te r clo sets , F l oor• outlet service sink s , pedesta l ur i nal s , a nd ea rthenwa r e t rap standa rds s hall b e m a de by m e ans of brass , hard-lea d o r i r on fla n ges , call<:. ed ,- solde r ed or s c rewe d t o the drainage pip e . The c onne c tion shall b e b ol ted , with an approved ga s ke t or wa s he r o r se t ting compou nd between the e a r the n war e and t he conne ction. The use of commercial putty o r p l a s ter is prohibited . Since Section 114 provides that "the fl o or flange shall be set on an approved firm base", one contention is that the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered 0 or screwed to the drainage pipe" applies only to a slab on grade, which constitutes "an approved firm base" . Under that theory Section 114 does not permit a choice of the three materials on floors above a slab on grade because such other floors do not necessarily constitute "an approved firm base 11 • Under that view of Section 114 it would b'e permissible to restrict such joints on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs. �I Mr. Edwa1·d H. Baxter Page 2 August 22, 1969 The opposing interpretation is that the purpose of the amendment of Section 114 in Decein'lber, 1966, was t o permit the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the draiuage pipe" and that the express language of the Section is s uch as to permit such choice. Under that construction the phrase "an approved firm base" applies equally to all of the materials and not just to those other than lead. The question bas, thel'e!ore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114, the engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above s lab on grade to wi ped l ead stubs 01· has a choice on such floor s of u s ing "brass , hard-lea d or iron flanges , calked, soldered or scr e wed to the drainage pipe". Since HUD was instrumental in bring about the enactment of Section 114 in its present form. the City would like to know what HUD regards as the correct answer to that question. In addition to the correct interpretation of Section 114, it will be helpful if HUD will expeess its judment as to what the c ode ought to provide on th.is point, entirely apart from the present l anguage of Section 114 , in o rder to enc or.rage the construction of low-:1.·ent, low-cost housing without lowedng reasonable standards of safety and durability. Your help on these matters will b e very much appreciated. Sincere ly, Dan E . Sweat, Jr. Chief .Administrative Officer DESJr:Je �• .' NALL, MILLER. CADENHEAD & DENNIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAMUEL A . MILLER A . PAUL CADENHEAD DOUGLAS DENNIS J ·AMES W . DORSEY EDWARD $. WHITE HAMILTON DOUGLAS DONALD M . FAIN 2400 NATIONAL BANK OF GEORGIA BUILDING ATLANTA . GEORGIA A . WALTON NALL THEODORE G. FRANKEL M ORTYN K. ZIETZ MICHAEL D . ALEM!IJK September 4, 1969 R08ERT E. CORRY, JR . GERALD A , FRIEDLANDER DENNIS J . WEBB THOMAS S. CARLOCK BAXTER L , DAVIS COUNSEL 30303 (404) 522-2200 · PRICE S . WILLIAMS, JR. JON 0 . FULLERTON LOWELL S. FINE RONNIE L. QUIGLEY Mr. George Cotsakis 150 Ottley Drive, • E. Atlanta, Georgi 30324 Interpr t t1on ot Section 114 ot At1anta Plumbing Cod Re: Der Mr. Cots k1: On April 16 1 1969 I rote to you about a probl m involving Section 114 of the Atlan.t a Plumbing Code 1n hi:h s ver 1 client ot our are inter t d. The purpose of that 1 tter wa tor quest an opportunity to be he rd on th merit ot ny chang or revision of the exi ting ordin nc • You r pl1 d very pro ptly to my 1 tt r d er kind enough to ay th t I would be notified ot ny ting h ld by the Building Co · itt e to con id r any proposed ch ng sin th t ection of th Cod • Ast r as I know, ther has be n no ettort to chang existing ordinance, but th probl regarding it correct int rpr t t1on and enforc ent h not b olv d. B c ntly, I di cussed the tter 1th Mr. D n Sw t, Chi r A 1n1atr tive Ottic rot th City, in th hop th t this probl talle within hi jurisdiction and that he 1 in po 1t1on to s .1 t 1n re chin olution. I look torward to h r1n tr h in th n t twdy. th Thi 1• to repeat the r qu t tout in letter pril 16th r ardin notic and an opportunity to · e b r 1n th v nt ot a propo .1 to odity Sect i on 114. If it urn out that tbi probl cannot b olv 4 a n a 1n11tr tiv level, I will be r tetul tor an opportunity to diecusa the tter with you and obt 1n your guid nc · nd dvic • ot c: .• Mr. D • t �DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING , ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPL Y REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerntng the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec . 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets , Floor- outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass , hardlead . or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe . The connection shall be bolted , with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on approv~d firm base . The us e of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited . Your let t er out lines two opposing interpr e t ations of this Section, both of which a r e cent e r ed around the pr ovision t hat "the floor flange shall be set on an appr oved fi rm base . " The first int~rpr etat;:. ion is that the choice of materia l s i s r es tric t ed to a slab on gr ade , which , acco r ding t o t hi s interpr e t at ion , i s the on ly slab t hat cons t i tut es "an appr oved f i rm base" i ns ofar as t he us e of br ass or iron flanges is concerned . The second interpretation i s th~t t he intent of t he Sectio~ i s t o permi t the choice of ma teria l s (" br ass , har d- l ead or iron f langes , c a l ked , solder ed , or s crewed to the dr a inage pi pe" ) on slab floo r s above grade . As interpret ed by Reg ional Office codes specia lis t s , the purpos e of the Section i s to permit t he choice of a ll a llowab le mat eria l s on a ll floors constructed in accordance with buil d ing c ode s t andards. They point out that any floor of a building cons tructed in accordance with building code standards should cons titute "an approved firm bas e" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. �-2 In our judgment, the intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception. The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base." The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications. Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest posstble cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in ·arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, ~ A . Frederick Smith Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office tJ cc : Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. �I • DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code , which reads as follows: Sec. 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks , pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hardlead _or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or s etting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on approved firm base. The use of commercial putty or pl as ter is prohibited. -l Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered -around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base." The first interpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a slab on grade, wh ich, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approved firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flang es is concerned . The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, c alked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe") on slab floors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute "an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. --, - . �.·• ,,. J -2 In our judgment, tne intent, purpose, and correct interpreta tion of this Section of Atlanta 1 s Plumbing Code can be clarifie d by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved fi r m bas e . 11 A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." ..--;:- .. ,_.-: -"' 4 The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception . The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "struct ura lly firm base" instead of "an approved firm base. 11 The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standa rd and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code mee ts present Depa rtmenta l st andards a s to content and intent if the section is interpret ed to pe rmit the cho ice of allowable materials on all flo ors constructed to building code specifications. Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowe ring reasonable standards of safety and durability • . .. •·.. We trust tha t our comments on thi s ma t t er will be of s ome benefit in arriving a t an inte r pr e tation that will be s a tisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincere l y yours, . . ;{~ft,_~ ~ ~ ~ tJ ·1 cc: -i Mayor Iva n All en, Jr. ·1 0 . Frede rick Smith Assistant Regional Administra tor Program Coordination & Services Office �l . l DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING A N D URBAN D .E VELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA , GEORG IA 30323 REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPLY R E FER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 •, : Dear Mr. Sweat: .l ..... This will acknowledge ' your letter da t ed August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec. 114. Fixture connections be t ween drainage pipes and water clos ets, Floor- outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards sha ll be made by means of brass, hardlead _or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the conne ction. The floor flange shall be set on approved firm ba s e . The use of comme rcia l putty or plaster is prohibited. ' ·1 I . I •. ...,. •..j .l lI Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are cente r ed around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an a pproved firm base." The first interpretat i on is that the choice of materials is restricted to a · slab on gr ade, which, according to t his interpretation, is the only slab that const itutes " an a pproved firm base" insofar as the us e of brass o r iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that t he intent of the Section is to permit the . choice of materials ("bras s, hard- l ead or iron flanges, c a l ked, soldered, or screwed to the d rainage pipe") on slab fl oors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable mat erials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards s hould constitute "an approved £inn bas e" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. - ....__,....... --- ·.,~ 0 • ,· �.' .-..:;,• -2 In our judgment, tne intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta 1 s Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term 11 an approved firm base. 11 A suggested de finition is 11 any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." ..-,·. ,, The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception. The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structura lly firm base 11 instead of 11 an approved firm base. 11 The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain s tandards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model st andard codes such as the Southern St andard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code me e ts pres ent Depart me ntal st anda rds as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors construct ed to building code specifications. Such an int e rpretation would also make this Section consist ent with a policy of pe rmitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonabl e standards of safety and durability • 0 . ~ .· . We trust tha t our comments on this matt e r will be of some benefit in arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, . ;rW ~ -~~{Z,__ ~ A . Frederick Smith Assist ant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office tJ ·,1 -·. ,4j cc: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr • .·.., -I· ..: ..

..

•' . .,. . ,· ··-~:1· �I- DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat : ' ~- ..... .l • 1 • I This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec. 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hardlead _or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on approv~d firm base. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited • I I •I Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base." The first int~rpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a · slab on grade, which, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approved firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe") on slab floors above g-rade. -1 · l As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute "an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable mater ials should appl y to any f l oor so constructed. .... :_:.. ... - . --~ -.-: �r ,·. , ., -2 In our judgment, tne intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plwnbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception. The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base. 11 The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental st andards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications. Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability . ·, We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in arriving at an inter pre tation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours,

(/,u/$. 143.215.248.55

~ A . Frederick Smith /) Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office -·11I • Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. cc: .. / , ..,· ..

--;_:.·

. �DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 .' Dear Mr. Sweat: .. . _.,,. ··- ·"'; Th:i.s will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mro Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Seco 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and . earthenware tra~ standards shall be made by means of brass, hardlead _or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on approved firm base. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited.

• -.>~/.•

' ~ j 'I Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base." The first interpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a · slab on grade, which, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approv ed firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe") on slab floors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choic e of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute "an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. ~- ~-·. �~-'· I ,r· ,.,. I '-' . !\ .r -2 In our judgment, the intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." __ ) ..,, .·-; . The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P~503o0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exceptiono The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base." The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard cod·e s such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications • Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the _construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours,

{{u/ 1c{ . ~Jk____

L£V""A. Frederick Smith Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office tJ · Assistant .. cc: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr • -} ... . :.:

...

.-. ~ 0 �NALL, MILLER, CADENHEAD & DENNIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAMUEL A. MILLER A. P AU L CADENHEAD DOUGLAS ' D ENNIS JAMES W . DO RSEY EDWARDS. WH IT E DON A LD M. FAIN THEODORE G. FR ANKE L MIC HAEL D . ALEMBIK ROBERT E . CORRY . JR. GERALD A. FRIEDLANDER DENNIS J . WEBB THOMAS S. C AR L OCK BAXTER L . DAVIS PRICES. WILLIAMS. JR. JON 0. FULLERTON LOWELL S. FINE RONNIE L . QUIGLEY 2400 NAT I ONAL BANK OF GEORGIA BU IL D I NG ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 September 11, 1969 COUNS E L A . WA LTON MORTYN NALL K. ZIETZ HAMILTON DOUGLAS (404) 522 - 2200 Mr . Dan E. Swea t , Jr. Chief Administra tive Officer Cit y of At l a nta City Ha ll Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dea r Mr . Sweat: Th ank you very mu ch f or y our letter of Septemb er 9 and the enclosed c orrespondenc e between y ou and HUD regarding Section 114 of the City of Atlanta Plumbing Code . I n ote that on Page Two of HUD' s r ep l y to you r l etter the fol lowing appears : "Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta. Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constru cted to Building Code specifications . Such interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability." In view of its very clear expression on this matter, it does not seem unreasonable to hope that HUD's interpretation will in the future be followed in the enforcement of Section 114 by the Atlanta Building Department. ESW/lw �------------------=='CITY OF ATLANTA DEPARTMENT OF L A W 2614 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Septemb r 18, 1969 R. afford Building Official Offic of Ins ctor of Building ~ 800 City H 11 Atlanta; Georgi 30303 Mr • • D r Bill : ilitary a rvic •• ting th t I pr r for ctual pl o nt by t n ion er dit . On Augu t 27, you a bri £ r City, th t 1 ncloa thr rd fr our• ry truly, F rrin Y. nc1 . • Cl yor r. th w A ai t nt City Atrn,l'"ftoy /ljl , Jr . ta kis the �GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND Summary of Provisions with r espect t o Credit for Prior Se r v i ce Sec. 11.1.29 Credit i s allowe d fo r the years of actual service rendered by an o ffi cer or employee of a municipality or a teacher or employee of a county or independent school system when such has been merged with the Ci ty of Atlanta. Such person must pay into the f und the percentage of his monthly salary as h e woul d have paid had he been employed by the City o f At l anta during the period of time for whi ch c r edi t is claimed. The sum must be paid within 24 months. Sec. 11 . 1 . 30 An o f ficer or employee when transferred from one de par tment to another is entitled to become a member of the pension fund of the department to which he is transferred and to receive credit for his year s of service. He must pay into the pension fun d of the departmen t to which he is transferred the amount of premiums he would have paid into said fund if he had been a member of the department for the number of years he claims credit for servi ce. He can have transferred from the pension fun d which he leaves the amount he had paid into such fund·. Se c . 11.1.31 Upon the transfer of an employee or officer from e i ther Fulton or DeKalb Counties to the City of At lan t a, there shall be paid into the pension fund of the City an amount equal to that which was paid i n t o the county fu~d by such officer or empl oyee as well as the matching fund required to be paid i n to the fund by the county authorities. The emp l oyee or officer received credit for his prior service wi t h the county. Sec. 11 . 1. 35 Th is section deals with the transfer of employees under t he Plan of Improvement and provides that such employee shall receive credit for prior service upon paying into the pension fund the amount of contribution he would have made had he been a member of the fund during the years for which credit is sought. This amount bears interest at 3% per annum and must be paid in 50 equal instalments . Sec. 11.1. 36 This section provides the same benefits on the t ransfer of an employee from the City to the Count y. Sec. 11.1.36 .1 This cover s the transfer of a golf profess i onal fr om the City to the County and provides for credit for prior service upon payment of the amount the employee would have paid plus matching funds. �Sec. 11.1. 37 This section i~ lengthy and involved. It deals with County employees, County school district teachers and employees, and employees of the City of Atlanta. It further deals with these employees who have not been transferred and who were not allowed, at the time of the transfer, credit for all of their service with the government from which they were transferred. It provides for the transfer of matching funds and for the payment of the employees contribution. It covers the situation where an employee was not a member of the pension fund of the government from which he was transferred. Sec. 11.1.40 If an officer· or employee was on the payroll of the City and in good standing at the time he is inducted into the armed forces, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and when there is at the time of such induction an actual conflict or such induction is mandatory, and if the employee has not voluntarily extended his term of service beyond the termination of the conflict or beyond the time when he could retire from such service, then the employee, provided he did not receive a dishonorable discharge, is entitled, upon his return t o the service of the City, for the time spent in the armed forces. The employee must make the same contributions to the pension fund for the time served in the armed f orces as he would have made if he had been in the active service of the City. The contributions must be made in equal monthly instalments within a period of time equal to the time served in the .armed forces. Sec. 11 . 1 .41 The foregoing sec tion is derived from a general act of local application. Sec. 11.1.41 amends specifically the pension acts. It also covers credit f or military service when the employee, prior t o such service, was an employee of the City. The employee's contributions nrust not be in arr earage f or more than 90 days and the employee further has the privilege of paying all ·of the back payments when or before he returns to his employment with the City. Sec. 11.1.42 This section extends the coverage of allowance of prior credit f or military service to specifically cover the Korean conflict and is an amendment to Sec. 11.1 .40. The employee must have been employed by the City prior to his militar y service. However, this section relieves him from making any contributions to the pension fund for the period of time during which he was in the military service. �Sec. 11.1.43 Credit is allowed to a person who was previously employed by the State of Georgia or a political subdivision thereof within Fulton or DeKalb Counties. The person must have at least 5 years continuous service with the City before becoming eligible for the credit. The person must pay into the pension fund an amount equal to that which he would have paid into the fund had he been an employee of the City during such time and the payments must be made over 36 month,. The amount of credit for prior service is limited to 10 years. Sec. 11.1.45 This section grants credit to a person who, prior to his employment with the City, was employed by the United States Government to perform duties within Fulton or DeKalb Counties. He is entitled to credit under the conditions of Sec. 11.1.43. Additionally, this section also allows credit for service to persons who were given a special military leave to do wartime duty in the American Red Cross. Sec. 11.1.46 This section deals with credit for prior service for teachers in a public school system or in a public or private college or university by which they were employed prior to employment with the City. The maximum credit allowed is 10 years. The employee must have been employed by the City for a period of 5 years before being eligible for credit. The teacher must pay into the pension fund an amount equal to that which the teacher would have been required to pay had the teacher been an employee of the City. the back payments bear interest at 6% per annum. In addition, the teacher must pay a sum equalirthe amount of matching funds which the City would have paid into the fund had the teacher be.en employed by the City during the time for which prior credit is sought. Sec. 11.1.46.1 This section extends credit for prior teaching, granted to teachers in the section above, to all officers and employees employed by the City, who may have been teachers in the past. Sec. 11 . 1.48 This section allows credit to employees who, prior to their employment with the City, were members of the General Assembly of the State of Georgia. Credit is allowed for a full year for each year's membership in the General Assembly. �Sec. 11.1.49 Employees of the Board of Education connected with the operation of its cafeteria, who were previously employed in the private operation of such cafeteria are allowed credit for the prior service with the private operation of the cafeteria upon paying into the pension fund the amount such employee would have paid during the time of his employment with the private operation of the cafeteria. This payment must be made over 36 months. FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND Sec. 11.2 .19 These -provisions are substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.43 of the'Gen~ral Employees Pension Fundo Sec. 11.2.22 This section is substantially the same as that of 11.1.30 of the General Employees Pension Fund. Sec. 11.2.23 This section deals with the transfer of any member of a fire department from Fulton or DeKalb County to the City of Atlanta. The transferred employee is entitled to full credit for the years of service while in the fire department of the county. It is required that there be paid into the pension fund of the City an amount equal to that amount paid into the county pension fund by the county employee and an equal amount to represent the fund required to be paid into the county pension fund by the particular county. Sec. 11.2.24 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.2.25, set forth below. Sec. 11.2.25 ~ This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11 .1.40 of the General Employees Pension Fund with respect to credit for time in military service. Sec. 11.2.26 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1. 42 of the General Employees Pension Fund which extends credit for military service to include the Korean conflict and subsequent thereto. Sec. 11. 2. 27 This section provides that members o f the firedepartment who are on appr9ved military leave ·'-: �--·-c- - - .; from active service and employment, may receive credit toward retirement by making the same contributions to the pension fund that they would have made had they been in active employment service. The contribution is to be paid within 36 months after reassignment to active duty with the City. This section provides that no credit will be allowed to any member who voluntarily re-enlists in the military service· after the end of his first leave for military service unless such person is granted an additional military leave. POLICEMEN'S PENSION FUND Sec. 11.3.17 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.43 of the General Employees Pension Fund. Sec. 11. 3. 23 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.30 of the General Employees Pension Fund. Sec. 11.3.24 This section deals with the transfer of a member of the police department of Fulton or DeKalb Counties to the City of Atlanta, and is substantially the same as Sec. 11.2.23 of the Firemen's · Pension Fund. Se C • 11-. 3 . 25 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.40 of the General Employees Pension Fund. Sec. 11.3.26 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.42 of the General Employees Pension Fund. Se~. 11.3. 27 This section is substantially tlhe same as Sec. 11.2.27 of the Firemen's Pension Fund. ��ROUTE SLIP TO: FROM: George Berry D For your information D Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary reply. - LJ Advise me the status of the attached. FORM 2 5 - 19 �CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 September 25 , 1969 WILLIAM R . WOFFORD, P.E ., R . A. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS CHARLES M. SMITH , E.E . A S ST. INS PECTOR OF BU ILDI NGS • MEMORANDUM To : Mr. Dan E. Sweat , Jr., . Director of Governmental Liaison From: Mr , W. R. Wofford , Building Offi ~ Subject: Demolition Grant No. Ga . M-1 Attached herewith is information re lative to our Demolition Grant Program. As soon as a financial statement is prepared by the Office of Director of Finance where these records are kept, I will forward it to you. In order that you may have a complete picture of the Demolition Grant Program, I have included more detailed information than requested. It can be seen from the report, after owners were notified and hearings held, many owners elected to demolish their own houses, thus relieving the City of this task. Owners of the 282 houses progrannned to be demolished in the Demolition Grant Area were notified of the City's intention to demolish each house involved should they fail to do so. I would like to point out that under "In Rem" authority, the City has demolished houses outside of the Demolition Grant Area and placed liens on the property for the demolition costs involved. We, therefore, are able to fully recover the cost of demolition whether or not the house is in a Demolition Grant Area. WRW:gs �On August 23, 1966, application was made to HUD for a Demolition Grant. On November 11, 1966 the contract was executed, and our program dates from that time. At that time the Demolition Grant Area comprised approx imately the Eastern 2/3 of what is now our Model Cities Area, and it was planned to demolish 157 structur es during the Grant Program. Ex perience showed that while the number of demolitions were proceeding about as planned, voluntary compliance by owners was reducing the number demolished under contract drastically, and that the funds allocated were not being used at the rate anticipated. Theref ore, in March 1968 an amendment was proposed and accepted on May

1, 1968 increasing the Grant Area to about l/7th of the City in the southe a st section. The number of structures to be demolished was increased to

282 . Since that time our rate of pr ogress has been accelerated, but the ratio of owner demolitions t o Gr ant f und demolitions has remained essentially the s ame. For ex ample the total demolit ions in the a rea dur ing the Gr ant period is 224. Of thes e, the owner s have volunta rily demolished 163, while the City has only h ad to demolish 61 . We feel that this r atio is a desirable thing from t h e st andpoint of public r ela tions, since it minimizes dispute, legal complica t ions, and advers e publicity . I t sh ou l d be poi n ted ou t t hat in planning this Pr ogram no adequat e pr ovi sion or a llowanc e f or owner demolit ions wa s include d . For th i s r e a son the f unds actua l ly spent a re l e s s than tha t pr ovided under the Gr ant . The followi n g is a compl ete breakd own of our pr ogres s as of Se pt ember 22 , 1969. 1. To be demol i sh ed Tot al 157 2. 282 3. Re sidential 141 To be demoli sh ed Total Init i a l e s t i mate 224 Number of Uni t s 203 Revis ed Estimate Residentia l 256 Residential 206 Mi xed 11 5 Ac t ually demoli shed Tot al Non- Residentia l Non- Re s i dential 12 Mixed Numbe r of Unit s 14 363 Mixed Number of Un its 7 312 Cumul ative Total Non- Re sidential 11 �Total 163 Residential Total 61 Non-Residential 148 8 Number of Units Mixed 219 7 At Project Expense Demolished 5. Residential Non-Residential 3 58 Mixed Number of Un!i:ts 0 93 Mixed Number of Units Remaining of Contract 60 Total 58 Residential Non-Residential 1 50 51 7 Now in process in Grant Ar ea 7. Total Residential 36 32 Non-Residential Number of Units 48 4 Balance - 8. Total 9o Owner's Expense Demolished 4. 22 Residentia l Non-Re sidential -18 -4 Number of Units -3 Structur es Repaired (e stimated)'l'( Total 75 Residential 72 Non-Residentia l 3 Statement: Total estimated Demolitions under Grant, 282 - Total demolished to date 224 Active cases 36 Repaired (estimate) 75 335 Total 282 53

We feel these should be counted as they were included in the planning count, but repaired by owner. �CITY OF A.TLANTA. CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Chief Administrative Officer MRS. LINDA E . PRICE, Ex ecut ive Secretary October 3, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor All e n FROM : D an E. S wea t pz___ D o you w ant m e t o push this? DESJ r : sm �CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 WILLIAM R . WOFFORD, P .E . , R.A. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS October 1, 1969 CHARLES M. SMITH, E.E. ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS Memorandum To From Dan E. s~;:143.215.248.55 ,J W.R. W o ~ In order to implement the new Housing Code Compliance Program, effective October 1, 1969, we will need the additional personnel requested in the 1970 Budget, as follows: 2 Typist Clerks 2 Housing Code Inspectors I 2 Housing Code Inspectors III (Supervisors) 1 Office Manager. To assure that the Housing Code Compliance program is as effective as possible, I wish you would advise the Personnel Department of the pressing needs for the above additional staff. As you know , our program will step up compliances from the present 12 , 000 per year to 18, 000, an increase of 50% over last year's activities. • �Octob ~ 3, 1969 MEMORANDUM Toi Pete C owell From: George Berry Ple · se look ov r th · ttach · d in vi w of writing up something in article form on the gener subject of a federal program stimulating action. This demolition grant progr m ijUppos dly gav th City money to demoU h un ound tru.c:turee . In actual fact, mo t of th houses were demolished by the own r when lt became pp rent that th City was going to move in. Yo u might r s rch th origin l 1 w · nd th original progr m. guidelines • • . interview ome of th , p opl in the building d . pa:,tment that h ndled the program • . • tc. ·rhis is a good examp1 - of a progr m that fitd not sp nd 11 of its llot d fWlde or ccornpli h it obj ctive wh l'l look d at from purely " balance sh t " point of vi w but in ctual f ct mor th n got th job done b c · u e it c us p opl to ct on th lr o~. T hink bout this OB:j & nd w U talk bout it. 1 �CITY OF TLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 WILLIAM R . WOFFORD, P . E ., R . A . October 8, 1969 INSPECTOR OF BUILDI N GS CHARLES M. SMITH, E.E . ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS MEMORANDUM TO FROM Dan E. Sweat, W.R. Wofford RE 703 Myrtle Street, N. E. After receiving your memorandum concerning the complaint by Mr. Gordon Johnson that basement apartments were being installed at the above address without a permit, I have made an investigation and find that the owner, Mr s. Charlotte Patterson , secured a building permit on September 30, 1969, to ~ter the basement by installing a den. There is no evidence of installation of an additional unit in the basement of this structure. Required inspections will be made as work progresses to verify compliance with Building and Zoning regulations. • �CITY OF ATLANTA /~ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILD~S 800 CITY HALL TEL. JA. 2 -4463 EXT. 321 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 December 9, 1969 Edwin W. Hartin, Esquire Americ n Consul General 26 Garden Road Hong Kong, China Dear Sir : It i my plea urea to writ you concerning Addy Wing-Hy Chan who is a valued employ in the Department of Inspector of Bqildings, City of Atlanta, G orgia. Mr. Chan's duties h ve brought him into close contact with woll a with nm . t department heads of the City From my per onal observation I c n unhesitatingly r pott that he 1 a capable and conec1 ntioue employee, one who ba o tned tb confidence of hie superiors and his f llow wofk r • my office as Gov rnment. real pleasure to learn of h1s tnarriag nd it It has b n ie my hop t t the p.roce se required for 1 suing a visa fo:r his nted aa exp ditiously . s possible in order bride c n be. impl that ah can return with him. Sincerely, Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor City of Atlant, Georgi �