Search (61 results)

Applied Filters (Reset)

  • Tags = Box 1 Folder 4

Filters

Result Types

Item Types

Tags

Featured

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 30

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_030.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 30
  • Text: She. CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL TEL. JA. 2-4463 EXT. 321 ATLANTA, GEORGIA June 6, 1969 STATEMENT 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 I 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. Gober 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 postman 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 te 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 hae been recently painted inside and out and a 100 amp. electric gervice installed, will refer to electrical division for check, 4 The above is a true account of my findings at 1542 Pineview Terrace on 6-6-69, Otis FP. Jordan
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 9

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_009.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 9
  • Text: hewniile ted WY ode nh, ode May 29, 1969 OFFICE OF MODEL CITIES PROGRAM 673 Capitol Avenue, S.W. Atlanta, Ga. 30315 404-524-8876 Ivan Allen Jr., Mayor J. C. Johnson, Director XL 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 of Atlanta Building Department in recent years. Owners whose properties currently meet these standards will have the option of either taking advantage of possible grants or loans under the Atlanta Housing Authority rehabilitation program to meet project standards or continuing to maintain structures in compliance with the City Housing Code. ‘ In rehabilitation areas other than those of current year action areas, the City Building Department will participate on a complaint investigation basis only. New enforcement cases will be undertaken in accordance with Department personnel capability and on a full code compliance basis. Demolition Policy - Model Neighborhood Area The Atlanta Housing Authority is fully responsible for demolition activities in NDP current year clearance action areas. When emergency situations occur necessitating prompt action on particular structures in the clearance areas, the City Building Department will become involved for enforcement efforts. In demolition areas other than those of current year action areas, the Building Department will become involved only on a compliant basis to effect full code compliance with the exception that generally no installation of additional equipment will be required. A possible exception will arise if it is determined that the failure to install additional equipment may result in jeopardy to the health, safety on general welfare of a structures inhabitants.
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 16

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_016.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 16
  • Text: May 29, 1969 Mrs. Marion J. Gober 1542 Pineview Terrace, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Dear Mrs. Gober: May I afiknowledge receipt of your letter of May 28 stating that the building inspector did net get the opportunity to inspect the items you complained about. I am sending a building inspector to your apartment building and am requesting that he ask for you directly. Iam sure he will be out to see you shortly and will be of all possible assistance. Sincerely, Ivan Allen, Jr.
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 26

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_026.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 26
  • Text: A. a =~ June 27, 1969 Mr. Thomas B. Gober 1542 Pineview Tergace, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30311 Dear Mr. Gober: May I acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 26 bringing to my attention certain conditions in the Building Department. Iam having these charges investigated, and appreciate your telling me about them. Sincerely, Ivan Allen, Jr. IAJr:am
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 11

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_011.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 11
  • Text: June 5, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO : Jim Henderson FROM : Ivan Allen, Jr. I have had an annonymous call stating that the Supervisor of the West District from the Building Department is in collusion with other inspectors in the buying of pewperty. Please check into this.
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 48

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_048.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 48
  • Text: a On a * | oe Ss : %, (iy: 3459 “ + 3 Wo. ows™ DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 le REGION III 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, hard- lead 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. 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 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 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. “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 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, A. Frederick Smith Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office ec: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 41

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_041.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 41
  • Text: 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 regarding the correct interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta's Official Plumbing Code. Prior to December 20), 1966, Section 114 required the exclusive use of wiped lead stubs for floor outlet water closets and urinals, At about that time HUD made a study of the Plumbing Code and in the interest of modernization recommended that the City amend numerous provisions, including Section 114, Ihave been informed that the revision of Section 14 recommended by HUD followed verbatim the corresponding provision of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As ixtmended, Section 114 reads as follows: Sec. ll4. 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, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, goldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall he bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohbbited, 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, 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 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. Mr. Edward H. Baxter Page 2 August 22, 1969 The opposing interprefation is that the purpose of the amendment of Section 114 in December, 1966, was to permit the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" and that the express language of 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 materials and not just to those cther than lead. The question has, therefore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114, the engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs or has a choice on such floors of using "brags, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed 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 code ought to provide on this point, entirely apart from the present language of Section 114, in order to encourege 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, Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer DESJr :je
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 38

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_038.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 38
  • Text: 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 regarding the correct interpretation of Section i114 of Atlanta's Official Plumbing Code. Prior to December 2D), 1966, Section 114 required the exclusive use of wiped lead stubs for floor outlet water closets and urinals. At about that time HUD made a study of the Plumbing Code and in the interest of modernization recommended that the City amend numerous provisions, including Section 114. I have been informed that the revision of Section ll4 recommended by HUD followed verbatim the corresponding provision of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As @imended, Section 114 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, hard-lead 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 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 "brass, 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 floors above 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. Mr. Edward H. Baxter Page 2 August 22, 1969 The opposing interpretation is that the purpose of the amendment of Section 114 in December, 1966, was to permit the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" and that the express language of 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 materials and not just to those other than lead. The question has, therefore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114, the engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above slab 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 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 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, Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer DESJr sje
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 33

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_033.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 33
  • Text: 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 : The Honorable Ivan,Allen, Jr. FROM : W. R. Wofford yl 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 approximately one month.
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 60

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_060.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 60
  • Text: JIC. i! a CITY OF ATLANTA | OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILD GS 800 CITY HALL TEL. JA. 2-4463 EXT. 321 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 December 9, 1969 Edwin W. Martin, Esquire American Consul General 26 Garden Road Hong Kong, China Dear Sir: It is my pleasure to write you concerning Addy Wing-Hay Chan who is a valued employee in the Department of Inspector of Buildings, City ef Atlanta, Georgia. Mx. Chan's duties have brought him into close contact with my office as well as with most department heads of the City Government. From my personal observation I can unhesitatingly report that he is a capable and conscientious employee, one who has earned the confidence of his superiors and his fellow workers. It has been a real pleasure to learn of his marriage and it is wy hope that the processes required for issuing a visa for his bride can be implemented as expeditiously as possible in order that she can return with him. Sincerely, Ivan Alien, Jr., Mayor City of Atlanta, Georgia
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 12

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_012.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 12
  • Text: os nt hes ph pda beni ae CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS s00 CITY HALL TEL. JA. 2-4463 EXT. 321 ATLANTA, GEORGIA June 10, 1969 \ The Honorable George Cotsakis, 150 Ottley Drive, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30324 Dear Mr. Cotsakis: We have made an investigation of the power failue which recently occurred at the Grady Hospital Building and find that the electrical installation including all of the apparatus and equipment was properly installed and that there is no indication of the equipment'’s being overloaded. The power failure occurred at night and the peak load for the building is during the middle of the day when air conditioning equipment requires more power. The inspection reveals that the main electrical distribution panel in the building consists of two power circuit breakers and two lighting circuit breakers. Of these four breakers one lighting breaker and emergency lighting functioned properly throughout the entire incident. It is the opinion of the electrical inspector, after investigation and consultation with Mr. DeVain, Maintenance Engineer, that the circuit breakers could have been turned off, The entire electrical syatem is supplied from a transformer vault lecated underground just outside the building. During the emergency the standby generator kicked in and operated successfully for approximately 30 minutes. The inspectors and the maintenance engineer believe that the cause of the generator's everheating was attributable te a defective solenoid valve in the cooling system. This valve has since been replaced and the system checked out and is new operating properly. Very truly yours, tty Ct Af ot ee W. R. Wofford GRW: at Building Official eee el et ls ae i
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 6

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_006.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 6
  • Text: 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 : The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. a FROM ‘ Cc. M. Smith, Assistant Building Official vy ZL Y fee RE : 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 BIU are handled by the Plumbing Division,. those 75,000 BIU and over are handled by the Heating and Ventilating Division.
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 21

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_021.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 21
  • Text: June 17, 1969 Mrs. Nina King Miller Cornelius King & Son 200 Auburn Avenue, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mra. Miller: With reference to your letter of June 10 regarding the condition of the property located at 170-176 Auburn Avenue, I have received the following report from Mr. W. R. Wofford: In accordance with a Court Order in 1964, the upper floor of the building eat the above address was vacated and boarded up and the unused portion of the first floor wae also boarded up. There are now two businesses eccupying the first floor, a barber shop and a restaurant. The present owner is now listed as The Exposition Company, and Mr. Emory Cecke is treasurer of this company. In view of the time lapse since the last Court Order, Mr. KE. @.. Milton, Codes Compliance Officer, will bring the matter back into Court to see if further determination ean be made concerning this property. After this matter goes back to Court, I am requesting that Mr. Wofford advise you of the action taken. Sincerely, Ivan Allen, Jr. IAJrchbd ec: W. R. Wofford —— be
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 20

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_020.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 20
  • Text: JIMCO: CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P.O.ROX 65°27 LAKEWOOD STATION ATLANTA, GEORGTA 30315 627-1359 May 21, 1969 Mr, Addy Chan 901 City Hall 68 Mitchell St, Atlanta, Ga, Re: City Hall Annex # 3, Atlanta, Ga, Dear Sir, In regards to your letter of May 16th, In talking to Mr, Jordan we have come up with a date of June 20, If we can improve on this we will, but as you know due to the soil conditions and weather we have not made the vrogress we should have on the stairwell, We trust this is agreeable, ae 9 WK Alle a as Tk H, R, Helton JIMCO CONSTRUCTION CO,, INC, HRH?:mh MOTE: IIR. JORDAN IS THE JOB SUPERIMTEND ENT —
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 5

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_005.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 5
  • Text: June 2, 1969 Mr. Jack W. Crissey Fulton Plumbing Company 443 Stonewall Street, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30313 Dear Mr. Crissey: Attached is a memorandum from Mr. Cc. M. Smith Assistant Building Official, concerning your letter of several days ago. I don't seem to be able to understand your problem, and would suggest that you try to take it up with Mr. Wofford, or with the Building Committee;that is provided for this purpose. If this course is not satisfactory, I will be glad to meet with you and Mr. Wofford and try to get a better knowledge of what you are talking about. Sincerely, Ivan Allen, Jr. IAJrziam Enclosure cc: Mr. W. R. Wofford
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 45

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_045.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 45
  • Text: o = % PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Fy, ‘0: MENT o, “tn te Wil“: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (WIM # o 73430 wt REGION III 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, hard- lead 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. 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 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 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. -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 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, Tol le Tre filo Sa As ae Smith Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office ec: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 42

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_042.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 42
  • Text: Hud 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 regarding the correct interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta's Official Plumbing Code. Prior to December 20, 1966, Section 114 required the exclusive use of wiped lead stubs for floor outlet water closets and urinals. At about that time HUD made a study of the Plumbing Code and in the interest of modernization recommended that the City amend numerous provisions, iucluding Section 114, I have been informed that the revision of Section ll4 recommended by HUD followed verbatim the corresponding provision of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As @inended, Section ll4 reads as follows: Sec. ll4. 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, hard-lead 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 use of commercial putty or plaster is prohtkbited. Since Section 114 provides that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base'', one contenticn is that the choice of "brass, 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 other floors do not necessarily constitute “an approved firm base". Under that view of Section 114 it would be permissibie to restrict such joints on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs. Mr. Edward H. Baxter Page 2 August 22, 1969 The opposing interpreéation is that the purpose of the amendment of Section 114 in December, 1966, was to permit the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" and that the express language of 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 materials and not just to those other than lead. The question has, therefore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114, the engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above slab 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 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 code ought to provide on this point, entirely apart from the present language of Section li4, in order to encourage the construction of lowerent, low-cost housing without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. Your help on these matters will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer DESIr sje
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 22

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_022.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 22
  • Text: 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 : The Honorable Ivan Allen, Jr. FROM : W. R. Wofford oC 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.
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 29

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_029.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 29
  • Text: @& Cvs fr- eC Ob dows nt Don Bek Ae Low 4 farm Mp On 2@es = Oden reset “ TPL. Ma Ck (aN ft ee Soh dons on fn Ogi Bonnt oie Lien She whe a. ne OS LE7 Toy aed Gh, Bx sf 3 pe corres wd, Bee JE Cramp CMB LG goats Vfgad bo
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021

Box 1, Folder 4, Document 35

http://allenarchive.iac.gatech.edu/originals/ahc_CAR_015_001_004_035.pdf
  • Result Type: Item
  • Item Type: Text
  • Title: Box 1, Folder 4, Document 35
  • Text: = nr aie Se July 22, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO : Henry Bowden and Bill Wofford FROM : Ivan Allen, Jr. Gentlemen: Please advise me if there are any restrictions that would prevent this house from being used for this purpose. IAI riam Enclosure
  • Tags: Box 1, Box 1 Folder 4, Folder topic: Building department | 1969
  • Record Created: April 18, 2017
  • Record Updated: April 28, 2021