Box 1, Folder 4, Complete Folder

Box 1, Folder 4, Complete Folder

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
�