|
320
<br />Northern Indiana Public Service Company, hereinafter called appellant, for
<br />its appeal herein respectfully shows:
<br />1. Appellant files this appeal with the Board of Public Works and .Safety
<br />of the City of South Bend under and pursuant to the provisions of the Building Code
<br />of said city, the same being Ordinance No, 2243, as amended, and particularly Section
<br />19 thereof,
<br />2. Appellant is a public service corporation and a public utility engaged
<br />in the manufacture; distribution and sale of gas to the citizens and residents of the
<br />city of South Bend#.
<br />3. Appellant is the owner of the following described real estate in St,
<br />Joseph County, Indiana:
<br />Lots lettered A and B and Lots numbered 128, 129, 130, 131, 138 and 139 as sh
<br />on the Recorded Plat of Wenger and Kreighbaum's Second Addition to the City of South
<br />Bend, and also the vacated alleys adjoining said lots,
<br />4. Appellant desires to erect a gas holder or tank.approxi-mately 218 feet in
<br />diameter and 371 feet high, the center of which will be located approximately at the
<br />northeast . corner of said Lot 128 in, v enter and Kreighbauro-'s Second Addition to the
<br />city of South Bend.
<br />5, On the 12th day of August, 1947, appellant filed its application with the
<br />Building Commissioner of said city for a per::lit to erect the above described gas holder
<br />or tank and offered with said application two identical complete sets of working draw-
<br />ings and specifications, the requisite fees, and a certificate in w hich appellant state
<br />that the work called for complies in spirit and letter with said building code. The
<br />working drawings and specifications for said gas holder have been prepared by the
<br />Koppers Company, Inc., specialists in designing and constructing gas holders and nation
<br />ally recognized in that field for such work.
<br />6. On the 12th day of August, 1947, said building commissioner denied said
<br />application upon the ground that said gas tank involved ordinary construction, known
<br />as type 4, as defined in Section 75 of said building code, and that said gas golden
<br />being of Type 4 could not be more than 3 stories nor more than 40 feet in height as
<br />provided by'Section 105 of said code,
<br />7. Appellant says that said proposed gas holder is not a type of construc-
<br />tion defined or provided for by said building code; that said ordinance prescribed no
<br />limitation of height for the construction of a gas holder or tank; that under and by
<br />virtue of Section 23 and Section 36 of the building code appellant is entitled to a
<br />permit from said Building Commissioner for the building of said proposed gas holder or
<br />tank.
<br />S. Appellant says that said Building Commissioner, because of the matters
<br />and things hereinabove set forth, has erroneously interpreted said building code and
<br />because of such erroneous interpretation has wrongfully declined to issue the building
<br />permit sought.
<br />[HE-MEFORE, appellant respectfully prays
<br />(a) That the Board of Public jlorks and Safety of the City of South Bend
<br />promptly convene and hear this appeal and appellant's complaint and
<br />such evidence as said Board deems appropriate in the premises;
<br />(b) That said Board determine that the Building Code of the City of South
<br />Bend places no restriction on the height of the gas holder which appell-
<br />ant desires to erect;
<br />(c) That the Building Commissioner be ordered to issue the permit desired fo
<br />the construction of said gas holder by appellant. -
<br />Aaron H. Huguenard
<br />Attorney for appellant
<br />NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE C01,+1PAM1
<br />BY: George Bennett, Isanager, Appellant
<br />Tar. Aaron H. Huguenard, Attorney for the Northern Indiana Public Service Company,
<br />asked the Board for an interpretation of the building code.
<br />Mr. John Montgomery, member of the Board of Public lVorks, asked first for Mlir.
<br />Dalton Moomaw!s reason for denying the permit. (Tclr. I;Toomaw being the Building
<br />Commissioner.)
<br />(� Mr, Moomaw: The classification of buildings by types of construction in the
<br />I building code is for the purpose of more convenient designation in stating the restrict
<br />ions placed upon each of the several kinds of structures. Those five types of con-
<br />struction are presumed to include all buildings that will be erected. The heights of
<br />the several types of buildings is limited by the code not merely as a measure for safe.
<br />design, but for convenience of access, fire safety and as an aesthetic consideration
<br />which must enter into rational planning. Vlhether or not conditions have changed from
<br />the time the code was written, it is evident that it was intended to put a height
<br />limit on all buildings in the city, with a maximum allowable height of 150 feet, and
<br />the classes or types of construction were intended to include all that would be built.
<br />We do not propose to go into the sky -scraper class like New York or build up a sky-
<br />line as San Francisco, but to limit the height of buildings that are desirable in
<br />South Bend. If any construction is used which does not classify as one of these types,
<br />that fact does not remove it from the intended height restriction. If if cannot be
<br />classified as a type designated by the code, a new type should be created by amendment
<br />to the building code and its allowable height prescribed.
<br />•
<br />•
<br />•
<br />•
<br />•
<br />•
<br />0
<br />
|