RM 12-17-76 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. (b) Continued: re d this letter in full regarding the brick wall on the east side of the Odd Fellows Building which Mr. Donnelly indicates is a ha and due to bricks falling and the wall crumbling. Tha Chair asked if this should be referred to the City Engineer and Mr. Brownell indicated that as a matter of fact, he has Mr. Bauer and Mr. Bill Slabaugh working on this. When Mr. Wiggins asked for further details, Mr. Brownell stated that as he understand it, this was one of the early demolitions, there were six or seven buildings involved in this one contract - (Ed Bauer then handed Mr. Brownell a 3hotograph of the building and area prior to demolition). This letter concerns the one story party wall on the east side of the building and you obviously could not remove that wall as you would than be taking down part of the Odd Fellows Building. Mr. Wiggins stated that there certainly must be a precedent for handling this kind of situation since this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened. He stated that it was his impression that where th wall is a part of the building and attached to the rest of it, it then becomes the responsibility of the building owner to face the thing off. Mrs Brownell said he was unable to answer to this question. Join Kagel: Pardon me Mr. Wiggins, I don't want to become involved in this thing but if you recall the National Bank is the one that diJ the Robertson's wall and the same thing applied to the Wyman's wall when they tore that building down. The Chair: This is the reason most lawyers tell their clients to not get involved in a party wall anymore. These were very common back in the early 1900's and in the 1800's but now, any lawyer who has had experience with the construction business and then later in the demo- lition business will tell his client to not get involved. It may sate you money when you put the building up but it causes you grief wh n the building comes down. What Don says is partially true, the su chapter a, b and c is that we, the Department of Redevelopment, ca sed the condition by taking down the building and it is a matter of whether we left a potential hazard there. The joint owner has the re ponsibility once the wall is placed in a good, proper safe condition, to continue to keep it that way. However, that is the question, did we leave it in a hazardous or semi - hazardous condition? Have I stated th law correctly Kevin? Mr Butler: "I think you are the expert on the party walls that were put up around the turn of the century'. Mr th Ch Brownell: I haven't heard of any difficulty with this wall over last several years that it has been in this same condition. The tir then asked Mr. Bauer for a recommendation. MIM