The Daily Dispatch: August 27, 1863., [Electronic resource]

City Council.

The President, on taking the chair, stated the object which brought the Council together was to consider a petition from certain residents of a particular square in the city asking to have stopped the erection of a building which was about going up in the vicinity of their property.

The reading of the minutes of the last meeting was, on motion, dispensed with.

Mr. Hill, of Jefferson Ward, then arose and presented the petition referred to by the President. He advocated its adoption by the Council on the ground that the building objected to by the petitioners was a very large wooden stable, and its completion and occupancy would greatly endanger the safety of property surrounding it. He read the 35th section of the Charter of the city of Richmond to show that two-thirds of the property-holders in any one square in the city had the right to protest against the erection of any house built of wood which, in their opinion, might depreciate the value of their property, and appealed to the members present to grant the prohibition asked for by the petitioners. The petition, he contended, had been properly gotten up, and the subject was one in which the welfare of a respectable portion of the city was concerned.

Mr. Nance appeared as counsel for the owner of the stable in process of erection, and by permission of the Council addressed them in defence of his client. He contended that, even if the stable objected to had just been commenced, the petition could not prevent its completion, as two thirds of the property-holders had not signed it. Mr. Jas. M. Taylor being simply an agent for the owners of a large portion of the property said to be endangered, had no right, under the charter, to sign such an instrument of the kind presented. The reading of said charter expressly defines that none but the owner shall protest. The building was now nearly finished, and therefore it was not in the power of any objectors to interfere with it, as the law only referred to those which had not been commenced, and could not affect one which had already been put up. He asked the rejection of the petition, or a reference of the matter to a proper committee.

Mr. Hill rejoined and referred to the record of the Council proceedings to prove the reverse of Mr. Nance's argument. Taylor, he believed, had consulted with the owners of the property, and the list embraced the names of more than four-fifths of the whole square. Instead of the building which was objected to being a small one, it had a front of at least 30 feet, and a depth of 50 feet. He had understood the owner (Mr. Boisseau) intended it to accommodate a large number of horses, and therefore the large loft attached would be stored with hay to feed them. It by any accident it should take fire nothing could save the whole square, and probably other property adjacent would be destroyed.

Mr. Scott sustained the prayer of the petitioners, and hoped it would pass. He contended that the argument used by Mr. Nance, that because the building complained of was nearly finished it was not in the province of the Council to have it removed, was inadmissible — a house was not a house till it was finished. He (Scott) thought the ordinance defective, inasmuch as it only provided for protests from persons residing on the same square where objectionable building were about being put up, whereas often times property across the street was in more danger than that on the same side of the street in case of fire. It was singular the city had never pursued more stringent measures to suppress these grievous nuisances.

Mr. Denoon followed Mr. Scott at some length, during which he advanced some forcible illustrations to show why the Council should adopt the petition. He recollected some years since, when fires were so frequent in this city that the Fire Department positively refused to insure a great many houses which were located in the neighborhood of stables. The further completion of the building complained of in the petition should, in his opinion, be interdicted by the Council.

Mr. Nance desired to reply. A large number of the houses in the square on which the stable of Mr. Boisseau was being erected was of wooden structure, and of the most combustible character. The property was located on the square embracing 18th and 19th and Franklin and Grace streets, where in all directions were many stables, and old, inflammable shanties. He still maintained that complaint should have been made before the erection of the building was commenced. He doubted much whether the owners of that portion of the property represented by Taylor would have signed the petition at all, and thought it a great advantage to their property for Mr. Boisseau to put up his building there.

Some further discussion took place between Messrs. Scott, Denoon, and Hill, for the petitioners, and Mr. Nance, the counsel for Boisseau, after which the question was put and the prayer of the petitioners granted.

A resolution was then, offered and adopted authorizing the City Engineer to notify Mr. Boisseau to put a stop to any further work on the building begun by him.

Mr. Scott offered the following resolution:

‘ Resolved, That a committee of — be appointed to report an ordinance to carry out the provisions of the 35th section of the Charter of the city of Richmond, passed the 30th of March, 1852, concerning the creation of buildings in the squares of the city.

’ Mr. Denoon moved a suspension of the rules, to allow him to offer a resolution making an appropriation of $550 for repairing the building known as Primary School house No. 1. Granted.

Mr. Scott presented a petition from Peachy R. Grattan, Esq., asking the remission of a fine improperly imposed upon him. Granted.

After which the Council adjourned.