lations. It entails a great deal of work in the building inspector's office, as he is the man designated to administer the law. This additional clerk will keep the files. And the draftsman, who is not only a draftsman but an inspector as well, will keep in touch with the various changes proposed. We have endeavored to keep the personnel down to the minimum, but I think we should have these two employees, as well as the additional assistant inspector of buildings.

Mr. SISSON. Before you leave the zoning proposition, I wish you would put in the record what is the purpose of dividing the city into these zones; what good results from it?

Col. KUTZ. It is primarily to protect the home owners from the encroachment of undesirable business. Under the law prior to August 30 there was nothing to prevent the erection of a grocery store in a residential neighborhood, and there was hardly a month went by that we were not appealed to to prevent such an encroachment in certain neighborhoods.

Mr. SISSON. In other words, it is to protect the residential districts from undesirable manufacturing plants?

Col. KUTZ. Yes; but we go further than that; we create four use districts: One is the residential district, another district is the first commercial district, the third is the second commercial or light industrial district, and the fourth is the manufacturing or heavy industrial district. And certain uses are permitted in certain districts, but are barred in other districts.

Mr. SISSON. Did you consult the property owners about the creation of these zones?

Col. KUTZ. Yes; we took the public into our confidence for the purposes of this study, by dividing the District into 16 sections and appointing a committee of property owners in each of these sections. We held a series of public hearings, lasting a full week, of morning and afternoon sessions, and everybody in the city who desired to be heard was heard. Every one of our city and civic associations took an active interest in the subject, and the various associations, like the Board of Trade, Chamber of Commerce, and the Merchants and Manufacturers Association.

Mr. SISSON. Has there been much objection to your zones?

Col. KUTZ. I think very little objection, except as to one of our height regulations. In addition to the four use districts we created four height districts, and the least restricted district permits a height of 110 feet. Under the law that was enacted in 1909 a building in the business district could be erected to a height of not more than 20 feet greater than the width of the street, but in no event exceeding 130 feet, except in one instance, on Pennsylvania Avenue, between Thirteenth and Fifteenth Streets, where it authorized a height of 150 feet. Now, there was some objection to limiting the height, reducing it from 130 to 110 feet in the business district.

Mr. SISSON. I want to indorse that 110 feet. I think 100 feet would be better.

Col. KUTZ. I think the commission felt that 85 would be better and we have authority for that, being guided by the regulations in London and Paris, all of which have been developed under a limitation of 85 feet. And Congress had rather favored a restriction of 85 feet by prescribing that buildings erected in and around Federal buildings should not exceed 85 feet in height. And still, under the

law of 1909 there are some. For instance, we have a number of buildings in the District which exceed 110 feet in height. And after a careful study we adopted that 110-foot limit as being a reasonable compromise, and of course that only applies to the heart of the city. The next zone is limited to 85 feet, and the next to 55, and the suburbs to 40 feet. That protects the home owners from the encroachment of an apartment house, which is very objectionable.

Mr. SISSON. Colonel, you know, of course, that the zoning law is very strict, and may be very objectionable. It may restrict the uses to which a man can put his own property. And it can be subject to a great deal of abuse. I am glad to hear that there has been very little objection to your zoning.

Col. KUTZ. I think so far as the use districts are concerned there has been practically no objection. We held a hearing a few days ago to consider certain changes in the boundary lines of the use districts, and there were only four or five cases presented to us for consideration, and most of those involved the shifting of a boundary line so as to cover one or two adjoining lots, and in those cases there was by no means a unanimous opinion in favor or against each. We found them divided. There was one particular piece of property at the northeast corner of Thirteenth and U Streets: Thirteenth Street had been zoned for residence purposes, and U Street for business purposes. The property at the corner had been included in the residential zone and the owner wanted to change the classification, and it would have been reasonable to classify that corner property either way, either with the residence district which it fronted, or with the business property which it fronted, but the objection to it was very marked. Ninety per cent of the property owners opposed the change.

Mr. SISSON. And now, suppose a gentleman wanted to put up a residence in the residence district, would he have to submit his plans and specifications to this board?

Col. KUTZ. No, sir; he applies to the inspector of buildings.

Mr. SISSON. The inspector of buildings would be restricted to the limitations fixed by this zoning commission?

Col. KUTZ. Yes; the inspector of buildings

Mr. SISSON (interposing). All right, I understand that. But to what respect do you restrict in certain sections of the city, a man in building a home of his own?

Col. KUTZ. Well, if he wants to build a home, he can build anywhere; I mean he can build a residence in the residential district, or an industrial district.

Mr. SISSON. But he would have to comply with the fire regulations? Col. KUTZ. He would have to comply with the height restrictions of the District. If he was in the 40-foot height zone, he could not go higher than that; if he was in the 55-foot zone, he could not build higher than 55 feet.

Mr. SISSON. Let me ask about the height: Does that mean the height of the wall, or the height of the roof?

Col. KUTZ. That means, in the case of the 40-foot height, 40 feet measured from the ground level on which the house rests to the ceiling beams of the top story; so it does not restrict the air space of the building.

Mr. CRAMTON. Does it restrict the minimum height as well as the maximum height?

Col. KUTZ. No, sir; we did not feel that we had any authority to do that.

Mr. CRAMTON. But in beautifying the city it is just as necessary not to have the buildings too low.

Col. KUTZ. That is true, but our zoning regulations are based on sanitation and public welfare alone.

Mr. CRAMTON. And not at all on aesthetics?

Col. KUTZ. No, sir; we felt we would be exceeding our power to do that.

Mr. CRAMTON. Well, in a number of foreign cities, Buenos Aires, they absolutely exercise the control over the height, and insist on uniformity. Business blocks in many areas of Washington are being disfigured by the erection of these one-story shops.

. Col. KUTZ. I agree with you absolutely, and wish we had power to regulate the minimum as well as the maximum height.

Mr. CRAMTON. Inasmuch as Congress is spending millions in beautifying Washington, it would not seem out of place to have a regulation of that kind. I assume that enough thought and consideration is given to esthetics to see that they do not prevent the proper use of the parks by allowing the buildings too high close to them? Col. KUTZ. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMTON. There can not be any repetition of the Meridian Hill Park proposition under your regulations?

Col. Kurz. No; we have applied the regulations, but they came too late to prevent the erection of that apartment house.

Mr. CRAMTON. But it will prevent a repetition?

Col. KUTZ. Yes; but we did not do it on that ground. We did not do it on esthetic grounds.

Mr. CRAMTON. You ought to. A park that has absolutely nothing to commend it except the view that is to be obtained from it-it is the height of folly for the Government to spend thousands of dollars to beautify such a park, and then to permit something to be erected to prevent the proper use of it.

Col. KUTZ. I think so, but we have not the power to remedy it. Mr. CRAMTON. I want to be recorded as one who thinks that in the city of Washington consideration should be given to esthetics; that is one question that interests the people of the country as a whole. The people who are here will benefit by it; but the people as a whole, who are paying 40 per cent under the present bill, want the Capital City made the most beautiful city in the world, but it can not be done if Buenos Aires and other foreign cities are going in advance of us in these matters.

Col. KUTZ. I feel that we have taken a big step forward in the promulgation of these zoning regulations, but I agree with you that it is only one step, and that we should follow up what we have begun. Mr. SISSON. You would not take a step of this kind, Colonel, to restrict a man who wanted to build a home; you would not deny him the right to build a little small one-story house, if he complied with the fire regulations, on the sole ground that he could not build it as fine as the Fine Arts Commission would want?

Col. KUTZ. No; I would not. I think what Mr. Cramton had in mind was the one-story buildings in the business district.

Mr. CRAMTON. But the man who builds lower than the general run of buildings in his neighborhood, so that it is not uniform, injures himself; it lowers the real estate values in that neighborhood.

Mr. SISSON. All of which is idealistic. He may have money enough to build a cottage. There are thousands of such people who live in the District of Columbia, and I would encourage them to live in a home of their own, and not in apartment houses. I would not make the restrictions too great in the downward tendency.

Mr. CRAMTON. Regulations should not be too strict or unreasonable. A man can be perfectly happy in a one-story house if he is in a section of one-story houses.

PLUMBING DIVISION.

Mr. DAVIS. On page 6, "Plumbing inspection division," I will ask you if you have asked for any additional clerks?

Col. KUTZ. No additional employees. We ask for one change in designation from sewer tapper to an inspector.

Mr. DAVIS. And ask to have his salary raised from $1,000 to $1,800 a year?

Col. KUTZ. $1,600 a year. The designation of "sewer tapper" is obsolete. Years ago, when it was created, one man was supervising all the connections to the sewer, but we had to change that many years ago, and we have a man to supervise that work as well as other work. The designation is an anomalous one, as the man is performing the duties of an inspector, and we think the inspectors ought to be paid $1,600, in order to get men who are competent to supervise the work of the plumbers, who get in excess of $1,600.

Mr. DAVIS. Then the increased appropriation here from $20,810 to an estimate of $25,350 is occasioned wholly by increases in salaries? Col. KUTZ. Yes; averaging, in the case of that office, 26.6 per cent. Mr. DAVIS. You are sure you haven't too many employees down there?

Col. KUTZ. No, sir.

ASSESSOR'S OFFICE.

(See p. 162.)

Mr. DAVIS. In the assessor's office, how many new clerks have you asked for there?

Commissioner HENDRICK. Three, at $1,200 each.

Mr. DAVIS. Three clerks, at $1,200 each?

Commissioner HENDRICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. And you ask for a number of increases in salaries? Commissioner HENDRICK. Yes; the rest is represented by in

creases.

Mr. DAVIS. From an appropriation of $56,920, you are asking for $68,900; and it is wholly occasioned by increases of salaries? Commissioner HENDRICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUCHANAN. What is the percentage of increase on page 8?
Col. KUTZ. Fourteen and seven-tenths per cent.

Mr. DAVIS. Would you explain why you want these extra clerks? Commissioner HENDRICK. The increased work in the "tangible property and real estate assessment.

Mr. DAVIS. Has the work in the office increased?
Commissioner HENDRICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. What is it occasioned by?

Commissioner HENDRICK. The increase in population and the sales values.

Mr. DAVIS. Has that been the case in the last five years? Commissioner HENDRICK. Not so much as in the last two or three years; there was more activity in the last two or three years. Mr. DAVIS. More exchange of property here? Commissioner HENDRICK. Yes; in my judgment.

Mr. DAVIS. Because the property values have gone higher? Commissioner HENDRICK. Partly because of the increased value and partly because of the unusual conditions here where people had to have places to stay. Some people had to buy.

Mr. DAVIS. Most of the persons who came here two or three years ago wanted to raise the salaries because of the war, and since the war has closed, they want to raise them because the war is over.

Commissioner HENDRICK. On that point, if I may go back to the original statement, we went over the figures very carefully, and we believe these increases that are asked for are, in each instance, just, even if the living prices were to go down to somewhere near the prewar level; I believe the caliber of these people and the character of the work they are doing, would justify the increases.

Mr. DAVIS. I am speaking of the number. It is hard for me to understand having been connected with the District government for some years-it is hard for me to understand why it is necessary to have more employees.

Commissioner HENDRICK. We are asking for three.

Mr. DAVIS. Of course, in the case where you are building new schoolhouses, you might need more engineers, but in the assessor's office

Commissioner HENDRICK (interposing). The city is growing, and the property is increasing.

Col. KUTZ. The assessor says the number of transfers has nearly doubled in the past year. They keep track of every transfer to enable them to make the biennial assessment.

Mr. SISSON. In order that we may know what the transfers are, put in the record the number of transfers last year and this year, up to this time.

Commissioner HENDRICK. This last year, 10,772, as against 7,736 the year preceding.

Mr. DAVIS. Does this take into account these sales and transfers of apartments in the apartment houses?

Commissioner HENDRICK. No, sir; because this was prepared as of June 30, 1920, and this cooperative plan was a plan developed here and made operative in the last six months. I know of no cooperative plan prior to these figures.

Mr. DAVIS. When were these figures made?

Commissioner HENDRICK. They were for the years 1919 and 1920. Mr. DAVIS. When did you make your additional figures of estimates and so on; when were they completed?

Commissioner HENDRICK. October of this year.
Mr. DAVIS. October of this year?
Commissioner HENDRICK. Yes, sir.