| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
Variance Details |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code Name: |
|
Other Code (Not in the list provided) |
|
|
|
|
|
606.2 (ICC A117.1 2009 Ed) |
|
|
|
|
|
Conditions: |
|
The nature of the request is to allow the installation of basin style lavatory sinks in lieu of the standard ADA wall hung lavatory. The factor of non-compliance with the sinks as they currently are, is that they do not provide the ADA proscribed clear knee space under the sink basin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEMONSTRATION THAT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE ARE PROTECTED: |
|
|
|
|
1=Non-compliance with the rule will not be adverse to the public health, safety or w |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2= Applicant will undertake alternative actions in lieu of compliance with the rule to ensure that granting of the variance will not be adverse to public health, safety, or welfare. Explain why alternative actions would be adequate (be specific).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facts: |
|
The owner, designer and contractor have modified the standard sink installation so as to be in compliance with the intent of the cited code section. Section 606.2 proscribes knee and tow clearance based upon a front approach to a sink; so as to provide a reasonable reach distance of a disabled person to the faucet at the rear of the sink. In this case, due to no knee and tow space being provided the faucet has been extended out towards the front rim of the sink. The constructed conditions are compliant with the rear requirements of Section 606 and unobstructed reach conditions of Chapter 3.
Also there is no chance of leg scalding as the basin protects the legs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEMONSTRATION OF UNDUE HARDSHIP OR HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imposition of the rule would result in an undue hardship (unusual difficulty) because of physical limitations of the construction site or its utility services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imposition of the rule would result in an undue hardship (unusual difficulty) because of major operational problems in the use of the building or structure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y |
|
Imposition of the rule would result in an undue hardship (unusual difficulty) because of excessive costs of additional or altered construction elements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imposition of the rule would prevent the preservation of an architecturally or a historically significant part of the building or structure
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facts: |
|
To remove the existing installed basin at this point would require major reconstruction of the plumbing wall as the plumbing connections would be substantially different and a the proper lavatory support would need to be installed in the wall construction. As the entire space is finished and ready for operation, this would limit the number of operational restrooms for the public while revisions were being done. This would technically put the space in non- compliance for improper fixture count, or force a delay of opening at excessive costs to the owner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|