| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
Variance Details |
|
|
|
|
Code Name: |
|
2014 Indiana Fire Code |
|
|
|
|
|
|
901.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Conditions: |
|
Insurance requests we remove fire hoses in building as they are not maintained and local fire dept discourages their use by occupants. They prefer occupants vacate building vs fighting fires.
Additional supporting code is found in 2018 NFPA 13.2.2.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
building is in city limits and protected by the VFD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
Variance Details |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code Name: |
|
Other Code (Not in the list provided) |
|
|
|
|
|
2015IFP905.4.3.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Conditions: |
|
Insurance is requesting we remove the fire hoses in the building as they are not maintained and local FD indicates they prefer occupants vacate vs utilize hoses to fight fires. Removing as per insurance request is in direct violation of code specified above.
2nd supporting code 2018 NFPA 13.2.2.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 location is protected by local fire dept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
|
|
|
|