| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
Variance Details |
|
|
|
|
Code Name: |
|
2009 Indiana Electrical Code (675 IAC 17-1.8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
110.26(A)(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
Conditions: |
|
We have an existing clearance of 34 inches of working space from existing wall to panel board location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
Distance between both outside existing wall and interior existing plumbing wall is 3'5" with existing electric panel on outside of wall creating the 34 inches. However, wall to wall itself is well over the 36" minimum. It also was never an issue prior to any other previous inspections and does not affect any public health, safety and/or welfare at anytime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
Same as statement above. |
|
|
|