| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
Variance Details |
|
|
|
|
Code Name: |
|
other not listed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014 IFC, sec. 901.6.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Conditions: |
|
Our request is to remove the fire hoses that were found to be out of date/standard. Code requires fire protection system to stay and be maintained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
We currently have fire extinguishers station 5 throughout the building which are tested annually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
The hoses have never been used and to bring then up to code would cause a negative impact to our finances. The local fire department stated they would not even use in house hoses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|