| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
Variance Details |
|
|
|
|
Code Name: |
|
2009 Indiana Electrical Code (675 IAC 17-1.8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
210.52(c) |
|
|
|
|
|
Conditions: |
|
A request for code variance on the 48" spacing of countertop convenience receptacles in a workspace. The layout of the kitchen's rear wall backplash includes 5ft wide windows installed down to the countertop surface does not allow for the required spacing of 4ft between receptacles. Instead they have been located as close as physically possible on a GFCI protected circuit. Per owner, a food prep workspace is in the working pantry. See attached plan and photo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 we |
|
|
|
|
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: |
|
Non-compliance with the code written to allow a 24" cord to reach any point on the surface will not affect the well being of the tenants as there is a food prep area in the working pantry. The proposed variance to allow existing receptacle spacing to remain on the rear kitchen wall will include GFCI protected outlets spaced as close as physically possible with the current design.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 only design alternative to meet the code 210.52(c) on the rear kitchen wall, according to our inspector, would require a flush mounted, pop-up outlet be cut into the countertop. This solution poses more of a health and safety risk due to wet working surfaces than the extra 23" of reach which a kitchen user would encounter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|