Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br />Board of Adjustment <br />June 24,1999 <br />#A 99-001 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />enforced with all cornractors. This separation requirement provides a fire <br />separation to prevent the spread of fire between the garage and the residence. <br />The Dwelling Code regulation and department policy is totally supported by <br />the Fire Chief and the City's Fire Marshal. A memo from the Fire Marhal's <br />Office is attached and identified as Exhibit C. <br />In May, staff performed a survey of five (5}suimunding cities. The cities <br />included in this survey were League City, Webster, Friendswood, Seabrook <br />and Kemah. With the exception of Kemah, these cities indicated the fire <br />separation between the residence and garage was being installed by <br />contractors. <br />Ana is: The applicant is asking the Board to consider eliminating this requirement <br />based on the following facts. <br />^ Based on increased construction activity, the supply and demand of <br />sheetrock fluctuates. This can impact construction schedules. <br />The Building Code allows an exemption in accordance with Section <br />411.2.6. <br />Staff feels strongly that the separation requirement should remain in effect. <br />That is why in addition to the Dwelling Code regulation, a city policy also <br />addresses this issue. The separation provides a protection that along with <br />fire department action saves lives and helps reduce the amount of fire <br />damage to the'structure. <br />The Code of Ordinances allows appeals to the Board of Adjustment (Board) <br />by any person aggrieved or by an officer, department or board affected by <br />any decision of the enforcement officer. <br />Conclusion: Based on the facts and considerations noted in this report, staff stands by the <br />decision to require the fire separation between the residence and the garage. <br />We recommend the Board deny the applicant's request to delete the <br />residence and garage separation requirement as requested in Appeal of the <br />Enforcement Officer's Decision #A99-001. <br />