blank space

Fire Code Commission Decision Summary

DECISION NO.:92A004/005/006/007-085
DATE:May 29, 1993

SUBJECT MATTER:

  1. Installation of doors to each bedroom with a minimum fire resistance rating of twenty minutes
  2. Installation of an interconnected smoke alarm system on each level of the building with smoke alarms in each sleeping room.
  3. Provide a fire separation between the basement and first storey having a fire resistance rating of 45 minutes
  4. Installation of emergency lighting in corridors and stairways

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:

The building is a single storey wood frame, brick veneer house with a basement and attached two car garage. The building is occupied as a group home which houses a maximum of five mentally and physically disabled persons. The first floor is used for residential and resident recreational purposes. There are three bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen, living room and dining room area. There is a central open stairway to the basement with a railing and gate to prevent residents from falling down the stairs. The first floor area is generally not fire separated. The bedroom doors are hollow core wood construction with latching hardware. There are two fire extinguishers provided on the first floor. Each bedroom is equipped with a battery operated smoke alarm with an additional one in the dining room. The basement is presently not used by the residents. It contains an office, washroom, staff meeting/multi-purpose room, laundry/furnace room, storage room and cold cellar. The floor/ceiling assembly between the basement and the first floor is generally open wood joist construction. There is a steel supporting beam which is fully exposed in the furnace room and is generally unprotected in the remainder of the basement. There is one fire extinguisher for the basement and a battery operated smoke alarm in the multi-purpose room. Fire drills are conducted twice a month, varying from shift to shift with resident participation and differing fire locations.

REASON FOR APPEAL:

Does not agree with the description of the building or its uses and feels that the orders were based on regulations that have not yet been passed.

APPELLANT'S POSITION:

In the order the property is incorrectly categorized as a "convalescent home". The appellant feels that at most, the building should be considered a group home. Also, it is felt that the orders are based on proposed regulations, not existing legal rules. And even if they were, the orders should not apply in this situation.

RESPONDENT'S POSITION:

These items are considered to be minimum life safety requirements for any occupancy of this type.

COMMISSION RULING:

  1. Items 1, 2 and 4 were upheld
  2. Item 3 was revoked

REASONS:

Group C under the Ontario Building Code and as residential or institutional under the Township's zoning by-law. The decision of the Commission is based upon the goal of minimizing the danger to occupants and property in case of fire, in particular due to the non-ambulatory and/or developmentally challenged condition of the residents.

The Commission is of the opinion that the work of the upheld orders will not materially detract from the non-institutional nature of the home.