blank space

Fire Code Commission Decision Summary

DECISION NO.:92A008/009/010/011-086
DATE:May 29, 1992

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 2 car garage. The building has been occupied as a group home which houses a maximum of five developmentally disabled persons, primarily seniors. The first floor is used for residential and resident recreational activities. There are three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room, living room and a den. The bedroom doors are 1-3/4" solid core wood with latch set mounted in wooden frames. Each bedroom is equipped with a battery operated smoke alarm with additional alarms in the corridor and dining room. There are also two fire extinguishers provided on the first floor. The basement is unfinished and is not used or intended to be used by the residents. The basement ceiling/first floor assembly consists of open wood joists and central load bearing members consist of unprotected 2x4 wood framing. It is used by staff for laundry, storage and office purposes. Fire drills are conducted monthly by staff. Residents are instructed as to what to do in the event of an actual fire, however, they are not active participants in the drill.

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 Item 3 was revoked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:

The Commission declines to make a determination as to whether the use of the property would be classified as Group B or 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.