• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

"Assisted Living Facility" Occupancy Group

3F Inspections

3F Inspections

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
28
Location
Lone Oak, TX, United States
Ok i'll get this page started I have an assisted living facility going into an existing building proposed six occupants 2006 IBC, approximate 2000 sq. ft,. The applicant states that occupants will get assistance in bathing, daily dressing undressing, toileting, ect. My take is per Sec. 308.2 "The occupants are capable of responding to an emergency situation without physical assistance from staff" that this should be I-2 not I-1, R-3 or R-4 because of applicants description of occupants I do not believe occupants will be capable of responding to emergency situation. What do you think is it a stretch to classify this I-2?
 
I get with the health department ( they issue the state license here) and see what care the facility is licensed to provide and how much staff is required. This will give me a better understanding of the operations and physical and mental limitations of the residents and honestly has let me sleep at night when my first gut reaction was "no way"
 
Women who have breast implants need help dressing, undressing, toileting, bathing.. but that's a temporary situation, not long term.

having said that (for whatever reason I thought I should).. probably I-2.
 
* * *

floydman,

Welcome to the Codes Forum! This is " THE " codes place to be! :D



I concur with mtlogcabin! You definitely want to get with your

health department and discuss facility characteristics and

capabilities, while doing the plans review. Also, with your own

local fire department. They will be the ones performing the

periodic inspections.



* * *
 
Sheen you talk existing facility are you talking house???

Same question as others is there a state or federal agency that regulated it also?????

Sometimes they require more then local codes and also classify them a little tougher
 
Wait for the state to respond... but are the residents bed-ridden? If so, it's not an R anything. IF it's a situation where the residents are developmentally disabled but need to be reminded to take a shower, do your laundry.. clean your dishes.. but they can respond to a fire alarm and ambulate themselves to the outside by themselves, I'd buy R-4.

My oldest son has a developmental disability - he is now able to live by himself and support himself...
 
If they have staff round the clock I2. If it is short term like just the morning and evening it could be R-4. Just had a meeting in a rather large unit with different section set as different occupancies. The state came back on the yearly inspection for a single floor of a new addition and classified it I-2. I had reviewed and approved the plans as I-2. The owner didn't realize that the building already complied. The state inspector agreed and told them to white out the r-4 and make it an I-2. Everybody was happy!
 
Assisted living facilities are I-1.. housing more than 16 persons. If the residents aren't bed riddden, maybe I-2 is harsh..

R-4 is for more than 5 and less than 16 excluding staff.. I might rethink I-2

I-2 is for ... "persons who are not capable of self preservations.. like detox facilities, hospitals, mental hospitals and nursing homes".

Again, I ask.. are the residents able to respond to a fire alarm and have the capacity to understand "get the hell out of the building"?

I am thinking R-4 (ok.. I can change my mind.. I changed my socks this morning)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This has always been for me one of the most confusing sections of code. I2 r4 etc. Not more then this or that many people. The code is clear but the issues become gray. At plan review it is very hard to determine if say Mrs. Jones is capable of self preservation. She may be at time of occupancy, but what about 3 months down the street. We make decisions base on info provided in a sterile situation. Then as time passes we find things to be different.

I have just in the last two weeks had several properties come back for reclassification. In PA the State oversees these facilities. They have a large list of regulations that don't parallel the IBC. The thinking is also beyond the code. Now I have just had an R4 approved be fore me, be re licensed to be an I2. When I reviewed the plans I considered it an I2. So no big deal. Yet another one that was listed as a B is now being demanded by the state to be a C1. These letters Do not match up to anything in the code. don't be concerned about the letters B or C1 they don't match anything either. The heart of the issue is that during a fire drill it was observed that the staff had placed a hand on the shoulder of an individual and directed them in another direction. There exists some major voids for the code official to deal with. Now base on that observation as fire official I need to re classify the building. GLTJ!
 
This has always been for me one of the most confusing sections of code. I2 r4 etc. Not more then this or that many people. The code is clear but the issues become gray. At plan review it is very hard to determine if say Mrs. Jones is capable of self preservation. She may be at time of occupancy, but what about 3 months down the street. We make decisions base on info provided in a sterile situation. Then as time passes we find things to be different.

I have just in the last two weeks had several properties come back for reclassification. In PA the State oversees these facilities. They have a large list of regulations that don't parallel the IBC. The thinking is also beyond the code. Now I have just had an R4 approved be fore me, be re licensed to be an I2. When I reviewed the plans I considered it an I2. So no big deal. Yet another one that was listed as a B is now being demanded by the state to be a C1. These letters Do not match up to anything in the code. don't be concerned about the letters B or C1 they don't match anything either. The heart of the issue is that during a fire drill it was observed that the staff had placed a hand on the shoulder of an individual and directed them in another direction. There exists some major voids for the code official to deal with. Now base on that observation as fire official I need to re classify the building. GLTJ!
 
I think I-1 may be more appropriate.... it's a supervised residential environment that provides personal care services.. and it can be a VB building. (Can't be if its I-2).
 
What am I missing . . . speaking Building Codes, I see Residential R3 if less than 16 people UNLESS they are transient in nature or they are incapable of self preservation, and I don't think that means Granny is in a wheelchair or Aunti Clara takes sleeping pills (and I am not suggesting there needs to be a family relationship, it is a congregate living facility). And why wouldn't it fit actually under the IRC?

In what sense is it considered a "commercial" building? Is there a mixed use issue?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
congregate living facility isn't the same as assisted living, Yankee.

A congregate living facility would be, for example, 5 college kids living together and sharing the daily tasks of the household, but don't need assistance with personal care.
 
Never the less, those living congruential can be older adults and can have hired help for daily chores and tasks. . . step through the I group;

I 1 has to have 16 or more, this doesn't fit

I 2 have to be incapable of self preservation, I think "incapable" is a pretty high standard

I 3 not in jail

I 4 Less than 24 hours

What is being suggested does not fit into any I category UNLESS the "not capable" standard is met, and as Peach points out many people need some kind of "assistance" who are otherwise very capable of both doing and understanding how and when to exit a building. Where is assisted living defined as not capable?

Single Family under IRC or R3. How does this not fit?

I have a IRC with 5 assisted living and one full time live in staff, they no doubt kept that number for fear of the "6" number and I am not sure it matters, the "16" number might prevail.

And what makes this a commercial building?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
that's why this arguement needs to be made in plan review... don't let the field inspector classify occupancy or type of construction.
 
The "new" R-4 use group was a hugh mistake back in the day. It just confused the issues more. Ahhhh, bring back the BOCA code please. Agree with peach and rjj. The use of a building or space is always determined in plan review. There is always the game of calling it I-2 to start and backing off if you need to. Sometimes it works well. Did that this past month with a high hazard use. It has the effect of bringing more information to the table when the dp, contractor, or owner is lets say, less than forthcoming?
 
RJJ said:
peach: I agree! Plan review is the critical point to the argument.
Click to expand...
It comes down to the self preservation aspect and I'd be very cautious with that one. If this is a developmentally disabled household, then the occupants have been judged to be capable of taking care of themselves to a large degree. The point of the household is to continue to allow them to develop the skills to live completely unassisted.

Think of this, if you had a household of adults and three of them were in wheelchairs, would you (upon plan review of course ; ) call the dwelling an I2? I don't think so ~
 
Yankee: Could not agree more. That is why this is a difficult section to apply. I have this very situation to inspect end of next week. The State wants a reclassification of the buildings, use and if they comply with code. They also want a new CO. In PA we have to deal with Certified and un Certified buildings which muddies the water.
 
You also must examine the issue of the residents aging in place. Unless there is a clear policy to expel those who need the most assistance, then in a few years there may well be people incapable of recognizing an emergency, and it sets up a situation where some government official may be in the position to have to take very unpopular action. Better, if at all possible to build the building to the higher safety standard.
 
And how does one justify this with single family dwellings that house people who are bedridden, or not capable of recognizing an emergency? Do the courts pull people out of their homes (assuming they are being cared for) and place them in institutions? No, they don't.

I believe that is why a minimum number is set under the code, these enterprises are not subjecting their clients to any greater risk than one would most likely see in the general population. These units should be reviewed as single family dwellings units.
 
Trying to classify an assisted living facility is like trying to hold water in your hands. Hold tight and watch the water slip through your fingers.

So you have 5 people in a facility. Based on license conditions all occupants participate in fire drills and can make it out in the required time. Then after aging in place one occupant can no longer meet the ability to self evacuate. Now does someone tell that occupant to leave?

I have worked this type of issue in a number of states and found the state license people unwilling to make the call, they said it was up to the fire department. I made the call that if assisted living residents in a commercial building were not able to self evacuate within the time frame required, then it wasn't assisted living. It is a performance requirement. Then the owner of the building called the states equal housing investigator to complain that I was preventing someone from being able to use assisted living. So I had to educate the equal housing investigator about the requirements.

In some cases there would be a couple (husband and wife). One was able to meet the requirements but the other had to go into a wheel chair. The building was not capable of having an area of refuge, so then what?

Just one more thing the building was under the direction of a local church board. The board members included the wife of the Deputy Chief of the Fire Department. Needless to say he didn't want to put any pressure on the fire department plan reviewers and inspectors, and he told them that in many ways, repeatedly. NO PRESSURE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top