Background
RMH Solutions LLC operates The Parkdale Assisted Living & Memory Care, a converted hotel facility. After obtaining local zoning and planning approvals, the building’s upper three floors were approved for I-1 condition 1 occupancy (serving residents who can self-evacuate without assistance). In November 2023, the Township Fire Marshal determined that operations violated the 2015 International Fire Code because residents on those floors included bedridden individuals and others unable to self-evacuate. The Fire Marshal offered two options: cease assisted-living operations or make facility changes to achieve I-1 condition 2 occupancy (which permits residents requiring “limited verbal or physical assistance” to evacuate).
The parties stipulated to have the trial court decide whether RMH’s proposed evacuation plan—using 8 staff members and evacuation chairs to move up to 75 bedridden residents from the second and third floors—constituted “limited assistance” compliant with the 2015 Building Code and International Fire Code. The trial court approved the plan and entered judgment allowing I-1 condition 2 occupancy. The Township and Fire Marshal appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the trial court’s judgment. The appeals court found the trial court’s approval was premature because the factual record was insufficient and lacked necessary findings. Specifically, the record did not clearly establish how many residents were (1) bedridden, (2) capable of self-evacuation, or (3) requiring assistance to evacuate. Without this factual development, the court could not determine whether the proposed plan actually constituted “limited assistance” as required by the codes.
The court emphasized that the 2015 Building Code and Fire Code require “complete building evacuation,” not sheltering in place in stairwells. Although the codes do not define “limited verbal or physical assistance,” the plain language requires residents to fully evacuate the building. The trial court’s reasoning that residents would be evacuated expeditiously from stairwells, rather than sheltering in place, was unsupported by findings about evacuation timeframes and the feasibility of moving potentially 75 bedridden residents with 8 staff members.
The appeals court noted that whether residents improved facilities through evacuation chairs and additional doors, the approval was premature without clear factual findings establishing the exact number of residents requiring assistance and how the evacuation plan would operate in practice. The classification assigned to the facility is “meaningless if the residents cannot meet the criteria for self-evacuation.”
Key Takeaways
- I-1 condition 2 occupancy requires residents to “complete” building evacuation with “limited assistance”—sheltering in place in stairwells does not satisfy this standard.
- Facilities seeking to change occupancy classifications must demonstrate precise evacuation procedures, including factual findings about how many residents require assistance and whether the plan is practically feasible.
- Fire codes and building codes define occupancy classifications by resident evacuation capability; facilities must verify residents meet these criteria or face potential revocation of occupancy certificates.
- The existence of physical improvements (evacuation chairs, doors) does not establish compliance without clear evidence that residents can actually be evacuated as required by code.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on interpreting “limited assistance” in assisted-living and residential-care facility codes. It clarifies that occupancy classifications are not mere formalities but reflect actual resident capabilities and evacuation procedures. Facilities cannot rely on theoretical compliance; they must demonstrate through detailed factual findings precisely how they will evacuate all residents who require assistance.
The ruling also underscores the Fire Marshal’s authority to challenge occupancy classifications and the court’s role in ensuring that fire-code compliance is based on practical, not merely theoretical, evacuation feasibility. For assisted-living operators, this means careful attention to resident screening, staffing levels, evacuation equipment, and documented procedures must precede any change in occupancy classification.