• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Barriers

I agree with Francis...It has to be 4' tall and "unclimbable" (whatever that means in your AHJ), I would take a solid vynil fence over chain link any day....climbed plenty of chain link as a kid, even barefoot....never could have climbed solid vynil...

Keystone said:
Update, per ICC interpretation - 1. Chain link fence is the only fence approved by the ICC

2. Split rail fence with wire mesh not acceptable

3. AG 105.2 #4 & #5 specifically apply to rigid fence material.
Click to expand...
 
This lucky homeowner has a new swimming pool just in time for the drought. What he doesn't have is any guidance from the contractor regarding the pool barrier.

That is always the case. Usually the owner calls for an inspection with no barrier whatsoever. The thinking is that the inspector will lead him to compliance.

In this case the owner placed a fence and gate across the driveway to the garage. The leaf that you see here is 52" wide and has an ornamental design that a kid could use to climb over the barrier. The contractor saw it before I did and advised the owner that it will not pass inspection because of the built in ladder. So the owner did this.



A single leaf can't be over 48" wide. A driveway can't be blocked. The contractor knows this and yet he lets the owners toss money away rather than help them. He didn't bother to tell the owner that it can't have a ladder built in.

By the time it gets to the fence and gate inspection, many owners are not on speaking terms with the contractor. And if they are still talking with the contractor, the contractor isn't talking to them about the required barrier. Not even a little bit....won't discuss it at all....acts like he has no clue as to what a pool barrier is....tells them to read their contract.

So I have to take over. I have to explain as many options as I can see...you know---put a fence here and a gate there, or you can put the fence over there, or you can put a fence around just the pool, etc.

It shouldn't be that way. I should ask them to tell me what they plan on doing and I will tell them if that's going to pass inspection. If I do that they are on the phone barking at the office manager that I am not willing to help. The manager tells me that it is my duty to be helpful.

Helpful is taking them by the hand and walking them through it. Later on I am likely to hear how they wish that the fence was somewhere else. It is my fault that they are not happy with "MY" choice.

The contractor should be held responsible for the fence and gate. It is on the plans and there is a place on the job card to sign off the fence and gate.

In the past I have contacted contractors and demanded that they deal with it. They always say that their contract specifies that the owner is responsible for the fence and gate. I am powerless to force contractors to be responsible.

The forum has contractors that build pools. I wonder what they do with the fence and gate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We don't issue a pool permit without a barrier permit. Either the contractor or the owner can be responsible for the barrier. If the owner is responsible, a separate barrier permit is issued and instructions, based on IRC Appendix G, is given out at the time of issuance. If the contractor is responsible, the barrier is included in the pool permit. Either way, we try to give instructions as to what is expected for the barrier before the permit(s) is(are) issued. Works well for us here. GPE.
 
Looks like masonite or fiberboard on the gate; neither will last very long in the elements. Like GPE (above), when I was a BO, required all aspects of the pool barrier be shown on the plans before permit was issued. If the homeowner was responsible for pool barrier, issued separate permit to Owner and required final approval of barrier prior to pool final. Also had a local ordinance that allowed specific fines to contractor and/or owner for filling and/or using pool prior to final approvals for all project work.
 
I took to giving homeowners a copy of the code for barriers when they asked for information. As I handed it to them over the counter I'd say "Read this, when you've gone through the first half bottle of aspirin/Tylenol, call me. We'll talk." Just wanted them to feel my pain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a barrier at an apartment complex. It is a "public" swimming pool which is regulated by the health dept.

 
I think the barrier requirements in the code are just a little too wide open to pin someone down on this wire fence application on the outside of split rail fencing (as was shown in a pic in previous post.) I'm not saying that I am OK with this practice. I'm just saying the code doesn't lend itself to calling a solid violation on it.

The code says where there are horizontal members less than 45 inches apart (vertically), the vertical members cannot be greater than 1.75 inches apart (horizontally)...... Is that not what the wire fence has? It (really) is irrelevant what the wood fence is doing behind the wire fence. (Just the same as the chain link posts and rails are doing behind a chain link fence.) Just as long as the wire fence doesn't fold over at the top (presenting a height less than 48" above grade). What section are you going to cite as the violation?

A comment made: "Hand holds are not allowed." Where doth it say that in code? Chain link fencing has a multitude hand holds.....

A comment made: "I should have written that the bottom or ground level tension is "to be installed as needed" done for pool barriers. If you can determine that a child can lift it up or the fabric does not return to its original position then it needs to be reinforced." The code says the fence can be as much as 2" above the "solid" ground (e.g. not in a pile of mulch) . If a 4 inch sphere can't be passed under* the bottom edge of the wire fence, it would seem to be code-compliant without further treatment like staking or a tension wire. I have rarely seen standard chain link fencing around residential pools with a tension wire, a bottom rail or staking. A good idea? Maybe. But the code's 4" sphere test for standard chain link touching the solid dirt (with an "industry standard" fence post spacing) seems to point to the fact that those extra features are unnecessary. So, use the same 4" sphere test for under the wire fence.


*There is always the question about how hard one should be forcing the sphere to get through the opening under the fence....although this posting topic is not about that...the way I look at it, if you use a 4 inch inflatable ball for a sphere and the ball deflects more than about a 1/2 inch, the kid is going to be screaming fairly loud at that point! In other words, you don't have to "ram it under" to say that the fence doesn't comply.

Although the fence is an important feature of the barrier, it is the gate that is most often breached. Weak or non-existent closing devices and wobbly latching arrangements are big issues, especially with any wood-based fence or wood-based gates. Incorrect gate swing and latch release not high enough (or protected on the inside of the gate) are the next big items. I always think, "If I came back 2 years from now, would this gate still self close and self latch?"
 
QUOTE: This is a barrier at an apartment complex. It is a "public" swimming pool which is regulated by the health dept. "

Unfortunately, them letting the small tree grow next to the fence offers a climbing feature. They need to cut it out.
 
QUOTE: "I took to giving homeowners a copy of the code for barriers when they asked for information. As I handed it to them over the counter I'd say "Read this, when you've gone through the first half bottle of aspirin/Tylenol, call me. We'll talk." Just wanted them to feel my pain."

I wonder why the code has to be written in a manner that gives people headaches? Maybe we should try to change the code. What do you think? Anybody behind me? Or is it just more fun to complain about it !
 
climbing-pool-fence-2.jpg




kid-climbing-fence-picture-by-Summer-Murdock.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Trying to write rules to cover every possible contingency is what you get when attorneys have a hand in the process. It's not possible. For every scenario code writers can envision there a thousand more they never considered.
Plenty of people study regulations to exploit loopholes (I know quite a few).
As far as the OP discussion, NYS does a complete re-write of pool regs to provide compliance with State Dept. of Health, as that is where they originate. Our amendments are available on the DOS website: http://www.dos.ny.gov/DCEA/ if anyone is interested.
 
We used to hop fences just to avoid walking around the enclosed area (pools or otherwise)...
well that and it's just fun to do.
 
Yes, kids can be devious about circumventing barriers. If we really wanted to stop them, then the code would require ten foot high chain link fence (1 3/4 inch across diamond) or solid walls with concertina wire at the top and bottom. But we live in a society that accepts some level of risk. The code's requirements reflect the culmination of many discussions among a variety of parties, each having their own agendas. The folks wanting to achieve zero child drownings want higher and impossible-to-climb fences with more sophisticated latching and closing mechanisms. The building owners don't want unsightly and costly fences on the property. In the end, the decision makers make a decision that tries to balance all concerns. This is what is in the code. It is not perfect (as the previous photos show) but it does provide for some control and a fairly low level of risk. This is a free country so if people don't think it is good enough, speak up and do something about it.
 
Somewhere parental responsibility and a reasonable attempt at limiting access to your pool on your property by people trespassing onto private property is all that should be required by code........ A good old fashion butt whooping would limit the kids abilities to "hop" the fence or climbing on top of a fence to get impaled upon..... to which the guardians are quick to blame others for their failure to provide proper guidance.

IMHO right and wrong is taught at an early age 2-5, after that guidance is all that a parent can give until the kid is about 13 ...... from that point on, they are on auto pilot and parents that try to step in and act as parents at this time, waited 12 to 13 years to late to be a "parent".

Sorry, off my soapbox.
 
Somewhere parental responsibility and a reasonable attempt at limiting access to your pool on your property by people trespassing onto private property is all that should be required by code........ A good old fashion butt whooping would limit the kids abilities to "hop" the fence or climbing on top of a fence to get impaled upon..... to which the guardians are quick to blame others for their failure to provide proper guidance.

IMHO right and wrong is taught at an early age 2-5, after that guidance is all that a parent can give until the kid is about 13 ...... from that point on, they are on auto pilot and parents that try to step in and act as parents at this time, waited 12 to 13 years to late to be a "parent".

Sorry, off my soapbox.
Click to expand...


I agree, parental responsibility is the biggest issue. "...reasonable attempt at limiting access to your pool on your property by people trespassing onto private property is all that should be required by code." True but that language is hard to enforce with consistency. This is why the code attempts to quantify what is expected.
 
Bottom line is that the Codes are minimum standards to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
M I N I M U M standards...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top