Children’s Indoor Playground, Play Structures Building Code Issues in PA

[ZYC.Indoor]

Hi everyone,

I’m hoping someone here has experience or advice on a situation we’re facing! We’re preparing to open a Children’s Indoor Playground in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Most of the preliminary work has been done. We submitted the finalized layout drawings for a preliminary review with the Township.

However, we’ve run into an issue. The Township is saying they can’t approve our permit because our play structure layout doesn’t fully comply with the Children’s Play Structure building code (specifically referring to 2018 IBC Section 424.4 Separation).

Special Requirement for Children's Play Structures: (Section 424)

• Applicable to structures exceed 10 feet in height or 150 square feet in area.

• Not less than 5 feet of horizontal separation from buildng walls, partitions and elements of the means of egress.

• Not less than 20 feet of horizontal separation from other children's play structures.

• Building official's special investigation required when the area exceeds 300 square feet.

This puts us in a really difficult position. If we strictly follow the Children’s Play Structure code, it would basically mean scrapping our current design and starting from scratch. Even worse, we’d probably only be able to install half of the play structures we originally planned for. That would be almost impossible for us to accept at this stage.

We are a standalone building in a plaza and equipped with an individual fire sprinkler system. We've designed outstanding code-compliant means of egress, fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, etc. All the materials used in the play structures are Class A fire-retardant. We will take as many additional safety measures as we can, such as a monitoring system, well-trained staff, and occupant load control, to ensure the customer's safety.

What’s even more confusing is that before we decided to get into this business, we did extensive research. We visited over a dozen similar indoor playgrounds in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York—and hardly any of them appear to strictly follow the spacing and separation requirements of Section 424, and most of the Jungle Gym play structures are very close to walls or even against the walls. I would believe some of you here who have young kids must have been to this kind of indoor playground, but are you aware of such separation? Especially for the jungle gym.

I even have a question regarding the code itself - Although Section 424.4 specifies the required distance between play structures and the walls, it does not clearly explain the reason for maintaining this distance. I’ve seen some indoor playgrounds where the play structures are built almost in the center of the space (because they have very large venues). In those cases, there is indeed a significant distance between the structures and the walls, or between individual structures, and the purpose of that layout is clearly to ensure proper means of egress. However, if the space surrounding a play structure is not intended to serve as a means of egress and is completely inaccessible, what is the point of maintaining such a distance?

Does anyone have experience with how to better communicate with the Township to earn their approval?

Any advice or shared experience would be greatly appreciated!!!

Below is the rendering of our designed jungle gym play structure. The area circled in red is the closest point to the wall. We will maintain approximately a 1-foot gap here to prevent children from potentially falling and hitting a hard surface (even though this side of the play structure is fully enclosed with protective netting). This space will not be accessible to guests. We will install special zippered access doors at both ends, which can only be opened by staff with a special key in case of an emergency.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

However, we’ve run into an issue. The Township is saying they can’t approve our permit because our play structure layout doesn’t fully comply with the Children’s Play Structure building code (specifically referring to 2018 IBC Section 424.4 Separation).

The Township is correct. It's in the Pennsylvania Building Code. Their job is to enforce the code. Your job is to design in conformity with the code requirements.

This puts us in a really difficult position. If we strictly follow the Children’s Play Structure code, it would basically mean scrapping our current design and starting from scratch. Even worse, we’d probably only be able to install half of the play structures we originally planned for. That would be almost impossible for us to accept at this stage.

Your option appears to be to not build it at all. Is that acceptable?

We are a standalone building in a plaza and equipped with an individual fire sprinkler system. We've designed outstanding code-compliant means of egress, fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, etc. All the materials used in the play structures are Class A fire-retardant. We will take as many additional safety measures as we can, such as a monitoring system, well-trained staff, and occupant load control, to ensure the customer's safety.

You can propose those additional features as equivalent safety in support of a written request for modification, if Pennsylvania has provision for such. Pennsylvania deleted all of Chapter 1, which is where the ICC model IBC says the Building Official may (not must) grant modifications upon written request. Building Officials never have to grant modifications. A modification is, after all, a specific request to NOT comply with the code, which is legally the minimum standard for public safety.

What’s even more confusing is that before we decided to get into this business, we did extensive research. We visited over a dozen similar indoor playgrounds in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York—and hardly any of them appear to strictly follow the spacing and separation requirements of Section 424, and most of the Jungle Gym play structures are very close to walls or even against the walls. I would believe some of you here who have young kids must have been to this kind of indoor playground, but are you aware of such separation? Especially for the jungle gym.

Immaterial. Codes change.

I even have a question regarding the code itself - Although Section 424.4 specifies the required distance between play structures and the walls, it does not clearly explain the reason for maintaining this distance. I’ve seen some indoor playgrounds where the play structures are built almost in the center of the space (because they have very large venues). In those cases, there is indeed a significant distance between the structures and the walls, or between individual structures, and the purpose of that layout is clearly to ensure proper means of egress. However, if the space surrounding a play structure is not intended to serve as a means of egress and is completely inaccessible, what is the point of maintaining such a distance?

Codes don't state the reason for any provision. The reasons are written out as supporting documentation at the code change hearings.

Does anyone have experience with how to better communicate with the Township to earn their approval?

Any advice or shared experience would be greatly appreciated!!!

Candidly, writing as a long-time architect now working as a building official, I don't think you can communicate any better with the Township if your only end game is for them to NOT enforce the written letter of the law by approving your plan -- which you acknowledge doesn't comply. Walking into a Building Official's office with a plan you know doesn't meet the code, and which HE knows doesn't meet the code, and expecting him to approve it anyway is not likely to end well. You need to set aside your perception that a guy (or gal) who is just doing his/her job is the bad guy because you didn't do your homework.

I wasn't able to track down what Pennsylvania substitutes for the administrative chapter (Chapter 1) of the IBC. I think your next step might be to determine whether or not Pennsylvania makes any provision for requests for modification. If so, submit one, stating your case for equivalent safety es clearly as you can. If Pennsylvania's administrative provisions don't allow for modifications, the Building Official's hands are tied.

Section 424 was added with the 2012 code cycle. To learn more about the reasons for it, you would have to find someone who has access to the code change proposals from the 2012 cycle.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Afterthought:

I even have a question regarding the code itself - Although Section 424.4 specifies the required distance between play structures and the walls, it does not clearly explain the reason for maintaining this distance. I’ve seen some indoor playgrounds where the play structures are built almost in the center of the space (because they have very large venues). In those cases, there is indeed a significant distance between the structures and the walls, or between individual structures, and the purpose of that layout is clearly to ensure proper means of egress. However, if the space surrounding a play structure is not intended to serve as a means of egress and is completely inaccessible, what is the point of maintaining such a distance?

Looking at your diagram, I don't see any egress at all -- I see a room filled with plastic balls, and some play structures poking up out of the sea of balls. What does that mean in the event of a physical emergency other than a fire? Maybe a child falls and is injured, or suffers an asthma attack or an epileptic seizure, and a parent or medical first responder needs to get to that child ASAP -- how is that rescuer supposed to navigate through that pile of plastic balls? How is it in any way a good idea for the area around the play structures to be completely inaccessible?

Respectfully, you are looking at this from a perspective of "Nothing will go wrong -- ever." Code officials have to look at it from a perspective of what CAN go wrong, and "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. And we don't want anyone to die when that happens."

 

[steveray]

Add on to the building so the wall is further away?

 

[jar546]

I wasn't able to track down what Pennsylvania substitutes for the administrative chapter (Chapter 1) of the IBC.

You're in luck.

34 Pa. Code Chapter 403. Administration

Information included at this site has been derived directly from the Pennsylvania Code, the Commonwealth's official publication of rules and regulations and from the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Commonwealth's official gazette for information and rulemaking

www.pacodeandbulletin.gov

 

[ZYC.Indoor]

Afterthought:



Looking at your diagram, I don't see any egress at all -- I see a room filled with plastic balls, and some play structures poking up out of the sea of balls. What does that mean in the event of a physical emergency other than a fire? Maybe a child falls and is injured, or suffers an asthma attack or an epileptic seizure, and a parent or medical first responder needs to get to that child ASAP -- how is that rescuer supposed to navigate through that pile of plastic balls? How is it in any way a good idea for the area around the play structures to be completely inaccessible?

Respectfully, you are looking at this from a perspective of "Nothing will go wrong -- ever." Code officials have to look at it from a perspective of what CAN go wrong, and "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. And we don't want anyone to die when that happens."

Hi Yankee,

Thank you very much for your detailed reply and thoughtful suggestions. Apologies if the diagram I previously attached caused any confusion—it was only a partial screenshot. I’ve attached a more complete diagram below, which I hope will clarify your concerns.

As you can see from the drawing, aside from the sides that are close to the wall, the other outward-facing areas have plenty of access points and exits. There are no completely inaccessible or enclosed spaces within the entire structure.

Hypothetically, even if we were to remove the row of frames along the wall so that the entire structure maintains a 5-foot clearance from every wall, the outer edges of the equipment would still be enclosed with protective netting for children's safety. As I mentioned earlier, even if such a space exists, both ends would be sealed off with special netting, and only staff members would have access. (the third picture shows the method we plan to use, and this is also the approach we observed at a national chain store.) Children would not be allowed to enter these areas—we don’t want them using the space to “play hide and seek.”

So overall, even if there is a 5-foot clearance, it’s not intended to serve as an egress path. Moreover, there are plenty of indoor installations much larger than ours, and I don’t believe that in every case, there’s a clear path within the equipment where someone could carry a stretcher through at any time.

Regarding your concern about the ball pit, this type of feature is extremely common in indoor playgrounds, called ball pit pool. The ball pit doesn't fill the entire space; it’s typically just a single layer about 1 to 1.5 feet deep for children to play in. I believe it doesn't impede adults from moving through the area if necessary.

In conclusion, to be honest, I’m not here to judge the building code—I have great respect for and fully understand the Township Fire Marshal’s work and responsibilities （He is really a good guy). However, I just don’t understand why much larger and taller structures than ours have been allowed to be placed against walls, yet in our case, it’s not permitted.

 

[ZYC.Indoor]

Add on to the building so the wall is further away?

Hi steveray,

Thank you for the comment. But what do you mean "add on the the building"?

 

[ZYC.Indoor]

You're in luck.

34 Pa. Code Chapter 403. Administration

Information included at this site has been derived directly from the Pennsylvania Code, the Commonwealth's official publication of rules and regulations and from the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Commonwealth's official gazette for information and rulemaking

www.pacodeandbulletin.gov

Thanks to Admin's attention. This is quite a specialized topic, but I would still take some time to study it.

 

[Paul Sweet]

I wonder if the 5 feet from the walls is to provide access from both sides if a child gets scared or disoriented and needs someone to get him out, although I think 3 feet would be adequate for that.

 

[jar546]

I wonder if the 5 feet from the walls is to provide access from both sides if a child gets scared or disoriented and needs someone to get him out, although I think 3 feet would be adequate for that.

I think it is extrication and so they don't fall against the wall and hit their head.

 

[ZYC.Indoor]

I wonder if the 5 feet from the walls is to provide access from both sides if a child gets scared or disoriented and needs someone to get him out, although I think 3 feet would be adequate for that.

Hi Paul,

Thank you for the comment. Yes, what you said makes sense to a parent, like me. lol. When my daughter was 2, I took her to such indoor playgrounds and encouraged her to explore the jungle gym play structure. She usually gets lost in the structure and cries so hard that I have to climb up all the way to "rescue" her even though the passway is not actually designed for adults. But as she grows up and now is 4 years old, she is really good at exploring in the jungle gym and never had any problems.

Again, I agree with you that if the space is for this purpose, a width sufficient for an adult to enter is enough. Don't know why 5 feet. I suppose this is assuming the space is for means of egress, but as per our layout, this space is not nacessarily used as a pathway.

 

[ZYC.Indoor]

I think it is extrication and so they don't fall against the wall and hit their head.

Absolutely, that's why we are going to leave 1-2 feet wide space in between the structure and the hard surface walls. Although the protective nettings prevent kiddies from falling off, the material is elastic. If the structure is just against the walls (some playgrounds do), there is still a potential that kiddies hit their head and get injured, which is nobody wants to see.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

There is an appeal process. You would just need to prove how your design will be just as safe or safer than what the code requires to the township's UCC appeals board for them to consider allowing it. Crying about how similar designs were allowed before or elsewhere will not help.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I wonder if the 5 feet from the walls is to provide access from both sides if a child gets scared or disoriented and needs someone to get him out, although I think 3 feet would be adequate for that.

Or injured, or suffers a seizure ...

The point is, we don't know. What we do know is that the code requires it. If ZYC.Indoor wants to know why the code requires it, he/she should dredge up the code change proposal and read it. That's where the reason(s) will be explained.

I remain of the opinion that requesting our assistance in convincing the code official to not enforce a provision that the code clearly requires -- and has since 2012 -- is counter-productive. Personally, I commend the code official for being on top of things and even knowing about that. In my town, a couple of years ago we had a national amusement park chain apply for an indoor Halloween maze in their open assembly building. They had paid a national "events" designer to design this thing. There was much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth when we pointed out the provisions for emergency voice communication (IBC 411.4) and low-level egress illumination (IBC 411.6). Naturally, they had waited until a few weeks prior to the scheduled opening before applying for the permit. They were extremely fortunate to have hired an excellent electrical contractor who was able to rise to the occasion.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

There is an appeal process. You would just need to prove how your design will be just as safe or safer than what the code requires to the township's UCC appeals board for them to consider allowing it. Crying about how similar designs were allowed before or elsewhere will not help.

Thanks. Between this and the link from jar46 I was able to determine that Pennsylvania does not offer a "modification" process. All they offer is a right to appeal.

§ 403.43. Grant, denial and effect of permits.

(i) A permit applicant may request extensions of time or variances or appeal a building code official’s action on the permit application to a board of appeals under § 403.122 (relating to appeals, variances and extensions of time).

And then you go to Section 403.122:

34 Pa. Code § 403.122. Appeals, variances and extensions of time.

Information included at this site has been derived directly from the Pennsylvania Code, the Commonwealth's official publication of rules and regulations and from the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Commonwealth's official gazette for information and rulemaking

www.pacodeandbulletin.gov

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Connecticut retains the provision for modifications in the IBC and IRC but, rather than have 175 small jurisdictions all deciding what to allow and what to deny for modifications, they reserve the authority to grant modifications to the State Building Inspector. However, the local BO is required to sign the modification request form, and if applicable add his/her comments.

An architectural code consultant who did work for probably every significant architecture firm in the state and for many out-of-state firms who failed to read the Connecticut amendments before embarking on major design commissions used the modification process -- successfully -- often enough that he was known among building officials as "Mr. Modification." In responding to Mr. Modification about a particular request for modification, the now-deceased Building Official in one city famously said, "You know, ___," the alternative to modification is compliance."

 

[tbz]

ZYC,

You might want to contact the national or international industry association for this type of business. As someone that works with an association in another industry to help members navigate these types of code issues, I believe their team or representative was mostly likely in the room when those requirements were put in and adopted in to the code and can better provide you direction on the context and help you figure out how to best navigate them.

 

[ZYC.Indoor]

There is an appeal process. You would just need to prove how your design will be just as safe or safer than what the code requires to the township's UCC appeals board for them to consider allowing it. Crying about how similar designs were allowed before or elsewhere will not help.

Thank you Mr. Insepector for your suggestion. I will continue communicating with the township, and if there’s really no other way, we will proceed with filing an appeal.

 

[ZYC.Indoor]

Or injured, or suffers a seizure ...

The point is, we don't know. What we do know is that the code requires it. If ZYC.Indoor wants to know why the code requires it, he/she should dredge up the code change proposal and read it. That's where the reason(s) will be explained.

I remain of the opinion that requesting our assistance in convincing the code official to not enforce a provision that the code clearly requires -- and has since 2012 -- is counter-productive. Personally, I commend the code official for being on top of things and even knowing about that. In my town, a couple of years ago we had a national amusement park chain apply for an indoor Halloween maze in their open assembly building. They had paid a national "events" designer to design this thing. There was much weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth when we pointed out the provisions for emergency voice communication (IBC 411.4) and low-level egress illumination (IBC 411.6). Naturally, they had waited until a few weeks prior to the scheduled opening before applying for the permit. They were extremely fortunate to have hired an excellent electrical contractor who was able to rise to the occasion.

Yankee,

Thank you so much for your thorough analysis, examples, and even the critical questions you raised. As a business owner, it's not always easy to truly understand and consider things from the perspective of an inspector—in fact, sometimes it can feel like we are on opposite sides. However, through our discussions here and the feedback from other fellows, I’ve realized that my biggest takeaway is gaining a clearer understanding of where the inspector is coming from. This has been incredibly helpful in figuring out how to approach and resolve my issue.

I’ve already found the reasoning behind this code in the 2012 IBC, and if necessary, I’ll consider filing an appeal as well. Once again, thank you for providing me with practical guidance.

 

[ZYC.Indoor]

ZYC,

You might want to contact the national or international industry association for this type of business. As someone that works with an association in another industry to help members navigate these types of code issues, I believe their team or representative was mostly likely in the room when those requirements were put in and adopted in to the code and can better provide you direction on the context and help you figure out how to best navigate them.

Hi tbz,

Thank you for your suggestion. I have tried reaching out to industry associations, but unfortunately, the help they can offer is quite limited—mainly providing documents that certify the safety of their equipment. They also mentioned that my situation is not uncommon. In some places, there is room for flexibility, while in others—like California—it’s almost impossible to get any exceptions.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I’ve already found the reasoning behind this code in the 2012 IBC, and if necessary, I’ll consider filing an appeal as well. Once again, thank you for providing me with practical guidance.

Care to share? Then we'll all know ...