Existing swimming pool barrier

[Mr. Inspector]

Existing public swimming pool has been replaced with a completely new one. The existing barrier has not been touched and does not comply to the 2018 ISPSC. The Building Code Official is telling me that if they did not do anything to the fence, it does not need to be brought up to the 2018 code. I was concerned, because there is no gate. The chain link fence has openings larger than allowed per 2018 code and the bottom of the fence can be lifted up easily for a child to pass through. The state health department already passed it.

Do you agree with the Building Code Official? Is there a section in the code that says he is wrong? (We do not use chapter 1 here)

 

[ICE]

Existing public swimming pool has been replace with a completely new one. The existing barrier has not been touched and does not comply to the 2018 ISPSC. The Building Code Official is telling me that if they did not do anything to the fence it does not need to be brought up to the 2018 code. I was concerned because there is no gate, the chain link fence has opening larger than allowed per 2018 code and the bottom of the fence can be lifted up easily for a child to pass through. The state health department already passed it.

Do you agree with the Building Code Official? Is there a section in the code that says he is wrong? (We do not use chapter 1 here)

I do not agree with the official however, I am not familiar with the 2018 ISPSC or any PA state regulations.

Most California jurisdictions that I have worked with would require the fence and gate meet current code. That is not contingent on any work done to the property if the pool is located within LA County. It is set up that anyone can notify the Sheriff if a pool barrier is out of compliance. It has happened a few times and the Sheriff hasn’t a clue about what to do other than call B/S.

You mentioned the Health Dept. In my experience, the H/D handles public pools and B/S handles SFR pools. I have been less than impressed with what passes muster for the H/D. In fact, I have rocked the boat that floats the H/D…a few times.

So if I were you, the correction slips would be flying.

 

[steveray]

It has been interpreted exactly that way in CT.....The hitch is the the "existing" pool has to be just that...LEGALLY existing which is installed to some code or installed prior to codes existing....But the interpretation has flip flopped in the past 10 years or so...

I imagine it is based on this....

(Amd) R102.7 Existing structures. The legal occupancy of any building or structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as specifically covered in this code.

 

[ICE]

shall be permitted to continue without change

That didn’t happen. The existing structure went away and a new structure took it’s place.

 

[tbz]

I would venture a guess that the pool stayed the same size or did it, and how close to the pool was the barrier protection.

As noted above, though one might believe a new pool triggers everything else be upgraded, was it a new pool or was it completely reconditioned?

If it was a complete new layout and changed in size, I would push for everything to be brought up to current levels, if it was just fixed per say, then I would agree with the call.

 

[steveray]

FYI...

STATE BUILDING CODE INTERPRETATION NO. I-14-11July 25, 2011The following is in response to your request for formal interpretation dated July22, 2011.
Question:
An in-ground swimming pool at an existing single family home has a pool barrier that was code-compliant at the time that the pool was originally installed. Based on degradation of the existing pool, the owner wishes to remove the existing pool and install a new one in its place. Must the owner replace the legal existing pool barrier with a new one that meets the requirements of the 2005 State Building Code?
Answer:
No. Section R102.7, of the 2003 International Residential Code portion of the2005 State Building Code (IRC), clearly states that the legal occupancy of any building or structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as specifically covered in this code. The trigger for the pool barrier was the original installation of the swimming pool, and since the barrier conformed to the code requirements in effect at the time of its construction, it is allowed to remain as a legally existing structure even though the owner has chosen to upgrade the pool. Naturally, since the pool itself is new construction, it must be compliant with the current code. If it was the intention of the code to require upgrading legal existing pool barriers to meet current requirements, that provision would be in the code; much like the requirement to add smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors in existing homes undergoing alterations or additions or adding sleeping rooms. This formal interpretation supersedes the previously issued Formal Interpretation I-10-09 regarding this issue.

 

[ICE]

STATE BUILDING CODE INTERPRETATION NO. I-14-11July 25, 2011The following is in response to your request for formal interpretation dated July22, 2011.

The person responsible for this has determined that the pool barrier is a "structure" in and of itself. To divorce the pool barrier from the pool is senseless. The State would allow a new location, configuration etc. and tbz would allow the removal of everything but the hole and replace it all with new, yet the single most important component can be outdated and a violation of existing code...amazing.

What about the rest of the codes that apply to a pool? When a pool is replaced, so is the equipment, the plumbing, the electrical .... is some antiquated code applied? I think not. For starters, I wouldn't know what that code said much less be inclined to use it. But hey now, kids can drown like it's the 60's.

 

[steveray]

I don't have to/ get to set the direction...I have to follow it....

 

[ICE]

I don't have to/ get to set the direction...I have to follow it....

Unlike most, I can refuse to play along. But then of course, I am a merely an inspector.

 

[steveray]

Unlike most, I can refuse to play along. But then of course, I am a merely an inspector.

Once the State here issues something formal, it is gospel....Until they change it again...Because you can't sue the State without the States permission....I am happy to let them take that blame...

 

[tbz]

ICE,

I guess I am trying to figure out how Ray or I would allow it personally, the ruling by the AHJ, IE the State of CT or in the case of the OP, the Authority Above his pay grade has overruled what Rick is Questioning.

IF you replace all the tile in the bathroom, including doing minor relocating of the fixtures, does one need to remodel the whole dwelling to code, or can the existing non-conforming structure stay in place?

Everyone reads into it their own way, the bottom line is that the Boss, or in CT, the main code enforcement department makes the ruling, the inspectors are held to enforcing the ruling.

Looks to be the same in Rick's Jurisdiction.

Not saying I concur, just that I see the point.

But then again, I am still trying to figure out how the 35 homes along the Ocean on the Jersey Shore don't require a fence in the back yard between the home and the Ocean, but the 8 other homes on the same stretch with small wading pools need a 6ft fence per local ordinance all around the pool.

IT seems everyone has a different definition of what the word logical means.

 

[steveray]

But then again, I am still trying to figure out how the 35 homes along the Ocean on the Jersey Shore don't require a fence in the back yard between the home and the Ocean, but the 8 other homes on the same stretch with small wading pools need a 6ft fence per local ordinance all around the pool.

It's Jersey.....They know a guy....

 

[Mr. Inspector]

The existing public pool must of been at least 30 years old had a new fence built with a permit about 15 years ago. As far as I know the fence passed the inspections then but would not pass if built now. The new pool is the same as the old one except they also built a splash pad for kids too, which does not have any water depth.

They did excavation at two places under the fence where the ground sunk down and left a large opening under the fence. I made them fix just these two places.

 

[ICE]

This thread is a day old and so far the majority make an excuse for not taking action. Swimming pools are dangerous always. The codes, if correctly applied, mitigate some of the danger but certainly not all of it. The premise that an existing pool can be replaced and not tow the line with all available code is just wrong.

The people making the excuses will say, "It's not my decision." ... "I don't agree but my hands are tied."

To you I say: Write the correction. Let the recipient appeal. You readily admit that it is the right thing to do. Be on record for trying to do the right thing. You will be surprised at how many people would be too embarrassed to argue in favor of a dangerous swimming pool. If you do it often enough, perhaps the people that are in charge will see the light.

I have the experience to back this up. I always wrote a correction to install GFCI protection on swimming pool equipment circuits when a service panel was replaced. Countless electricians complained. The argument was that the existing circuit didn't have GFCI protection so I can't force them to install GFCI now. They bolstered their position with the fact that no work was done to the pool. I was singled out as a rogue inspector. That had merit.

I just didn't give a damn. I said screw you...put it in or I'll never approve it. Some went over my head... the person over me was loathe to override me when it comes to pool safety. I finally set it in stone. I can tell you that an easy way to end the bitching is to suggest that we ask the owner what they think about getting electrocuted on a hot Sunday afternoon.

So my point is that you are the final arbiter of what is safe. You can lay the blame on the State or a supervisor but in your heart you know better.

For all of my years with ** ****** I wrote pool barrier corrections every time I found an issue. It didn't matter why I was there. Could be a re-roof, a water heater, a furnace....it was the same result. For the first twenty years, that was ****** policy.... Then the managers grew weary and soft. The department morphed into a public relations whore.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

i also do the state 3 yr. Health Dept. electrical inspections for existing public swimming pools all over the state. This has nothing to do with permits but it's for a license to operate a public pool per state health dept. laws. If I see a pump that is fairly new or a new panel I don't pass it until they add GFI protection. I know they did not get a permit to do this work but these are 99% of the time out of my jurisdiction and I can't make them get a permit.

The permit for the public pool I was talking about does not include the existing fence. The Building Code official which is also my boss told me not to inspect the fence. I showed the owner the Inefficiencies of the fence which is all I can do.

 

[steveray]

This thread is a day old and so far the majority make an excuse for not taking action. Swimming pools are dangerous always. The codes, if correctly applied, mitigate some of the danger but certainly not all of it. The premise that an existing pool can be replaced and not tow the line with all available code is just wrong.

The people making the excuses will say, "It's not my decision." ... "I don't agree but my hands are tied."

To you I say: Write the correction. Let the recipient appeal. You readily admit that it is the right thing to do. Be on record for trying to do the right thing. You will be surprised at how many people would be too embarrassed to argue in favor of a dangerous swimming pool. If you do it often enough, perhaps the people that are in charge will see the light.

I have the experience to back this up. I always wrote a correction to install GFCI protection on swimming pool equipment circuits when a service panel was replaced. Countless electricians complained. The argument was that the existing circuit didn't have GFCI protection so I can't force them to install GFCI now. They bolstered their position with the fact that no work was done to the pool. I was singled out as a rogue inspector. That had merit.

I just didn't give a damn. I said screw you...put it in or I'll never approve it. Some went over my head... the person over me was loathe to override me when it comes to pool safety. I finally set it in stone. I can tell you that an easy way to end the bitching is to suggest that we ask the owner what they think about getting electrocuted on a hot Sunday afternoon.

So my point is that you are the final arbiter of what is safe. You can lay the blame on the State or a supervisor but in your heart you know better.

For all of my years with LA County I wrote pool barrier corrections every time I found an issue. It didn't matter why I was there. Could be a re-roof, a water heater, a furnace....it was the same result. For the first twenty years, that was County policy.... Then the managers grew weary and soft. The department morphed into a public relations whore.

Sometimes I wish it was that easy...And sometimes I don't....CT until recently had a requirement for a "self closing" ladder....Now that we are on 2021 ISPSC, that is gone...Should I still require it? I think it is a great idea, but it is no longer in my code...

(Amd) 104.1 General. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of
this code. The building official shall have the authority to adopt policies and procedures to clarify the
application of its provisions. Such policies and procedures shall comply with the intent and purpose of this
code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided
for in this code, nor shall they have the effect of establishing requirements in excess of those set forth in
this code.
(Add) 104.1.1 Rule-making authority. Pursuant to subsection (a) of section 29-252 of the Connecticut
General Statutes, the State Building Inspector and the Codes and Standards Committee shall, jointly, with
the approval of the Commissioner of Administrative Services, adopt and administer a State Building Code
for the purpose of regulating the design, construction and use of buildings or structures to be erected and
the alteration of buildings or structures already erected and make such amendments thereto as they, from
time to time, deem necessary or desirable.

I have no problem using my judgement, but Shirley not to the extent that it might cost me my license.......Maybe we need to put some "pool upgrade" stuff in the IEBC....Oh wait...We can't get to the IEBC from the IRC anymore....

 

[tmurray]

Issues like this need more thought in general. Assuming the pool was in operation up to the time they did the work, the barrier was just as dangerous before as it would be after.

The question I would have is if this barrier presents such a hazard to the safety of the public, why are we waiting for someone to decide to do work on the pool to require an upgrade?

Where we act in in expressed societal interest of public safety, and where this is an inherently dangerous condition, should it not be required to be upgraded regardless of the pool condition?

I also question if we aren't too quick to put everything in the same process. Normally in the code, if it was constructed to code initially, you can leave it for eternity. Maybe this doesn't work for everything.

But then again, there is a difference between what the law allows government officials to do and what is in the best interest of society...

 

[ICE]

But then again, there is a difference between what the law allows government officials to do and what is in the best interest of society...

The law allows us to do anything that we see fit to do. The law allows society to undo anything that we set out to do. There is a process. There might be a code and sometimes not. When there is a code, society can file a formal appeal. When there is no code, society can appeal to a higher authority.

How it plays out is up to the individual. The jurisdiction had a formal, retroactive swimming pool barrier ordinance so I was always on solid a footing with that. The path to GFCI protection during a service upgrade is a bit convoluted but a talented inspector navigates the NEC to his/her/they satisfaction.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

When the chain link fence was new and inspected it was allowed to have 2.25" square openings per the 2006 IBC. The 2018 ISPSC that we use now only allows 1.75 square openings. Do you think the 1,500' long fence should be replaced when it complied to code when it was built now that the same size pool was replaced?

 

[steveray]

When the chain link fence was new and inspected it was allowed to have 2.25" square openings per the 2006 IBC. The 2018 ISPSC that we use now only allows 1.75 square openings. Do you think the 1,500' long fence should be replaced when it complied to code when it was built now that the same size pool was replaced?

As ICE says...there is a line and we should be able to use judgment.....Next thing you know we will be GFCI'ing the AC condensers on replacement....Oh wait....

 

[TonyC]

The fence is required for safety reasons because of the swimming pool. If the pool was replaced the fence should also meet the existing code. Especially if there is no code compliant gate and unsecured fencing.