Neighbor's fence does not meet barrier requirements.

[Buelligan]

Hey I got one for you. We have someone installing a new pool and on one side of his yard, at the property line, the neighbor has a 6 ft. privacy fence and the horizontals are away from the pool. They are less than 45" apart and no covering. The neighbor will not turn the fence around and the fence is eniterly around his yard. So one would have to circumvent the 6' fence to get to this pool. So would you accept this situation or what solutions would you propose? I suggested adding the same picketts to the fence on the opposite side to cover up the horizontals. Another idea would be to build another fence but how far away would it have to be from this 6' fence so that one could not use it to get over his 4' fence? Obviously they are reluctant to spend any money on his neighbors fence but this, in my opinion, will not meet code. Any thoughts?

Mike

 

[TJacobs]

Aboveground or inground?

 

[Mac]

Barrier requirements should be met on the lot where the pool is located. The neighbor can remove his fence anytime (unless it's part of his own pool barrier).

The entire yard doesn't need to be fenced, only the pool needs the barrier. Maybe they can make it smaller?

 

[High Desert]

The owner of the pool is responsible for the barrier, not the neighbor. As Mac said, build another barrier that conforms.

 

[cboboggs]

Agree with Mac, the person installing the pool has to mee the barrier requirements. I would suggest only installing the barrier around the pool.

 

[mjesse]

Barrier requirements should be met on the lot where the pool is located. The neighbor can remove his fence anytime (unless it's part of his own pool barrier).The entire yard doesn't need to be fenced, only the pool needs the barrier. Maybe they can make it smaller?

What he said ^

mj

 

[tbz]

Hey I got one for you. We have someone installing a new pool and on one side of his yard, at the property line, the neighbor has a 6 ft. privacy fence and the horizontals are away from the pool. They are less than 45" apart and no covering. The neighbor will not turn the fence around and the fence is eniterly around his yard. So one would have to circumvent the 6' fence to get to this pool. So would you accept this situation or what solutions would you propose? I suggested adding the same picketts to the fence on the opposite side to cover up the horizontals. Another idea would be to build another fence but how far away would it have to be from this 6' fence so that one could not use it to get over his 4' fence? Obviously they are reluctant to spend any money on his neighbors fence but this, in my opinion, will not meet code. Any thoughts?Mike

Buelligan,

1st off think of this in reverse, what if the neighbor installed their fence after this person did?

In any matter, as a custom fence builder, we always tell clients that the pool barrier should be approximately 42 inches minimum from the property line. Most don't like it, but after talking to them about it they get the picture.

A.) when more than 36" in from the property line someone needs to trespass to get to the fence.

B.) Objects placed on neighboring property is not within a small kids reach.

C.) cutting the lawn is so much simpler when the mower fits.

D.) Forget the clients current fence what about planter boxes and other fixed raised beds the neighbor can add.

Though one could argue that what happens once on the other side of the property line is not part of the equation, it surly sums up the problem fast.

I would simply state according to what I am seeing, this does not comply with the intent of the code and your fence needs to be set back min-36" according to the CPSC. (I know don't say it, may be leave out CPSC and say industry standards)

The 36" climbable offset from fence is in the new (swimming pool stand alone code ) might not be in the current but in the CPSC and Newer coming codes.

Also in ASTM standard I believe... again not code, but common place.

Let them think awhile and also leave them with do you want to hear splish splash in the night...........

Tom

 

[Buelligan]

First this in an inground pool.

He wanted to avoid a second fence 4' into his property but after all these posts I don't see many other solutions. Now I have a list of reasons that seemed to escape me when I was speaking to him. Thanks guys as usual this is an incredible source for these type of questions. Even if to just to get a different perspective.

 

[mjesse]

The 36" climbable offset from fence is in the new (swimming pool stand alone code ) might not be in the current but in the CPSC and Newer coming codes.

Really?

I haven't seen that. We just finished revising our pool fence Code, and that makes good sense.

Thanks,

mj

 

[TimNY]

Have to agree with everybody else, the owner of the pool need to furnish the fence. To final a pool permit we require a survey indicating the fence is on the pool owner's lot.

 

[jpranch]

Have to agree with everybody else, the owner of the pool need to furnish the fence. To final a pool permit we require a survey indicating the fence is on the pool owner's lot.

A survey??? For a pool??? 24" in depth or better??? May the saints perserve us! No offence Tim but isn't that a bit over the top? Rule #1: Thou shalt leave thy neighbor the heck alone. Period. The applicant is responsible for the minimum code requirements regardless of how ridiculous they may seem.

 

[TimNY]

What, no zoning in Wyoming?

A survey is not even close to over the top.

Does the homeowner also calculate the lot coverage, rear yard coverage, and natural area of the lot? Do we verify setbacks with a tape measure?

Maybe if you have 100 acres you can put a pool where you want.

 

[jpranch]

It's a pool. I can buy one a Walmart for less than $70. Then your telling me that I have to have a surveory confirm it's exact location? Tim, don't get me wrong. I'm not cracking on you at all. Just questioning the wisdom behind the requirement? 1,000 acres or 1/4 arcre. No wonder that homeowners don't pull permits.

Example: Delta PA. Blow-up pool from Walmart. Permit fee $250.00. Then you have to pay a third party inspection agency additional money to do the inspection. If you want to challenge anything the inspector says there is a $500.00 appeals fee. Additional location survey fee??? What ever the market will bear. Wow.

Zoning in Wyoming. You bet. Just like NY state or any other state it depends on what jurisdiction you happen to be in will determine the level of enforcement.

 

[TimNY]

This is an in-ground pool, presumably a permanent structure.

Storable pools are a different animal, and not what I believe we are talking about?

I have yet to see a storable pool in my jurisdiction.

I just inspected a $78k pool.. 20x40.. nothing special except a vanishing edge. Minimum pool cost I remember seeing was 13k for a vinyl (at least that's the cost they put on the permit application)

I suppose if storable pools became desirable it would create a need for some modification of local ordinance.

Remember zoning amendments are driven by the public, not the municipality. I don't even live in my jurisdiction.. they could line up their pool equipment right next to the AC condensers and the dog kennels on the property line; I have no stake in the matter.

For now, the public wants those noisy screaming kids (their words, not mine) 15 feet from the property line. They want the pool equipment 10 feet from the line.

Fences get moved, markers an pins are incorrect.. the house gets sold three times and the new HO is stuck with the non-conforming problems unless everything is verified as it is constructed.

I am all for less government, but ultimately the municipality is responsible to the constituents.. or at least the ones that know where and when the board meetings are held.

 

[jpranch]

I understand perhaps more than you know. Having been an inspector and plans examiner in Maryland 16 1/2 years before moving to Wyoming I had to deal with the same issues and compliants. What a can of worms. Wish I had all the answers but I surly don't. I have to wonder if the logic of if you can afford a inground pool then you surly have the additional money to meet additional requirements? But keep in mind that the code does say any that can hold 24" or greater shall comply. Inground, above ground, or on ground. Tim, this is good stuff and the very foundational reason for this site to exist. Please keeep is coming.

Post Script: Perhaps there is a bright side to having 9 months of winter??? LOL!!! No Pools!

 

[jpranch]

But back to the orginial post. I think the applacant and the applicant alone is respondsible to meet code.

 

[FredK]

I'll agree with the others the guy needs his own fence.

 

[tbz]

Really?I haven't seen that. We just finished revising our pool fence Code, and that makes good sense.

Thanks,

mj

Proposed in new code:

307.3.10 Clear Zone. There shall be a clear zone of no less than 36 inches (914 mm) between the barrier for or on a pool, spa, or hot tub and any permanent structures or pool equipment such as pumps, filters, heaters, etc. that can be used to climb the barrier.This 36” needs to be measured from the outside of the required barrier. The Clear Zone must be present and measurable. It protects against using equipment, etc. to defeat the barrier.

307.3.11 Poolside Barrier Setbacks. The poolside of the required barrier shall not be less than twenty (20) inches from the water’s edge.

I am going with the overall intent of the wording to not lower the protection of the barrier with raised objects, landscaping and other possible permanent obstacles.

Tom

 

[steveray]

JP.....that $75 pool still needs a few hundred bucks of permanent wiring, and probably a few hundred more of barrier...Here, some towns require a survey (if no as-built available) for anything close to the setbacks, and some just take the applicants word and drawings as gospel....there are upsides and downsides to both and that (zoning)is subect to change on the political winds...

 

[mtlogcabin]

Haven't read a swimming pool requirement since I left Fl and SBCCI land. Some very specific requirements for barriers but like JP we just don't see them here with our 3 days of summer.

Agree with others barrier needs to be under the control of the pool owner

 

[High Desert]

mtlogcabin, 3 days of summer? When does that happen. I remember building some vacation cabins in Chico Hot Springs years ago and it snowed in June.

 

[mtlogcabin]

When I first moved here in 97 I worked for the local Yamaha dealership. There where 3 guys who had a goal of snowmobiling somewhere in Montana every month and they did it. My daughter went snow skiing on July 4 and there where snow flurries August 15 at the local fair one year. I didn't say the 3 days of summer where consecative.

 

[mjesse]

Proposed in new code: I am going with the overall intent of the wording to not lower the protection of the barrier with raised objects, landscaping and other possible permanent obstacles.

Tom

Thanks for the Code section.

It was the 36"-42" from the lot line that threw me. I knew about the separation from "climb-able objects" but hadn't considered a lot line separation.

Our revised Code does allow for pool barriers to be installed on the lot line. Hard to control what the neighbors put up against the fence, but I would think (hope) that there is case law to protect the pool owner if someone gets over the fence from a neighboring property.

Regarding temporary pools: They are not permitted in our Village (neither are above ground pools or fountains greater than 24" deep)

All in-ground pools here require civil record drawings upon completion.

mj

 

[mark handler]

Octomom may be cited for above-ground poolCity giving her seven days to comply

Posted: 08/18/2011 02:28:10 PM PDT

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_18710074

LA HABRA - TMZ.com got it wrong Thursday when the celebrity gossip website reported that Octomom Nadya Suleman had been cited $100 for having a Doughboy above-ground pool in her backyard on Madonna Lane without a permit.

Roy Fewell, La Habra's chief building official, said the city had notified Suleman's attorney, Jeff Czech, about the alleged violation but Suleman called City Hall and claimed Czech hadn't been her attorney for a year and a half.

So Fewell said the city issued a new notice of violation on Wednesday and that the single mother of 14 has seven days to comply before receiving the $100 fine.

Fewell said Suleman's pool is 4-feet deep and requires at least a 4-foot self-latching fence just like any other built-in pool.

"She will be fined if she doesn't respond," Fewell, 65, said.

Fewell said Suleman's original violation was sent out on July 28.

"We'll give her seven days. We're not interested in close-order legalisms, just getting her to comply. With any pool it's a dangerous situation. We're not concerned with how many kids she has, but death by drowning is the No. 1 cause of death with children under 5. I don't want to see a death on my watch," Fewell said.