# pool barrier on raised deck



## Rick18071 (Oct 3, 2016)

I have someone building a deck by a inground pool. The fence was taken down where the deck is being built. The deck floor is only 28" from grade at it's highest part which is near the pool and down to 0" above grade on the far end. . The deck doesn't need a 36" railing because it is only 28" high. The code for a pool barrier requires the barrier to be 48" above grade.

 So if they build a 20" high railing above the deck floor as part of the pool barrier on the deck the top of the barrier would be the 48" above grade. Would this be  complying with code?

They also want a stairway from the deck to the pool. If they build the gate on the deck on top of the stairs it would it only need to be 20" high from the deck floor too?

But they need to measure from the bottom of the gate 54" to the latch. So would this comply it the latch was 34" high above the 20" high gate?

Do they make a pool latch that long?


----------



## JBI (Oct 3, 2016)

The 48" guard height is measured from the *outside* of the barrier, not the inside. The intent is to provide a barrier that will reduce the likelihood of a small child climbing over the barrier and accessing the pool. 
Option 1 - Provide a Code compliant barrier around the entire deck.
Option 2 - Provide a code compliant barrier between the deck and the pool. 
Their choice.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 3, 2016)

You may need to measure from the outside of the barrier but also you measure from grade, not from floor.


----------



## tbz (Oct 3, 2016)

Rick18071 said:


> I have someone building a deck by a inground pool. The fence was taken down where the deck is being built. The deck floor is only 28" from grade at it's highest part which is near the pool and down to 0" above grade on the far end. . The deck doesn't need a 36" railing because it is only 28" high. The code for a pool barrier requires the barrier to be 48" above grade.
> 
> So if they build a 20" high railing above the deck floor as part of the pool barrier on the deck the top of the barrier would be the 48" above grade. Would this be  complying with code?
> 
> ...



Rick,

Forget the deck and look at the exterior of the barrier as a whole.

If your deck is 28" high and you add 20" on top of it to meet the 48" height from the exterior AND this barrier of 48" meets or exceeds the requirements of the non-climb ability portion of the code either with a 45" vertical clear zone or smooth exterior surface and that the barrier follows the height requirements of the exterior growing in height then I would say you comply for the barrier.  But your Barrier would grow from 20" on the high part of the deck to 48" at the ground level of the deck.

However, you have me total confused with your gate question.  You can't have a compliant riser height for the stairs and the gate only be 20" high.  If you have an opening for your toe hold over 1.75" square, then that point restarts the 45" clear zone.

Thus the only way that works is if you don't have compliant stairs accessing the the deck. 

I would need to see a picture or sketch of what you are noting, I am just not following the gate question.

Tom


----------



## steveray (Oct 4, 2016)

Like Tom said.....The climbability is a real PITA.....With the 45" because the deck stickout and space under guardrail are usually an issue. Retroing is a nightmare, if you are building new it is only half a nightmare...


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 4, 2016)

2009 IRC AG105.2 Outdoor swimming pool.
An outdoor swimming pool, including an in-ground, above-ground or on-ground pool, hot tub or spa shall be surrounded by a barrier which shall comply with the following:
1. The top of the barrier shall be at least 48 inches (1219 mm) *above grade* measured on the side of the barrier which faces away from the swimming pool. The maximum vertical clearance between grade and the bottom of the barrier shall be 2 inches (51 mm) measured on the side of the barrier which faces away from the swimming pool. Where the top of the pool structure is above grade, such as an above-ground pool, the barrier may be at ground level, such as the pool structure, or mounted on top of the pool structure. Where the barrier is mounted on top of the pool structure, the maximum vertical clearance between the top of the pool structure and the bottom of the barrier shall be 4 inches (102 mm).

The code says 48" above grade, not from a floor. The grade is 28" below the deck floor. So if you measure from grade (on the side of the barrier away from the pool) the barrier above the 28" high deck floor only needs to be 20" high to be 48" above grade.

It seems to me that that the code should require a barrier to be 48" above a walking surface not grade. But there must be a reason why they only wanted to measure from grade.


----------



## JPohling (Oct 4, 2016)

sounds like an error.  I am sure the intent is to have a 48" barrier from the walking surface.


----------



## FLSTF01 (Oct 4, 2016)

I would have an issue with a "railing" only 20 inches above the walking surface of a deck.  If it looks like a railing it should be a railing, in my opinion.  I may not be able to back that up with code.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 4, 2016)

SECTION R202
DEFINITIONS
.GRADE. The finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls .

The word "grade" in section AG105.2 is in italics.

This is what it says in the IRC preface:
*Italicized Terms*
Selected terms set forth in Chapter 2, Definitions, are italicized where they appear in code text. Such terms are not italicized where the definition set forth in Chapter 2 does not impart the intended meaning in the use of the term. The terms selected have definitions which the user should read carefully to facilitate better understanding of the code.


----------



## my250r11 (Oct 4, 2016)

Our state rewrote Chapter 1 and it allows us to abate unsafe conditions concerning life safety hazards. IMO this would be an unsafe condition and would require a guard to keep someone from falling from the deck into the pool.


----------



## ICE (Oct 4, 2016)

When it comes to pool barriers, grade starts at the lowest standing surface next to the barrier and goes up from there.  Handholds and footholds cause the starting point to rise to the occasion.  The idea is to create a nearly insurmountable climb for a child of a certain age.  I have seen plenty of well intended barriers that fell short.
The quickest way to get it wrong is to not have a plan.  Then I hear, "Well we didn't think that would be a problem"..... (a 14" high planter) (a series of steps in a block wall) (a 20" high railing above the deck floor)

Here is one from today. This is on the pool side.  There is a doorknob and the diamond mesh is there to keep a kid from reaching the knob through the barrier.





And here we are on the street side.  There's another doorknob so that the kid can open the gate.  It's even down there at nose level.


----------



## Keystone (Oct 4, 2016)

Rick, 

We've run into this several times with the exception of the entire deck being a consistent height above grade. I my scenario what we require is give them the following options;
 1.build a solid barrier (no openings) atop of the deck, min height of 48".
OR
 2. Place a complying fence with gate, latch, swing, etc...

If they elect to take on #1 then it gets interesting, the stairs to grade must meet the 48" barrier as well and have a boxed out landing area also at barrier height at the base with gate, latch, swing, etc...


----------



## mark handler (Oct 4, 2016)

This is Another case where the intent of the code does not meet the letter of the code.
It is like requiring a guardrail on a deck and putting in a 18" built-in seat in front of it and wondering why the child fell over the required rail.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 5, 2016)

My problem is that the contractor is giving me a hard time and keeps quoting from the IRC that says 48" above grade.
We are using the 2009 IRC, does anyone know if this was changed in 2012 or 2015? I have the 2006 IRC commentary which doesn't help. It says "the barrier height of 48" above the ground is based on reports..............".


----------



## mark handler (Oct 5, 2016)

Have the owner sign a document that they will take personal responsibility for any drownings


----------



## steveray (Oct 5, 2016)

.GRADE. The finished ground level...The deck is the finish.....At least depending on which side of the pool barrier you are on....


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 6, 2016)

SECTION R202
DEFINITIONS
.GRADE. The finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls.

see post #9


----------



## tbz (Oct 6, 2016)

Rick18071 said:


> My problem is that the contractor is giving me a hard time and keeps quoting from the IRC that says 48" above grade.
> We are using the 2009 IRC, does anyone know if this was changed in 2012 or 2015? I have the 2006 IRC commentary which doesn't help. It says "the barrier height of 48" above the ground is based on reports..............".



Rick,

It's simple, the universal intent of the barrier requirement from the time of the required non-climbable pool barrier is the 45" clear zone restarts every time you have a new foot hold established.  doesnt matter where the grade starts, its dependent on when the barrier compliance is met, and they have to be a minimum of 48", thus you add a foot hold, that just adds to the height.  The problem comes in at 72-1/2" when engineering is now required because fences over 72" are required to be engineered.  

This has nothing to do with the a guard requirement. unless I am reading something wrong.  That is a seprate issue on its own.

The height of the barrier of 48" is a minimum, the climbability features restarts the clock.

If they dont like it, tell them to go over your head, I would not sign off.

Now If I am reading something wrong here then thats different, but 45" clear zone met with minimum 48" high, there are 2 parts, not just height.

regards - Tom


----------



## tbz (Oct 6, 2016)

Rick,

on another note, we have had to establish many a clear zone for clients, here is one that will make you think twice.  Client built a stone wall yard raised up, we were going to be installing just a gate and a small section of fence to keep the clear zone from the base of the stair flight.  Because of the roughness of the stone wall the entire base of the stonewall was required to fenced in.


----------



## tbz (Oct 6, 2016)

mark handler said:


> This is Another case where the intent of the code does not meet the letter of the code.
> It is like requiring a guardrail on a deck and putting in a 18" built-in seat in front of it and wondering why the child fell over the required rail.



Mark,

The code was changed in 2009 to the guard height starting from the fixed seating of the built in seat, go figure 2 code cycles later building officials voted to have the requirement removed.  

I am not sure what to say other than, it was in and now it is out.


----------



## JBI (Oct 7, 2016)

tbz - 
It's out because the height for a guard is measured from a walking surface and a built in bench is not a walking surface.


----------



## tbz (Oct 7, 2016)

JBI said:


> tbz -
> It's out because the height for a guard is measured from a walking surface and a built in bench is not a walking surface.



JBI,

Yes I know, my point to Mark was the CTC added the wording in to the code through proposals to raise the height of the guards behind fixed seating to help limit the chance of a child walking on fixed seating being exposed to the lesser height.

Thus, the wording was inserted into the code in 2009 only to have it removed from the code in later code cycles.

So the code had the restriction which was then later removed, and since the final action hearings are mainly public inspectors, they are the ones that approved the removal from the code.

Thus, - Go figure


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 10, 2016)

Thanks tbz. Looks like I can used the requirement of the 45" between horizontal members to make the builders raise the top of the barrier at least 45" above the floor.


----------



## steven jones (Mar 26, 2018)

tbz said:


> Rick,
> 
> on another note, we have had to establish many a clear zone for clients, here is one that will make you think twice.  Client built a stone wall yard raised up, we were going to be installing just a gate and a small section of fence to keep the clear zone from the base of the stair flight.  Because of the roughness of the stone wall the entire base of the stonewall was required to fenced in.


Rick,  I assume the pool is on the upper lever hidden from view. Even if a person were to scale the rough stone wall, does not the fence on top keep them away from the pool?   I can't quite see how the lower fence (with the hedge) adds to the safety of this situation.  Although, I guess if there was only a 48 in. gate at the bottom of the stairs, a determined person could use the stone wall to climb up and over to gain access at the bottom of the stairs.


----------



## steven jones (Mar 26, 2018)

steven jones said:


> Rick,  I assume the pool is on the upper lever hidden from view. Even if a person were to scale the rough stone wall, does not the fence on top keep them away from the pool?   I can't quite see how the lower fence (with the hedge) adds to the safety of this situation.  Although, I guess if there was only a 48 in. gate at the bottom of the stairs, a determined person could use the stone wall to climb up and over to gain access at the bottom of the stairs.


 

Unable to edit post so I added this reply.  Intended for TBZ not Rick.  Please explain what jurisdiction this is in.
Thanks


----------



## mark handler (Mar 26, 2018)

tbz said:


> Mark,
> The code was changed in 2009 to the guard height starting from the fixed seating of the built in seat, go figure 2 code cycles later building officials voted to have the requirement removed.
> 
> I am not sure what to say other than, it was in and now it is out.


Okay now i have moveable benches and tables
	

		
			
		

		
	



How does the climing effect the rail?


----------



## JBI (Mar 26, 2018)

Which is precisely why it was removed from the Code...


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Mar 26, 2018)

Not sure where I picked this up, do any of you measure 36-inches out from the deck to determine the 30-inch height requirement from grade on a yard that slopes down?  Just asking.


----------



## JBI (Mar 26, 2018)

Pcinspector, you 'picked it up' from the IRC in the 'Guards and Window Fall Protection' section.


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 27, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Not sure where I picked this up, do any of you measure 36-inches out from the deck to determine the 30-inch height requirement from grade on a yard that slopes down?  Just asking.



Yes I do this. Had a few decks where they dumped some dirt along the edge of the deck to keep the deck below 30" to grade.


----------



## Keystone (Mar 27, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> Not sure where I picked this up, do any of you measure 36-inches out from the deck to determine the 30-inch height requirement from grade on a yard that slopes down?  Just asking.



Certainly Do.  This horizontal measurement triggers fencing/railing the majority of the time.


----------



## Keystone (Mar 27, 2018)

Rick, we run into this and it's a pain in the as-. We require full height barrier from whatever the established grade is, if that established grade happens to be a deck then the deck floor is ground zero for our 48" measurement.  That established grade is our interpretation of the code, code language can not be black and white when attempting to address so many issues. 

Also I'm one of the slim few but I do not permit gates at the top of stairs or on the last tread to act as part of the barrier/gate assembly. A 36" landing area that is fenced would in my view be required that is fenced/part of the barrier or they can hold the entire barrier off 3' from the bottom most stair.   Reason being, a gate on the bottom tread does not comply with fence requirements for permitted dimensions.


----------



## Rick18071 (Mar 29, 2018)

Rick18071 said:


> SECTION R202
> DEFINITIONS
> .GRADE. The finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls .
> 
> ...



I don't see how a elevated  deck floor can be called a finished ground level.  

The code probably shouldn't be italicizing the word grade in this section. I will be measuring from the walking surface or a bench or anything else that is permanently built even though it is against what the code says, but if confronted with this by the owner or contractor it seams I don't have anything to stand on.

We will be adopting newer codes soon, has this been changed to walking surface?


----------



## TZJR (Apr 5, 2018)

steven jones said:


> Rick,  I assume the pool is on the upper lever hidden from view. Even if a person were to scale the rough stone wall, does not the fence on top keep them away from the pool?   I can't quite see how the lower fence (with the hedge) adds to the safety of this situation.  Although, I guess if there was only a 48 in. gate at the bottom of the stairs, a determined person could use the stone wall to climb up and over to gain access at the bottom of the stairs.



Steven,

You had 3 levels, you had the main ground level off the back of the house, then down 1 level to the mid level yard with the swimming pool and then the lower level yard, which is were the picture is viewed from.

There is no fence on top the wall, that is "36 inch high Guard", to protect someone from falling off the pool level.  

Here is the other situation we found curious.  On the upper level which was 12 feet above the pool level below, the inspector required us to install a pool barrier between the open yard and the pool on the mid level.  The only way to get to the pool, was to climb over the "guard" on the upper level and fall down 12 feet to the mid level yard below where the pool was.  Thus, they wanted protection from jumping off the patio above, down 12 ft to the lower level were the pool was.

This one still makes me think why, and just so you know, what you don't see in the picture if I turn 180 degrees and took it again you are looking right out in to the Long Island Sound.

Access from the next door residents is also all fenced in, they have pools also.

So to re-cap, swim in from the ocean to land, walk across the yard to stone 12 ft high wall, scale it, climb over 36 inch guard on top of wall so you can drown in the pool.

Hope this helps

Regards - TBZ


----------



## TZJR (Apr 5, 2018)

mark handler said:


> Okay now i have moveable benches and tables
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mark,

Pull the code a part anyway you want, but here is a simple look at it.

Inspectors complain all the time about "Climbable Guards" things like cable and pipe, the injury statistics show no problem, but inspectors jump up and down about this all the time, we have seen it right on this forum, time and time again.

The same inspectors that talk about climbable guard designs also tell us, go right ahead and install fixed seating against the guard, there is no problem, because the code tells us to measure from the walking surface. 

Thus during the review of Climbable guards by the CTC, the wording was inserted that was similar to that used in bleachers.  Thus, though no problem was seen, but wording was added that simply said, if you install fixed seating then you needed to raise the guard height.  If you didn't want to raise the guard height, then don't install fixed seating. 

Now fast forward, everyone is complaining they have to raise the guard height because the seating is fixed in place, but if not fixed in place the guard height is fine. 

Thus, my comment "Go Figure"

Now here is the real question, what is the most common type of guard that is climb over?  Well if you review the data, you will find the majority of the time, its solid half height walls , why you say well my guess is because they can't see what is on the other side and thus climb over to see.

Think about that for a bit.

Regards - Tom


----------



## TZJR (Apr 5, 2018)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't see how a elevated  deck floor can be called a finished ground level.
> 
> The code probably shouldn't be italicizing the word grade in this section. I will be measuring from the walking surface or a bench or anything else that is permanently built even though it is against what the code says, but if confronted with this by the owner or contractor it seams I don't have anything to stand on.
> 
> We will be adopting newer codes soon, has this been changed to walking surface?



Rick,

Why does everyone want to make the barrier section of the pool code complicated.

Its simple. Stand on the outside and look at the pool.  The barrier needs to keep someone from getting to the pool.  Does not matter what is between you and the pool.

Rocks, trees, decks, patios, car sculptures, dinosaurs pick one, the barrier must be a minimum of 48" high, must have non climbable foots holds for a minimum of 45" of rise.

Tell them to Implant that picture between them and the pool.

Then pick, Install the barrier to compliance or don't install the pool, its that simple. 

Regards - TBZ


----------



## TZJR (Apr 5, 2018)

JBI said:


> Pcinspector, you 'picked it up' from the IRC in the 'Guards and Window Fall Protection' section.



It is in both the model IBC & model IRC charging statement for where guards are required.

Some AHJ adopt it as is, some increase the 36" distance and others remove it all together.  But its in the where required, requirements.

TBZ


----------



## mark handler (Apr 5, 2018)

TZJR said:


> Mark,
> 
> Pull the code a part anyway you want, but here is a simple look at it.
> 
> ...


Think about what? What are you saying?


----------



## tmurray (Apr 6, 2018)

TZJR said:


> Mark,
> 
> Pull the code a part anyway you want, but here is a simple look at it.
> 
> ...



Canada actually eliminated the non-climbable guard requirements on anything that is not more than 1 storey in height and not more than 4.2m above the adjacent ground. The reality is that there are very few injuries and no documented deaths in Canada from climbing over guards that are not above these heights. 

Pool barriers are not handled under the building code here. This is accomplished through local by-laws.


----------



## mark handler (Apr 6, 2018)

tmurray said:


> Canada actually eliminated the non-climbable guard requirements on anything that is not more than 1 storey in height and not more than 4.2m above the adjacent ground. The reality is that there are very few injuries and no documented deaths in Canada from climbing over guards that are not above these heights.
> 
> Pool barriers are not handled under the building code here. This is accomplished through local by-laws.


The Swimming Pool Safety Act 115920 - 115929

California pool safety code includes the "climbing provision":
 An outside surface free of protrusions, cavities, or other physical characteristics that would serve as handholds or footholds that could enable a child below the age of five years to climb over.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Apr 6, 2018)

To Jester the inspector,

I have river front property and a natural five feet deep pond available for dipping, fishing and fun at ones own risk without liability to me. And if I construct an aquatic vessel that's not intended for swimming, bathing or wading i.e. a fish pond, irrigation reservoir or a watering hole for wildlife or the farm animals a barrier still would not be required.

In any event some kids like to climb the fence!


----------

