# Barriers



## Keystone (Aug 1, 2012)

PASS or FAIL?

IG pool with wood split rail having 1 3/4" by 4" wire fencing stapled to the exterior of the stockade. Height, gates, etc... not a concern.


----------



## steveray (Aug 2, 2012)

Maybe pass.....1-3/4" is usually the magic # on spacing for unclimbability w/ vert and horiz members........(assuming that is the width dim.).....


----------



## ICE (Aug 2, 2012)

It sounds like it's too easy to climb.  Hand holds are not allowed.   A kid with no legs could be over it in a flash.   And if he had no arms as well, we would call him Bob.


----------



## Keystone (Aug 2, 2012)

The 1 3/4" is vertical and the 4" is horizontal.

ICE - Bob is appropriate for the first couple minutes but his last name would have to follow "Sinker".


----------



## steveray (Aug 2, 2012)

Sorry!....No good! we have some nice parting gifts for you out back then!



			
				Keystone said:
			
		

> The 1 3/4" is vertical and the 4" is horizontal.ICE - Bob is appropriate for the first couple minutes but his last name would have to follow "Sinker".


----------



## Keystone (Aug 2, 2012)

My interpretation, the fence does not comply. IMHO, re: 2009 IRC, the fence is most similar to a chain link, also referred to as mesh, and the limiting dimensions for opening of a chain link apply. Additionally lattice opening offer less of an open dimension.

Neighboring and building official feel the original opening complies. What say some of the inspectors in rural and suburban areas?


----------



## Alias (Aug 3, 2012)

Question - When you say 'wood split rail' I envision a rail fence a la Abe Lincoln.  Is this what you mean?

Sue


----------



## Keystone (Aug 3, 2012)

Alias, see attached

http://www.cedarsplitrails.com/sitebuilder/images/BL_CEDAR_SPLIT_RAIL_postbeam-646x230.jpg


----------



## Keystone (Aug 3, 2012)

The mesh fence would be stapled on the exterior side of the fence.


----------



## steveray (Aug 3, 2012)

I think this is the section that would get them, I don't think you need the chain link or latttice reference..........

4. Where the barrier is composed of horizontal and vertical members and the distance between the tops of the horizontal members is less than 45 inches (1143 mm), the horizontal members shall be located on the swimming pool side of the fence. Spacing between vertical members shall not exceed 1.75 inches (44 mm) in width. Where there are decorative cutouts within vertical members, spacing within the cutouts shall not exceed 1.75 inches (44 mm) in width.


----------



## mjesse (Aug 3, 2012)

I concur with steveray ^


----------



## Keystone (Aug 3, 2012)

I would agree but the limiting factor in #4 is the width at 1 3/4", no limiting factor with respect to horizontal. What I get from the commentary is not clear either, they illustrate a fence with one decorative cutout at the top.

My first comment was non-climbable but realized nothing in the code to back it up.

Two straws I continue to grasp;

1. The fence material attached to the split rail is consistent with a chain link material/construction.

2. The commentary illustration showing #4 as well as other vertical/horizontal references seem to elude to non-wire/non-mesh type material similar to whats in place but instead providing the opinion of rigid/solid construction.


----------



## Keystone (Aug 3, 2012)

After second look, I think I know where you guys are going with #4. The horizontal must be on the inside/ pool side not the pool side (split rail) and the exterior (mesh fencing).


----------



## steveray (Aug 6, 2012)

Think of your split rail as a ladder.....if the horizontal rails (or whaterver horizontals your barrier is made of (deck surface, whatever)) are closer than 45" they have to be on the pool side and the vertical spacing (4" chicken wire,ballusters, or whatever) has to be 1-3/4" max....the wire in and of itself would be argueable....having climbed many a chainlink fence barefoot, I don't think wire would be easier....



			
				Keystone said:
			
		

> After second look, I think I know where you guys are going with #4. The horizontal must be on the inside/ pool side not the pool side (split rail) and the exterior (mesh fencing).


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 6, 2012)

The wire mesh should be securely fastened to the post at the top and bottom and no more than 12 inches apart. No more than 2 inches apart along the horizontal top and bottom rails. Need to have the bottom of the fabric embedded or staked below the soil; it's not likely to have a tension wire stretched to prevent lifting the fabric and crawl underneath.

















Francis


----------



## steveray (Aug 6, 2012)

Good pic Francis!......The only thing that looks really suspect would be latch height?


----------



## Keystone (Aug 6, 2012)

Francis, the top pic is closest to what I am dealing with, actually seems to be similar spacing. Its this that I do not feel complies due to the spacing. IMO, once you slap on the mesh, you revert to the closest relation, chainlink requirements - max 2 1/4" opening.

 I do see the need for ground level tension or burial as well as 12" OC fastening.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 6, 2012)

I copied the pictures from a fence company in Maryland. I used to install commercial fence 30 yrs. ago and manage to remember a little bit. If you search "pool barrier fence wire mesh minimum gage" you can find some code handouts that require 16, 11 or 14 gage, and permit this type of install.

Normally chain link fence less than 6 ft. will not have bottom tension wire (coil wire) and it may be the case with the wire mesh; depends on the thickness (gage) and memory of the wire.

Francis


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 6, 2012)

Keystone said:
			
		

> Francis, the top pic is closest to what I am dealing with, actually seems to be similar spacing. Its this that I do not feel complies due to the spacing. IMO, once you slap on the mesh, you revert to the closest relation, chainlink requirements - max 2 1/4" opening. I do see the need for ground level tension or burial as well as 12" OC fastening.


5. Where the barrier is composed of horizontal and vertical members, and the distance between the tops of the horizontal members is 45 inches (1143 mm) or more, spacing between vertical members shall not exceed 4 inches (102 mm). Where there are decorative cutouts within vertical members, spacing within the cutouts shall not exceed 13/4 inches (44 mm) in width.

Should you do a search manufacturer's and fence companies promote the mesh as pool barrier compliant as do code officials.

The fastener spacing is chain link standard. I should have written that the bottom or ground level tension is "to be installed as needed" done for pool barriers but not for border fences. 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.

I have not check the new pool barrier reference for standards.

Francis


----------



## Keystone (Aug 7, 2012)

No no no Francis, everyone is supposed to agree with me


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 7, 2012)

Keystone, I appreciate these tests you give us, and I might not of heard what you said that you think I heard for me to give you the answer you wanted.

Francis


----------



## Durant (Aug 15, 2012)

We don't enforce the barrier requirements; wish we did.  Approximately 6 to 8 kids a year die in pool drownings in Oklahoma each year.  I see pools around her open to the road.


----------



## Keystone (Sep 20, 2012)

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.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Oct 4, 2012)

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.


Keystone thanks for the update.

I have to disagree;

1. code says barrier requirements, chain links are address elsewhere; line item 6 (IBC 3109.4.1.5)

2. same as aforementioned and

3. what standard is referenced in the code for rigid material that can be only chain link?







Looking at the new 2012 ISPSC adds further clarification for wire mesh material;

*305.2.4 Mesh restraining barrier/fence. *

Mesh fences, other than chain link fences in accordance with :Next('./icod_ispsc_2012_3_par031.htm')'>Section 305.2.7, shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturerâ€™s instructions and shall comply with the following: 

1. The bottom of the mesh restraining fence shall be not more than 1 inch (25 mm) above the deck or installed surface or grade. 

2. The maximum vertical clearance from the bottom of the mesh fence and the solid surface shall not permit the fence to be lifted more than 4 inches (102 mm) from grade or decking. 

3. The fence shall be designed and constructed so that it does not allow passage of a 4-inch (102 mm) sphere under any mesh panel. The maximum vertical clearance from the bottom of the mesh fence and the solid surface shall not be more than 4 inches (102 mm) from grade or decking. 

4. An attachment device shall attach each barrier section at a height not lower than 45 inches (1143 mm) above grade. Common attachment devices include, but are not limited to, devices that provide the security equal to or greater than that of a hook-and-eye-type latch incorporating a spring-actuated retaining lever such as a safety gate hook. 

5. Where a hinged gate is used with a mesh _barrier_, the gate shall comply with :Next('./icod_ispsc_2012_3_par035.htm')'>Section 305.3.

6. Patio deck sleeves such as vertical post receptacles which are placed inside the patio surface shall be of a nonconductive material. 

7. Mesh fences shall not be used on top of on ground _residential pools_

Francis


----------



## steveray (Oct 4, 2012)

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.


----------



## ICE (Jun 13, 2015)

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.


----------



## georgia plans exam (Jun 15, 2015)

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.


----------



## jdfruit (Jun 15, 2015)

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.


----------



## JBI (Jun 15, 2015)

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.


----------



## ICE (Aug 7, 2016)

This is a barrier at an apartment complex.  It is a "public" swimming pool which is regulated by the health dept.


----------



## HForester (Aug 8, 2016)

*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?"


----------



## HForester (Aug 8, 2016)

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.


----------



## HForester (Aug 8, 2016)

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_ !


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 8, 2016)




----------



## JBI (Aug 8, 2016)

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.


----------



## steveray (Aug 9, 2016)

MT....Does the glass in your top pic need to be tempered now?..... Where there's a kid, there's a way...


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 9, 2016)

Took this picture a couple of weeks ago . . . at least they are active and not watching TV or playing on the computer


----------



## fatboy (Aug 9, 2016)

Must be a Pokemon on the inside..........


----------



## JBI (Aug 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 9, 2016)

Francis Vineyard said:


> Took this picture a couple of weeks ago . . . at least they are active and not watching TV or playing on the computer
> View attachment 2352



Francis, Someone's going to be impaled on that fence!


----------



## HForester (Aug 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## HForester (Aug 10, 2016)

> 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.




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.


----------



## JBI (Aug 11, 2016)

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...


----------

