# How does a 48” gate fit a pool deck?



## Dustinmh (Apr 28, 2022)

hi, I’m building a deck beside my above ground pool. I do not have a fence that satisfies pool code. From what I’ve been reading it sounds like I need a 48”-high gate at the bottom of my deck steps. 

How on earth does that incorporate into the design of a deck railing system that’s 36” high?

And every deck I see like this in my drives around town they just have a standard gate (36”h) in place.

How do I make my gate compliant but without sticking up a foot above my handrails? And wouldn’t my stair handrails also need to be 48”h at the bottom? I’ve never seen that and can’t imagine it would look good.


----------



## tbz (Apr 29, 2022)

Not sure where you are in PA, but it is simple, you need a barrier between your pool and anyone walking up to it that is a minimum of 48" high.

If your pool is above ground and the deck is more than 48" (45" technically if a guard is then on top) then that satisfies the barrier requirement.

The issue becomes the access point, most inground pools I see either have the entire backyard fenced in, and as thus that is their barrier, then the pool access in the yard is mute.

If you have no fence around the yard (48" high) then you need to block off the barrier access.  Some do this with that folding up ladder staircase type unit that locks in the upward position when not in use.  Others build a small fenced in area with agate at the access point.

Code and your insurance company don't really care about aesthetics, they care about safety.


----------



## Dustinmh (Apr 29, 2022)

Thanks so much for the explanation. You’ve confirmed what I suspected. My issue is that I already have my yard fenced with a nice aluminum fence (installed before we got a pool) but it only measures about 46” above grade in most places. So installing another fence around my AGP isn’t practical. 

I just don’t see how a set of stairs can be designed to end with railings that are 48 off the ground. Even if I pop a tall gate at the bottom, the sides arent high enough until about step #3. 

So when I keep hearing that the codes are simple, I’m really struggling with how they translate to my scenario. I’d love to see pictures of what others have done to make stairs to a deck comply when no fence is present.


----------



## e hilton (Apr 29, 2022)

Dustinmh said:


> So when I keep hearing that the codes are simple, I’m really struggling with how they translate to my scenario.


Codes are simple on paper, and to the people who create them.  If they were simple to incorporate into building design … forums like this would not exist.


----------



## TheCommish (May 1, 2022)

pool enclosures are required to be 48 inches high, so the 48 in gate is not above  the heigh5 of the enclosure. Latches have a variety of requirements the easiest  is the pogo stick type the raises the latch to 54 inch above grade.

Guard on decks and stairs are required  to be 36 inches high do not confuse that with a pool enclosure


----------



## ICE (May 1, 2022)

California Residential Code:
_*R312 Guards*
R312.1.2 Height. Required guards at open-sided walking surfaces, including stairs, porches, balconies or landings, shall be not less than *42* inches in height as measured vertically above the adjacent walking surface or the line connecting the nosings.
Exceptions:
1. Guards on the open sides of stairs shall have a height of not less than *34* inches measured vertically from a line connecting the nosings.                      
2. Where the top of the guard serves as a handrail on the open sides of stairs, the top of the guard shall be not less than *34* inches and not more than *38* inches as measured vertically from a line connecting the nosings. _


The California  code for a barrier around swimming pools is so different than the rest of the country that I will only say....well that.


----------



## Dustinmh (May 1, 2022)

TheCommish said:


> pool enclosures are required to be 48 inches high, so the 48 in gate is not above  the heigh5 of the enclosure. Latches have a variety of requirements the easiest  is the pogo stick type the raises the latch to 54 inch above grade.
> 
> Guard on decks and stairs are required  to be 36 inches high do not confuse that with a pool enclosur





TheCommish said:


> pool enclosures are required to be 48 inches high, so the 48 in gate is not above  the heigh5 of the enclosure. Latches have a variety of requirements the easiest  is the pogo stick type the raises the latch to 54 inch above grade.
> 
> Guard on decks and stairs are required  to be 36 inches high do not confuse that with a pool enclosure


Prior to adding the deck, my “enclosure”was the pool’s walls (w/removable ladder). But now the new stair landing will be an access point. The issue is that stair railings terminate about 36” off the ground but I need to install a 48” gate at the bottom. Ugly.

Deck codes are trying to mesh with pool codes and it’s not sympatico.


----------



## tbz (May 2, 2022)

Dustinmh said:


> Prior to adding the deck, my “enclosure” was the pool’s walls (w/removable ladder). But now the new stair landing will be an access point. The issue is that stair railings terminate about 36” off the ground but I need to install a 48” gate at the bottom. Ugly.
> 
> Deck codes are trying to mesh with pool codes and it’s not sympatico.


Dustinmh,

First off Ugly has nothing to do with it.  IMO an out of the ground pool is Ugly, but that is a personal opinion.

Guards & Barriers are 2 different things and have nothing to do with each other.

The 2 preform vastly different jobs and separate functions. 

A "POOL BARRIER" is a separation between the outside and inside of the pool, its job is to prevent intentional acts of access, for little kids climbing in to swim when no supervision is around.

"GUARDS" are intended to prevent an ACCIDENTAL FALL off an elevated area.

Thus, the code's intent here are 2 totally different outcomes for a minimum standard.

 The Minimum code is not written with anyone's personal views on how they will look, 

No one here can help you with your personal tastes, don't like the way the "SAFETY BARRIER" looks, buy a different pool.

When someone else's little kid becomes a floater in your pool, ask yourself then who the look of things worked out.

If you actually took the time to read all the work and effort that the pool industry, fence industry and safety experts put into coming up with a minimum standard and reviewed all the deaths.  

Well, you don't like the guard height being lower than the barrier height (Gate Access), raise the guards to 48", it's safer for the wine party guests.

Cheers


----------



## Dustinmh (May 2, 2022)

tbz said:


> Guards & Barriers are 2 different things and have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> The 2 preform vastly different jobs and separate functions.
> 
> ...



I guess I was looking to this group for some ideas based on what you've seen in your experience. Maybe there was some kind of transition I hadn't thought of. Instead, I get "if you don't like it, buy another pool". Gee, thanks.

Whether a child is trying to climb a fence to swim, or climb over a deck railing because he's five years old and doesn't realize the danger, these are NOT vastly different things. That child has the same climbing ability in both situations, so for the codes to say he's safe at 36" and then require 48" across the yard does not compute. 

Guards and barriers might be two different sections in your code books, but keeping in/keeping out is pretty much the same thing in the real world.


----------



## tmurray (May 2, 2022)

The theory is that the pool poses a greater draw and thus requires greater preventative measures.


----------



## steveray (May 2, 2022)

tbz said:


> Well, you don't like the guard height being lower than the barrier height (Gate Access), raise the guards to 48", it's safer for the wine party guests.


Exactly this.....In CT we don't allow anything climbable within 3' of the barrier...

(Add) R326.6.3 Barrier perimeter clearance. The required barrier height shall exist around the
entire perimeter of the barrier and for a distance of 3 feet (914 mm) measured horizontally from
the outside of the required barrier, free of structures, equipment or similar objects.


----------



## tmurray (May 2, 2022)

We recently had someone in similar circumstances. We require a 5' high enclosure and had someone who the year before installed a 4' fence, not thinking he was going to get a pool the next year. A 12" difference is a lot. 2" is not so much. I'd have a hard time agreeing that the difference between 46" and 48" results in any substantial improvement to life safety.


----------



## Dustinmh (May 2, 2022)

tmurray said:


> I'd have a hard time agreeing that the difference between 46" and 48" results in any substantial improvement to life safety.


That’s what we thought too. Probably some guys would pass it and some fail it. What if I install razor wire around the top?


----------



## tbz (May 2, 2022)

Dustinmh said:


> Whether a child is trying to climb a fence to swim, or climb over a deck railing because he's five years old and doesn't realize the danger, these are NOT vastly different things. That child has the same climbing ability in both situations, so for the codes to say he's safe at 36" and then require 48" across the yard does not compute.
> 
> Guards and barriers might be two different sections in your code books, but keeping in/keeping out is pretty much the same thing in the real world.


Dustinmh,

To the laymen they might seem the same, but they are not even close to preforming the same duty or function.

A pool barrier is there to prevent an intentional act by a single person climbing over and does not even have structural load requirements within the code.

Guards, what you are referring to as a railing, are there to prevent not just one person, but more than one person from falling accidentally off an elevated walking surface.  The structural requirements and mountings required are an extreme amount of mounting hardware when properly installed.  

Someone backing into a guard, and getting reminded and stopped is totally different device than intentionally grabbing the top and hiking their body up and over, thus totally different functions of protection.  

That fact is does not compute and you are having trouble understanding the actual intent of the pool barrier protection is not to be able to be climbed and is the major reason pool barriers are highly scrutinized for climb-ability, where as guards are allowed to be climbable and are not required to be non-climbable.

My abruptness to your topic, has to do with being at, one to many pools, in my younger years after young children had drowned, even called out to a home where a child fell in a 5 gallon bucket.  

There are things in life you can't un-see, and I have a hard time understanding that the home where the back yard backs the ocean and or lake front or river front is so highly scrutinized for the swimming pools, but it is what it is.

The "real world" when it comes to pools is a lot uglier than guards when you read the injury data.


----------



## Dustinmh (May 2, 2022)

tbz said:


> The "real world" when it comes to pools is a lot uglier than guards when you read the injury data.


I don't envy you or anyone who has witnessed the scene of a deadly accident, especially those involving children. And I'm absolutely not trying to cut corners, which is why I'm working with my local inspector and posting here on this forum. I want to build a safe and compliant structure — but as homeowner, I also care about how it looks. 

Thanks all for your posts here.


----------



## ICE (May 2, 2022)

Dustinmh said:


> I want to build a safe and compliant structure — but as homeowner, I also care about how it looks.


I didn't get the idea that you are looking for a corner to cut.  Owners always think aesthetics first with safety as an afterthought.  I have never inspected a new pool where the owner was even aware of the barrier requirements.  You said that you want a safe and compliant structure.  A swimming pool is never safe....at best it is less dangerous.  Every July I see roadside stands selling "Safe & Sane" fireworks.  A few thousand people find out how not safe fireworks are.


----------



## Saugie53 (May 4, 2022)

Dustinmh said:


> Whether a child is trying to climb a fence to swim, or climb over a deck railing because he's five years old and doesn't realize the danger, these are NOT vastly different things. That child has the same climbing ability in both situations, so for the codes to say he's safe at 36" and then require 48" across the yard does not compute.
> 
> Guards and barriers might be two different sections in your code books, but keeping in/keeping out is pretty much the same thing in the real world.


Just figured I would also mention guards are in no way meant to "keep in/out" a barrier, yes definitely, but a guard is suppose to only be there to prevent someone from falling through and whether it can be climbed or not does not matter when it comes to the codes. 

I have been dealing with the very same situation a lot lately. Ever since Covid started it seems the number of people applying for permits to install pools had literally quadrupled based on what we usually receive. Just last week I had to go meet a contractor out at a job site where they are trying to do this exact same situation that you are describing. The contractor had been going back and forth with me over email for a few weeks because the homeowners did not like the idea of how a 48-inch gate would look on their new pool deck they were having built. Even though I had told the contractor when the permit was applied for they would need to install a 48 in self-closing self-latching gate and marked it up on the plans when I reviewed them he kept insisting that it wouldn't look right so he wanted me to come out to meet him so they could" go over their options with me". When I got to the property I realized very quickly that the contractor figured having the homeowners there to explain to me that they don't like how it's going to look and since it's just the two of them living in the house with no kids they should be able to go without having to put the gate on and I would just cave in and day they didn't have to install the gate. So I very calmly explained to the homeowners that prior to putting this deck on they had a barrier compliant above ground pool. They did not need to add onto their deck to access the pool that was just something they decided they wanted to do so I said to them if they did not want to install the gate that would be fine they had the option to install a fence all the way around the property up to the house on each side but then they would also be required to put an audible alarm on every door and each window with a sill height of less than 48 in that opens to within the fenced-in area, of course they didn't like the sound of that either. I told them that on every permit for a pool or for a pool deck that is applied for I let the applicant know what will be required as well as marking it up on the submitted plans, and upload a copy of the barrier requirements section 305 to every permit so the applicant can carefully read that section themselves. If they did not like the fact that they had to install a gate then that was something that should have been addressed when the permit was first received before construction began so that something else could have been designed to meet the code requirements.

Like it was mentioned before a lot of homeowners seem to go for Aesthetics over safety and it's always until something bad happens and then after that it seems to be all about who they can point the finger to.

As for your original question there are several different Gates that are made for this exact case if you do a little research online that have the hinges set a little lower to attach to a 36 inch post and if you really think about it it's not that much of a difference because you will have the gate a few inches off the actual step itself (the code we enforce here in Rhode Island allows a 4 in if there is a hard surface underneath such as asphalt or possibly a deck and a 2-inch space if it is a soft surface such as grass dirt or) so at that point you really only need about a 44-inch gate give or take.


----------



## Dustinmh (May 4, 2022)

Saugie53 said:


> As for your original question there are several different Gates that are made for this exact case if you do a little research online that have the hinges set a little lower to attach to a 36 inch post and if you really think about it it's not that much of a difference because you will have the gate a few inches off the actual step.


Thanks for sharing that story about my doppelgänger in Rhode Island. 

It’s interesting to read and further cements my understanding of the issue. About that gate you mentioned, I have searched online and did again after reading this, but im still not seeing one with lower hinges. Can you send me a link?

And regarding your points about first step and 44” being okay… are you saying the gate can sit on first riser, 2 or 4 inches back from tread nose, and that allows riser height to count toward barrier height? Sorry I’m not understanding, but this is what I’ve been waiting to hear back from my local inspector about. Specifically where the gate sits — ground or first stair.

Thanks!


----------



## Saugie53 (May 5, 2022)

Dustinmh said:


> Thanks for sharing that story about my doppelgänger in Rhode Island.
> 
> It’s interesting to read and further cements my understanding of the issue. About that gate you mentioned, I have searched online and did again after reading this, but im still not seeing one with lower hinges. Can you send me a link?
> 
> ...


I can't speak for what your local inspector would or would not allow. As for me I allow people to put it on first step but it would have to be flush with the very front of the step so that it doesn't give somebody a spot that they could put their foot on to then climb up over it so then the Riser height of the first step would count as part of the 48 in. What I was speaking about in regards to the 2 inch Gap and 4 inch Gap is the space between the bottom of the gate and the surface below. The adopted code currently in Rhode Island allows a two in space between the bottom of the pool barrier and any soft surface such as grass, sand, gravel and allows a 4 in space between the bottom of the barrier and any hard surface such as asphalt or concrete. In these cases when I'm doing my inspections I would consider the stair riser a hard surface which would allow the bottom of the gate to be no more than four inches above the riser. I will see when I get into work today what I can find as far as the gates I had mentioned in my previous post. Another thing I figured I would mention is I know someone had mentioned earlier that if you put it at the bottom riser that still leaves the 36 inch handrail plus whatever the first Riser height is on the side of the handrails that somebody could climb up over which would be below the 48 in requirement however if you were to put it at the top Riser flush with the deck surface that would eliminate that issue. Again I would check with your local inspector to see what they would or would not allow as I cannot speak for them oh, and do not know which code and/or any amendments your local jurisdiction may have.


----------



## Dustinmh (May 5, 2022)

Saugie53 said:


> ...however if you were to put it at the top Riser flush with the deck surface that would eliminate that issue.


Thanks again, I really appreciate your help on this. I know these questions are ultimately for my local inspector but this helps me prepare while I'm in planning mode. Question top riser... I wanted to do that initially but assumed it would be awkward/unsafe to open outward at the top. People climbing up the stairs would probably have to back down a step or two in order to open the gate. Just my assumption, I don't know, so curious what you think from a safety perspective. But yes, I like that option because it eliminates side climbers.


----------



## Saugie53 (May 5, 2022)

Dustinmh said:


> Thanks again, I really appreciate your help on this. I know these questions are ultimately for my local inspector but this helps me prepare while I'm in planning mode. Question top riser... I wanted to do that initially but assumed it would be awkward/unsafe to open outward at the top. People climbing up the stairs would probably have to back down a step or two in order to open the gate. Just my assumption, I don't know, so curious what you think from a safety perspective. But yes, I like that option because it eliminates side climbers.


I agree about it being iffy safety-wise with the gate opening outward over the step and the code does state that a cool access gate is supposed to open away from the pool but most of the pool gates that I have seen are actually on a double hinge and mounted to the center of the post so they can open inward or outward. Code wise there is another section of the code that actually speaks to this the exact scenario you questioned. I'm not near the code book right now but off the top of my head I believe the code section talks about if you have exterior stairs at any door other then your main egress door (for residential properties of course) and the stairs have no more than two risers you are permitted to go without a landing at the top of the stairs as long as the door does not swing out over the steps. This section is specifically talking about Landings at exterior doorways not about gates for pools. I think it is definitely something you should speak with the inspector about whether or not the inspector feels they would be more comfortable having the barrier less than 48 in at the first and possibly second riser by having the gate down at the bottom of the stairs or if they would rather have the gate swing out over the steps, or they may allow you to install a gate that swings both ways.


----------



## Saugie53 (May 5, 2022)

Just for the sake of mentioning it and not knowing if your deck has already been constructed or not but if not but you could also design it so that your stairs come up to a landing located 1 riser height below the finished level of the deck and at the end of that landing have one more step up to the finished deck level with your gate at the edge of that last step. That way your stairs come up to a landing and you would have room for the gate to swing out but where the gate would be located would still be more than 48 in off grade at that point so you wouldn't have to worry about anybody being able to climb the rail from the side to get over the gate like you would if the gate were located at the first riser from grade.


----------



## steveray (May 5, 2022)

Except you can't have anything within 3' of the barrier that does not qualify as a barrier itself....sort of....

305.2.1 Barrier height and clearances. Barrier heights
and clearances shall be in accordance with all of the
following:
1. The top of the barrier shall be not less than 48
inches (1219 mm) above grade where measured
on the side of the barrier that faces away from the
pool or spa. Such height shall exist around the
entire perimeter of the barrier and for a distance of
3 feet (914 mm) measured horizontally from the
outside of the required barrier.

305.2.9 Clear zone. Where equipment, including pool
equipment such as pumps, filters and heaters, is on the
same lot as a pool or spa and such equipment is located
outside of the barrier protecting the pool or spa, such
equipment shall be located not less than 36 inches (914
mm) from the outside of the barrier.


----------



## Saugie53 (May 5, 2022)

steveray said:


> Except you can't have anything within 3' of the barrier that does not qualify as a barrier itself....sort of....


So would you consider the handrail going up the stairs to be in violation of that section? Or are you going a different way with your line of thinking?


----------



## steveray (May 5, 2022)

I would think the guardrail would likely aid in the climbing of the barrier.....


----------



## Dustinmh (May 5, 2022)

steveray said:


> I would think the guardrail would likely aid in the climbing of the barrier.....


FWIW here's an image (not my actual deck) that matches the general style of my railing


----------



## tbz (May 5, 2022)

So, if you have a set of stairs like in the picture above, then you will be required to have a pool barrier on the deck that has 45" minimum vertical separation from the top of the post, to the first horizontal above it to comply.


Pool barriers need to be a "Minimum" of 48" high, may be required to be higher because of part 2.
Pool barriers must have a clear vertical (Non-climbable) zone of 45" between horizontals
So looking at the picture you posted, from the top of the lower 2x4 that the balusters/pickets start at, there must be 45" to the top of the next horizontal, your top 2x4, minimum.
If you don't have a vertical span a minimum of 45", then you keep going up till you create this zone.

That is why the majority of the time, a "Fence" meeting the minimum heights required is installed around the deck area and a gate for entry at ground level, closing off a separation zone.

We did a project in Greenwich CT about 15 years ago, entire 4 acres of property was fenced in with non-compliant fence.  The home's back yard property line was the long Island sound (Atlantic Ocean), you walked up from the ocean to the base of a 14ft high stone wall that had stairs going up to another level where the inground pool was, the entire lower wall had a black chain link fence installed along it with a gate 4ft off the stairs.

The pool level had guards installed along the open edge, then another 48" fence was installed across the yard at pool level, and then stopped 6 feet from the home and came across to separate it from the home with gate access.  and then repeated again on the next level up because a flight of stairs went up to the driveway level, 16 feet above the pool level.

All to meet the basics of a 48" minimum with 45" clear zone between the horizontals.

Trying to make the guard and gate on the upper level compliant is, well not the simplest nor best look.


----------



## tbz (May 5, 2022)

Example of the guard and handrail restarting the 45" clear zone for a pool barrier.


----------



## Saugie53 (May 5, 2022)

tbz said:


> Trying to make the guard and gate on the upper level compliant is, well not the simplest nor best look.


I agree it's not the best but based off the code section that was posted a little while ago stating essentially you can't have anything less than 48 inch anywhere within 36 in of the required barrier putting the gate at the bottom of the steps like you said wouldn't work either. The residential code requires residential stair handrails to be between 34 and 38 in most of them are about 36 so if you had a 48-inch gate at the bottom of the stairs you could always go next to the first riser which if the following the ICC code can only be a Max 7 and 3/4 of an inch riser you would have a stair handrail at 43 and 3/4 of an inch. So having the gate at the bottom wouldn't be compliant either


----------



## tbz (May 5, 2022)

Saugie53 said:


> I agree it's not the best but based off the code section that was posted a little while ago stating essentially you can't have anything less than 48 inch anywhere within 36 in of the required barrier putting the gate at the bottom of the steps like you said wouldn't work either. The residential code requires residential stair handrails to be between 34 and 38 in most of them are about 36 so if you had a 48-inch gate at the bottom of the stairs you could always go next to the first riser which if the following the ICC code can only be a Max 7 and 3/4 of an inch riser you would have a stair handrail at 43 and 3/4 of an inch. So having the gate at the bottom wouldn't be compliant either


Sure you can, just need to keep it a little bit away from the stair treads, we always suggest putting in a minimum landing prior to the gate., with sections of fence enclosing the stairs to the correct compliance height.


----------



## Saugie53 (May 5, 2022)

tbz said:


> Sure you can, just need to keep it a little bit away from the stair treads, we always suggest putting in a minimum landing prior to the gate., with sections of fence enclosing the stairs to the correct compliance height.


Right which is exactly why I recommended a few posts up to design the stairs to come up to a landing 1 Riser height lower than the deck level and then put a one-step riser but the gate at that point up to the deck. You can always put a barrier on top of the handrail/guards at the landing to make it compliant. Although that goes back to the original idea that homeowners will always choose aesthetics over safety so they might not like that. I guess no matter how you look at it there's no real perfect way unless you and fence in the entire yard.


----------



## Dustinmh (May 5, 2022)

Saugie53 said:


> You can always put a barrier on top of the handrail/guards at the landing to make it compliant.


Quoted above is my current plan. Gate at bottom, a couple feet of barrier on top of railing. I really don’t want to dig/pour more footings to construct an upper landing. Hopefully when I finally talk to my inspector he gives me his blessing.


----------



## tbz (May 6, 2022)

Dustinmh said:


> Quoted above is my current plan. Gate at bottom, a couple feet of barrier on top of railing. I really don’t want to dig/pour more footings to construct an upper landing. Hopefully when I finally talk to my inspector he gives me his blessing.


Adding to the top of the horizontal/sloped portion of you existing guard/handrail will not suffice the requirement if you don't have the 45" clear zone.  The top of your existing guard/handrail (railing) restarts the 45" clear zone trigger point.

You will need to put the barrier on the outside of the stair flight, blocking any foot holds, till you reach an equal point of the 45" clear zone.


----------



## tbz (May 6, 2022)

Some more pic's for thought






The front yard and sides are fenced in besides the rear of the yard above.  

The sides have a 7ft high masonry walls from the face of the home to the jetty edge of the water line.






The wall was deemed to be possibly climbable, even though to my back while taking this picture is the Atlantic Ocean.

Additionally, the entire property along the front and 2 sides to the water line, have 6' high fence, but there are natural rock formations within 3ft of that fence on the neighbor's property that invalidated the fence for barrier compliance.  

Thus, the entire base of the wall required a barrier, not just the minimum area at the base of the stairway.

Pool on upper level.


----------



## Dustinmh (May 6, 2022)

tbz said:


> Adding to the top of the horizontal/sloped portion of you existing guard/handrail will not suffice the requirement if you don't have the 45" clear zone.  The top of your existing guard/handrail (railing) restarts the 45" clear zone trigger point.
> 
> You will need to put the barrier on the outside of the stair flight, blocking any foot holds, till you reach an equal point of the 45" clear zone.


So for clear zone, it sounds like I can't sit a 41"H gate on my first riser to get to 48", because the tread nosing is a horizontal. And if I'm building my gate to match the look of the railing, with 2x4s on their ends as top and bottom rails, my gate itself would be 3.5 + 3.5 + 45 = 52 inches high. Sitting that on my first riser, because my rail posts naturally end there, will put me 59" off the ground. This is shaping up to be a pretty hideous project.

Cool pictures of the seaside estate project. I think their budget is a few hundred thousand above mine.


----------



## tbz (May 6, 2022)

Saugie53 said:


> Right which is exactly why I recommended a few posts up to design the stairs to come up to a landing 1 Riser height lower than the deck level and then put a one-step riser but the gate at that point up to the deck. You can always put a barrier on top of the handrail/guards at the landing to make it compliant. Although that goes back to the original idea that homeowners will always choose aesthetics over safety so they might not like that. I guess no matter how you look at it there's no real perfect way unless you and fence in the entire yard.


Please explain layout, are you saying install a landing at the top 1 riser down from the new deck, build the 48" barrier/guard on the sides of the landing and outswing the gate over the landing on the upper level?

You still need to extend the landing to a minimum size, which will more than likely be larger than what you could do at the base of the stair flight, and then the barriers on each side will fade along the sides of the stair flight, thus being less of an eye soar than having the same structure sitting up in the air.

Remember that the gate must swing outwards... not on to the deck, so you need a landing.

If we use the picture in post 27 as a base, and you do not want to put the barrier at ground level, then based on the picture I am envisioning the following, and as thus the side along the stairs needs a compliant barrier 48" and the portion along the landing needs a compliant 48" high barrier with an out swinging gate.  Doing it with a drop landing is fine, but if the barrier has a picket spacing more then 1.75" your 45" clear zone will start at the deck, and the barrier on that common side will need the bottom horizontal to not to be above the deck line.


----------



## tbz (May 6, 2022)

Dustinmh said:


> So for clear zone, it sounds like I can't sit a 41"H gate on my first riser to get to 48", because the tread nosing is a horizontal. And if I'm building my gate to match the look of the railing, with 2x4s on their ends as top and bottom rails, my gate itself would be 3.5 + 3.5 + 45 = 52 inches high. Sitting that on my first riser, because my rail posts naturally end there, will put me 59" off the ground. This is shaping up to be a pretty hideous project.


Correct, everyone focus on the 48" minimum and never looks at the more important requirements of the 45" vertical clear zone minimum.  

That is why the simplest way to achieve compliance is to install the gate at the base of the stairs at ground level, a little ways off the stairs and then the barrier (Fence) coming back along the stair flight to a point where the first tread that is above the top horizontal in the barrier is higher.

Not the best look, but also not 5 feet up in the air as a bill board also.


----------



## Saugie53 (May 25, 2022)

tbz said:


> Please explain layout, are you saying install a landing at the top 1 riser down from the new deck, build the 48" barrier/guard on the sides of the landing and outswing the gate over the landing on the upper level?


Yes that is what I was thinking. In my head I was more picturing a set of stairs going straight on to the pool deck rather than next to it like in the diagram you showed which would allow you to extend the landing out a little further so you would have room to swing the gate away from the pool and still stand on the landing but that would definitely work.

A lot of people seem to confuse the handrail and guard code sections because most pre manufactured deck handrails are installed and act as both a handrail in the guard at the same time oh, but they are two completely different code sections. Going up the stairs you are required to have a handrail on a minimum of one side once your stairway has 4 risers, the handrail is required to be between 34 and 38 inches in height. The guard section however does not have a maximum height the guard is required to be (with the exception of guards used for stairs) it only has a minimum height which is 36 inches. So technically if you came up the stairs to a landing, you could put 48 inch high guards on both sides of that Landing and as long as that landing were at least 45 inches in the direction of travel away from the end of the stair handrails you could then have one step up to the final pool deck level with your gate flush with that step so that nobody has a foothold area to use the step to climb the gate and you would have a compliant barrier.


----------



## ADAguy (May 25, 2022)

Interesting discussion, as usual, :It depends" on individual circumstances. 
The code was never intended to be a "one size fits all"


----------

