December 16, 2019

City of Cape Coral Department of Community Development

RE: Building Official response to petition for binding interpretation #178

The guard requirement along open-sided walking surfaces (Section 312.1.1 of the Florida Building Code, Residential, 2017 edition) is present in the code in its current form with a very specific intent-to prevent a fall to grade of more than 30 inches off an open-sided walking surface.

The letter I wrote to Ed Ramos on September 23, 2019, which was attached with the other documents submitted with the petition, is authentic. I am genuinely and exclusively concerned for the safety of the end users of these structures, whether they are children, young adults, or elderly persons. Of secondary importance, but also worth discussing, eliminating guards from open-sided walking surfaces introduces a great deal of liability to everyone involved with the building process, including the builder, the owner, and even the code-compliance officials who allow the code to be ignored.

The 2 foot wide planter concept, as it is currently conceived and detailed in the submitted petition, is not compliant with this code section. They have stated to me that the property owner "wants a view to the rear of the property" and they are "not concerned with someone falling off the pool deck." Regardless of this confidence, people will inevitably be injured as a result of these installations. The 2 foot wide planter is not sufficient to prevent someone from continuing to fall further, exposing them to an additional hazard of falling further than 30" down to grade. Whether it is a child playing around the pool, a young adult falling off the pool deck during a nighttime cocktail party, or perhaps someone's grandparent adjusting their deck chair right off the edge of the pool deck, it is inevitable that people will be injured eventually by falling an extended distance down to grade. This is why the guard requirement is in the code.

This builder has tried for many years to get former building officials to forego the requirement for guards as long as they cut a section/planter out of the concrete pool deck itself. Several homes were built this way, with 4-6 foot drop-offs but no guard in place, and no terracing/planters built next to the pool deck. That building official retired shortly thereafter and the next building official was concerned enough to submit a request to the Building Officials Association of Florida for a non-binding interpretation. The petition states that "this method has routinely been an accepted option for many years by prior building officials and their interpretation of the code," however this prior interpretation to forego the use of guards was deemed to be incorrect through the non­binding interpretation process with BOAF. A copy of these interpretations (#8034 dated 10/30/2017 and #8044 dated 12/4/2017) are attached. In these interpretations, it was

Community Development • City of Cape Coral • P.O. Box 150027 •Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0027 (239) 574-0600 • Fax (239) 574-0591 • www.capecoral.net

Co-County Seat - Lee County, Florida

determined that a guard is required if the pool deck is greater than 30" above the grade below, and if a planter is placed along the edge of the deck, it would not eliminate the need for fall protection.

According to the petitioner's letter, the planter is now being described as a "wall grade adjustment used as a planter option," which appears to be an attempt to redefine a flower planter as "grade" to circumvent the guard requirement. However, grade and grade plane are defined in 2017 FBC-Residential Chapter 2 definitions: GRADE. The finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. GRADE PLANE. A reference plane representing the average of the finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building, between the structure and a point 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building.

The bold section refers to the current situation, where the building is more than 6 feet from the lot line. The lowest point within the area between the building and the point 6 feet from the building is still greater than 30" below the walking surface when placing a flower planter next to the pool deck.

I am willing to consider code-compliant alternatives, however these alternatives must be safe. I have held numerous meetings at their request regarding this issue. During these meetings, I have presented several very safe, attractive, and economical alternatives to a typical guardrail system to help them come up with ideas how they can achieve this. Contrary to the claim in the petition that removing the guard is the only way to provide an "affordable and aesthetically pleasing view", no builder's interest has been affected because the following alternatives are all safer, more attractive, and more affordable than building a planter along the entire perimeter of a pool deck. Example pictures of each alternative are included with this letter:

1) An approved safety-glass panel system can be used so the visibility/view is not

blocked. Also see http://www.usglassfence.com for an example of one product.

2) Steps can be provided coming out of the rear sliding doors on the back wall of

the house, lowering the pool deck down to not more than 30" above grade. In thisscenario, no guards would be required in any location (back or sides of pool

deck). Alternatively, a terraced section with steps coming down to the side of thepool, to a dining/sun area at grade level, could be incorporated.

3) A negative(disappearing) edge pool design on the back and/or the sides of thepool deck can be utilized. A negative edge pool installation is both attractive and

compliant with the Florida Building Code. No guard would be required wherethere is a negative edge because there is not a walking surface between the pooland the grade behind the pool deck in that scenario.

4) A 6 foot wide terrace or planter of permanent poured concrete construction (which could be considered non-removable to help ensure that it will remain in place in the future) may be built and used in lieu of a glass panel system/guard . This terracing/planter would limit the dropoff to no more than 30 inches per drop, and more specifically, prevent a fall of more than 30 inches from the open-sided walking surface to grade (grass level).

The builder in the petition included mostly pictures of installations where an aluminum pool enclosure was also installed, however the typical installation is one where there is no cage/screening. Although insect screening tends to make the dropoff seem safer to an untrained eye, it does not qualify as a guard per R312.1 . The intent of getting the interpretation of R312.1 changed is so the builder can build a raised pool deck without any cage and without any restriction as to how far the drop can be from the planter surface to the grade below. In addition, the last page of the pictures submitted show a typical installation of concrete pavers at grade level, making it even more dangerous. The pictures submitted are all taken from a distance, at grade or canal level (from a boat in the canal), which has the misleading effect of making the dropoff seem less severe or dangerous from this angle. However, I can assure you that the danger of this dropoff is much more apparent when standing on the pool deck looking off the edge down to grade. The inspectors who have inspected these installations have all been concerned with the danger of the end user falling off this cliff.

The petition also contends that "the retaining wall grade adjustment used as a planter is not a walking surface so the distance from the top of the planter to grade is not subject to Section R312.1, thus allowing a taller retaining wall grade adjustment used as a planter." I am contending that to define the planter surface as a non-walking surface is also an incorrect statement and is inconsistent with Section R312.1 . OSHA defines the width of a walking surface to be 22 inches. I contend that many children will use as little as a 12" wide strip of pool deck surface to run around a pool, and someone maintaining a 2 foot wide planter would consider the planter a walking surface as they were walking on it. If the line of reasoning was followed where a 2 foot planter was not considered a "walking surface," a dropoff to grade from any width of planter of any distance could be used. That open-ended reasoning would allow the dropoff to be 30" inches from the pool deck down to a 2 foot wide planter, then 5, 10, 20, or an unlimited distance in feet down to grade, with no guard required. This is clearly not safe and it is not the intent of the code. There must be a safety standard and fortunately it already exists in 2017 FBC-Residential 312 .1 which requires a guard to be in place.

Best Regards,

~ Stephen C. Poposki, CBO Building Official City of Cape Coral, FL BN 1 &2/Coastal/PX/SFP

Ftanchise

~ us GLASS FENCE

Home Class Fencing Glass Railings About Contact Franchise

.,

'

A negative/disappearing edge pool would not require a guard and does not obstruct view. Example 1 of 2.

A negative/disappearing edge pool would not require a guard and does not obstruct view. Example 2 of 2.

Lower the pool deck to less than 30" above grade. Example 1 of 3.

Lower the pool deck to less than 30" above grade. Example 2 of 3.

Lower the pool deck to less than 30" above grade. Example 3 of 3.

Informal Interpretation Report Number 8034

Date 10/30/2017

Report 8034

Edition: 2014

Section 312.1

Question:

1. For a pool deck that is elevated greater than 30" above grade, is a guard required per section 312?2. in the above situation, If a deck level planter is placed along the edge of the deck requiring you to walk through the planter to access the edge, would this eliminate the need for fall protection? If yes, what would be the requirements of the planter?

Answer:

Yes to part 1 and No to part 2

On 11/28/2017 at 10:11 AM

Commentary:

In the described scenario, a guard is required.

Notice:The Building Officials Association of Florida, in cooperation with the Florida Building Commission, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, ICC, and industry and professional experts offer this interpretation of the Florida Building Code in the interest of consistency in their application statewide. This interpretation is informal, non-binding and subject to acceptance and approval by the local building official.

Informal Interpretation Report Number 8044

Date 12/05/2017

Report 8044

Edition: 2014

Section R312

Question:

For a pool deck that has an area of the deck elevated more than 30" above the grade below would it be an acceptable alternate to install a 3' wide pool deck level planter with landscaping along the edges of the pool deck to eliminate this area as a walking surface requiring fall protection?

Answer:

This appears to be the same request, worded slightly different, as interpretation #8034, dated 11/28/17. A planter may be used as a guard or pool barrier, however, it must meet FBC guard or barrier requirements to do so.

On 12/19/2017 at 2:03 PM

Commentary:

None.

Notice:The Building Officials Association of Florida, in cooperation with the Florida Building Commission, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, ICC, and industry and professional experts offer this interpretation of the Florida Building Code in the interest of consistency in their application statewide. This interpretation is informal, non-binding and subject to acceptance and approval by the local building official.