Every gate callout calls the pool gate self-latching, and none calls it self-closing.
The hardscape set for a waterfront home prints its own written specifications, and its gate, stair, guard, deck, drainage and paving details depart from them and from the code in several places.
Residential pool hardscape specification
A landscape and hardscape set for a waterfront single-family home: site, grading and drainage plans, the pool layout, deck, stair, guard, gate and paving details, and specifications printed on the sheets.
What the review compared
The review read the landscape and hardscape set for a waterfront home: site, grading and drainage plans, the pool layout, and the deck, stair, guard, gate and paving details, with the written specifications printed on the sheets. Code checking was enabled, so the pool barrier, stairs and guards were also read against the codes the review cited.
Where the details leave the specifications
The pool gate is called self-latching but never self-closing, the longest flight of the entry stair has no handrail, and the guard detail spaces its cables wider than the cable-rail specification. The deck slope, paver base, railing screws, decking and guard posts differ from the written specifications, the drain inverts fall less than their callouts, and the pool detail and the flood notes use different flood elevations.
What to verify next
The landscape architect should resolve the gate, stair and guard items before the permit submittal, confirm the flood basis for the pool, and align the slopes, inverts and each detail with its specification before pricing. Examples that cite a requirement follow the codes the review cited, and every example is a question for the responsible designers.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Pool gate does not close by itself
Callouts and the gate detail call it self-latching; the code also requires self-closing.
Why it matters: A gate left open leaves the pool barrier open to children.
What to check: Specify self-closing hinges that work with the latch.
LandscapeEntry stair flight has no handrail
The wood flight has only a wide guard cap; the code requires a graspable handrail.
Why it matters: People on the main entry stair have nothing to grip.
What to check: Add a graspable handrail along the full flight.
LandscapeGuard cables wider apart than specified
The railing detail spaces cables wider, and the bottom cable higher, than the cable-rail specification.
Why it matters: Guards built to the detail would have wider gaps than specified.
What to check: Redraw the detail at the specified cable spacing.
LandscapePool deck slope conflicts with the specification
The plan slopes the deck toward the pool; the specification requires a steeper fall away.
Why it matters: The deck can be set to only one slope.
What to check: Choose one slope and direction across notes and grades.
LandscapeDrain inverts give less than the minimum slope
Callouts require a 1% minimum slope; inverts on most runs give less.
Why it matters: Holding the minimum changes every downstream invert and the trench depth.
What to check: Revise the inverts or the slope callouts.
LandscapeDriveway paver base conflicts with the specification
Details show a limestone base; the specification requires crushed stone and avoids limestone near salt spray.
Why it matters: Bidders pricing details and specification carry different base materials.
What to check: Name one base material in both.
LandscapeRailing screws differ from the specified grade
Railing callouts call for 305 stainless screws; the specifications allow only 316.
Why it matters: Screws bought to the callouts would not meet the specifications near salt water.
What to check: Match the callouts to the specifications.
LandscapeTwo flood elevations for the pool
The pool detail uses a higher base flood elevation than the flood notes.
Why it matters: Reviewers cannot tell which zone and elevation govern the pool.
What to check: Draw the zone line and state the pool’s zone.
LandscapeReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Landscape
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High and Medium priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Drawing coordination and code checking
Code checking was enabled alongside the review of plans, schedules, details, and notes.
Findings connected to their source context
Groundbook links each finding to the sheets it came from so the responsible designer can confirm or dismiss it.
Potential impacts describe the issue type. They are not verified outcomes from this project.
Follow the information across the complete set
Groundbook reads the documents you upload and reports where they disagree, where a reference does not resolve, and where a required value is absent.
See how a full set is reviewed or how interfaces are coordinated.
- 1Map the complete set
Identify sheets, disciplines, details, schedules, and notes.
- 2Connect repeated information
Follow tags, references, and requirements wherever they reappear.
- 3Check drawings and code references
Read the detected code references alongside the drawing evidence.
- 4Return findings for verification
Organize potential issues by severity, discipline, and supporting context.
Questions for professional verification
The output supports the responsible designers as they review the source documents and decide what needs to change.
What this result means
- Groundbook surfaced potential issues for professional review.
- Severity helps prioritize which questions to investigate.
- The findings describe coordination, completeness, and code-reference questions in the uploaded set.
- Each finding includes source context for verification.
What it does not mean
- Every potential finding is a confirmed error or violation.
- The project was unsafe, unbuildable, or ultimately noncompliant.
- Groundbook replaced the responsible professionals or authority.
- A correction was made, or any cost or delay was avoided.
About this review
Is this a real review?
Based on a Groundbook review completed in November 2026. Findings are summarized.
Are these findings confirmed defects?
No. Each one is a potential issue for the responsible designer to verify against the source documents. Groundbook reports what the documents say and where they disagree. It does not make design decisions, certify compliance, or replace the authority having jurisdiction.
How long did the review take?
Turnaround runs from 20 minutes to 24 hours depending on project size.
Which codes were checked?
Code checking was enabled for this review. Groundbook detects the codes a set references, reads the codes and amendments that governments publish online, and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report shows all 79 findings from one review of a drawing set and its specifications, with the cited excerpts.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or browse every published case study.
Give the next drawing set a connected first pass
Upload the project, choose the checks that matter, and receive structured potential findings with source context.