Every height limit on the set is measured from a road crown average that is miscalculated and printed two ways.
The hardscape, grading and pool set for a waterfront home was read before permit, and the road crown that sets its yard, deck and coping limits, the pool barrier and several pool details disagree from sheet to sheet.
Waterfront pool grade limits
Hardscape site plans, grading and drainage plans, pool plans and sections, gate and fence details and a material index for a single-family waterfront home, read against one another and the residential pool barrier and zoning provisions the review cited.
What the review compared
The review read the hardscape set for a single-family waterfront home: site and grading plans, drainage, pool and spa plans and sections, gate and fence details and the material index. Its instructions asked for missing or inconsistent information, drawings checked against specifications, permit readiness, and accessibility, drainage and installation conflicts across the set. Code checking was enabled.
One number behind every limit
The front-yard grade limit, the entry stair limit, the deck limit and the pool coping maximum are all measured from the average crown of the road. The revised average is computed wrong, three sheets still use the earlier reading, and the limits printed beside it are off in both directions, so the driveway corners exceed the limit on their own sheet while a stair note allows grades well above it. The pool barrier relies on the house wall, whose doors open to the pool with no safety feature shown, the gates latch without closing, and the waterside is left open to the seawall without a noted approval. The vanishing edge, the water line, the spa drop and the channel drain disagree between plan and sections.
What to verify next
The landscape architect should recompute the crown average once, rebuild every limit from it and recheck the grades, then settle the barrier on all four sides with the architect and the building official. Examples that cite a requirement follow the residential pool barrier and zoning provisions the review cited; every example is a question for the designer and the building department.
12 selected examples from the review
Twelve distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
House wall closes the barrier
Side fences end at the house, whose glass doors open onto the pool deck.
Why it matters: The barrier relies on doors with no safety feature shown.
What to check: Note alarms or self-closing doors, or add a barrier.
LandscapeGates latch but do not close
Gates are self-latching only, with picket gaps near the latch wider than the code allows.
Why it matters: An open gate leaves the pool unguarded.
What to check: Specify closers and a latch-area shield.
LandscapeRoad crown averaged two ways
The revised average is computed wrong, and three sheets still print the old value.
Why it matters: Every yard, deck and coping limit inherits the error.
What to check: Recompute once and update every sheet and section.
Landscape · CivilDriveway corners above the yard limit
Two driveway corner grades exceed the front-yard limit printed on the same sheet.
Why it matters: The plan shows its own grades out of compliance.
What to check: Match the corners to the other driveway and the grading plan.
LandscapeWaterside left open
Fences stop at the seawall, and a deck stair reaches the pool deck with no gate.
Why it matters: The seawall serves as barrier without a noted approval.
What to check: Note the building official’s approval or add a gated barrier.
LandscapeEntry stair has no handrail
A six-riser entry stair shows no handrail on the plan or its detail.
Why it matters: Inspection is likely to require one.
What to check: Show the handrail or reference the architect’s detail.
LandscapeFrench drain named, never drawn
A sheet title and photo name a French drain; no plan, legend or detail shows it.
Why it matters: It cannot be priced or built.
What to check: Locate it and add a detail with pipe, stone and outlet.
Landscape · CivilVanishing edge above the water line
The edge elevation sits above the water level the coping detail draws.
Why it matters: Water would stand higher than detailed.
What to check: Set one water level and align plan and sections.
LandscapeDrain detail keeps removed steps
The channel drain detail drops in two steps the revised deck plan no longer has.
Why it matters: The deck could be formed to the old design.
What to check: Redraw it flush or grade the steps on the plan.
LandscapeStair limit set too high
A stair note prints a grade limit well above the one computed from the crown.
Why it matters: Grades could be built above the zoning limit.
What to check: Replace it with the computed limit on every sheet.
LandscapeCoping maximum left unrevised
The coping maximum still uses the old deck limit after the limit was revised.
Why it matters: The printed maximum allows more than the rule.
What to check: Recompute it from the revised deck limit.
LandscapeSlope label four times the grades
A driveway panel is labeled far steeper than its own spot grades give.
Why it matters: Pavers could be laid to the wrong fall.
What to check: Correct the label or the grades.
LandscapeReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Landscape and Civil
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low 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.