Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pool Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves pool-cover alternative to 4-foot fence for Cedar Point Road property amid building-code questions
Summary
The Sandusky Boards & Commissions granted a variance allowing a pool safety cover in place of a 4-foot fence at 513 Cedar Point Road, conditioned on obtaining all permits and using lock-and-key or passcode controls; members debated whether current building-code rules make the variance effective.
The Sandusky Boards & Commissions approved a variance allowing an alternative safety barrier — an ASTM-tested automatic pool cover — instead of the 4-foot fence required by zoning for a proposed pool at 513 Cedar Point Road, with conditions that all applicable permits be obtained and the cover’s controls include a lock-and-key or passcode method.
Staff described the lot as R-1.75 single-family residential and said the proposed pool would be within required setbacks. Staff noted materials submitted by the applicant included manufacturer literature and that the cover was listed to ASTM F1346 (a pool safety standard) and described the ASTM testing categories, including a weight-support test requiring a minimum 485-pound capacity and perimeter deflection and drainage standards. Staff recommended approval with the conditions that permits be obtained through the building and engineering departments and that the cover’s control system be secured by a lock-and-key or passcode method.
Applicant Mary Ray said the property’s waterfront location and lack of existing yard fencing motivated the request: “I would hate to obstruct the views… a 4-foot wall of glass would not — I would not feel comfortable,” she said, and argued an ASTM-rated cover was a safer alternative when the owners are not present. Ray also said her insurance company reviewed the cover information and did not object to a cover in lieu of a fence.
Several board members said they were concerned about the current state of the building code and whether a building-permit reviewer would enforce a residential-code requirement for a 4-foot fence. Board member John Fike explained the residential code generally requires a 4-foot fence and said that “the Ohio building code covers all public pools. Residential code of Ohio would cover a private pool. And in residential code of Ohio does require 4 foot fence.” The board’s law director said the city’s liability was unlikely but warned that a private owner could face liability if a pool qualified as an attractive nuisance.
Some members proposed tabling the item so the planning and law director could review applicable regulations. After discussion, a motion to approve the variance with staff’s conditions passed on roll call: Blake Harris — yes; John Fike — no; William Siemens — yes; Dan Delahunt — yes.
The board’s action grants zoning relief only. Staff and several members emphasized that a building-permit review remains a separate check; if the building department enforces a 4-foot-fence requirement under the Ohio building or residential code, the applicant would still need to comply with that code before construction.
Next steps for the applicant are to secure the required permits from the building and engineering departments and to provide documentation of the ASTM-rated cover and its secured controls during the building-permit review.
