Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents ask board to allow ASTM-certified safety pool covers as alternative to fences; planning review approved

Harris Township Board of Supervisors · October 15, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two residents asked supervisors to permit ASTM-approved automatic safety covers in lieu of four-foot fencing for in-ground pools; supervisors agreed to send the request to the planning commission for further review and comparators from neighboring municipalities.

Two Harris Township residents asked the board on Oct. 14 to amend the zoning ordinance so that automatic safety pool covers meeting the ASTM standard cited in the request could substitute for four-foot fences around in-ground pools.

Staff reported that the Center Region Code Administration updated building-permit guidance in 2015 to allow automatic covers complying with the ASTM specification to be used in lieu of perimeter fencing in certain neighboring municipalities, while other nearby jurisdictions still require fences. "She responded with information that the change was made in the building code in 2015," staff said of the CRCA reply.

Resident Janet McCracken, one of the petitioners, told the board that some municipalities she spoke with favored certified safety covers because owners sometimes prop fence gates open. "We felt comfortable with these specified approved covers, that they're going to be as safe as a fence would be," McCracken said. She offered to help gather model language and code comparisons for the board and planning commission.

Supervisors expressed safety concerns, citing a past drowning incident and uncertainty about who would reliably deploy automatic covers. One supervisor said a fence provides a passive barrier and questioned whether a cover that requires conscious human action would offer equivalent protection.

Following discussion, the board voted to send the request to the planning commission for detailed review, comparison of neighboring codes and any recommended ordinance language. The planning commission was asked to report back with any suggested amendments and supporting evidence, including safety data and model code references.

No ordinance change was made at the meeting; the matter will return to the board after planning commission review.