Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pool Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harris Township keeps fences required for in-ground pools after debate over automatic covers
Summary
After residents and staff discussed safety, cost and enforcement, the board declined to remove the township's fence requirement for in-ground pools and signaled interest in exploring incentives or draft language if the issue returns to the planning commission.
The Harris Township Board of Supervisors on Tuesday reviewed a citizen request to allow building-code-certified automatic in-ground pool covers as an alternative to the township's current 4-foot fence requirement but signaled it would not remove the fence requirement at this time.
Staff said the planning commission recommended allowing pool covers in addition to existing fencing requirements, and that staff searched available literature but was "unable to locate any comparative safety data" showing a cover alone equaled a fence in preventing drownings. A staff presenter also noted the literature generally supported using covers in addition to fencing as the safest option.
Residents and board members expressed deep concerns about shifting to covers alone. Jeff Hayes, a resident, argued the cover could be safer if properly maintained but pressed the board on enforcement and long-term maintenance: "My sense is that as long as the pool cover is maintained, it is harder to gain access to the pool, to the water, which is a drowning hazard, than it is to scale a fence," Hayes said. Several supervisors replied that a fence provides a known, inspectable safety barrier and that the township currently has no history of injuries from fenced pools.
Other residents urged nuance: Scott Debris suggested lot size could be relevant, asking the board to consider exemptions or lot-size thresholds where covers might be acceptable. Board members repeatedly raised the practical risks of equipment failure, lack of inspection regimes and the financial burden of requiring both a cover and a fence; one resident estimated installation costs for an automatic cover at roughly $20,000'$25,000 while board members noted a fence is substantially less expensive.
The board majority said they were not prepared to eliminate the fence requirement and that, for now, fences remain mandatory; several supervisors encouraged preserving the planning commission's role and returning to the issue if new safety data or incentive options emerged. One supervisor suggested the board could later examine whether incentives or a different regulatory approach (for example, permitting covers as an optional supplement) would be appropriate, but staff said the township currently lacks inspection resources to rely on covers alone.
The board did not take a final ordinance adoption vote on this item at Tuesday's meeting. Instead members directed staff to retain the fence requirement, consider whether incentive options are feasible, and, if the board wants, request draft ordinance language from the planning commission at a later date.
