Photo by Stpehanie Elverd Councilwoman-at-large Lucien Murzyn questions whether allowing variances for pool fencing requirements could create liability concerns for the city during Tuesday’s St. Clairsville City Council meeting.

ST. CLAIRSVILLE — St. Clairsville officials voiced strong support Tuesday for maintaining the city’s requirement that in-ground swimming pools be enclosed by a 4-foot-high fence, despite discussion about whether automatic pool covers could serve as an alternative safety measure.

The issue resurfaced during Tuesday’s City Council meeting as officials continued a previous discussion about whether automatic pool covers should be considered equivalent to a fence under city regulations.

“In a continuation of the automatic pool covers that are considered a fence, we never did finish that,” Councilman Don Vincenzo said.

St. Clairsville Planning and Zoning Administrator Tom Murphy told council he had researched how other Ohio communities handle pool safety regulations and found most still require fencing around in-ground pools.

“Concerns about in-ground pools not having fences. I did research on other communities,” Murphy said. “It’s overwhelming in the state of Ohio and probably across the country, especially with an in-ground pool, there is a four-foot high fence requirement.”

Murphy said some communities allow variances or exceptions involving automatic pool covers, but he questioned the effectiveness and practicality of such alternatives.

“One community requires a fence but if the pool had a pool cover — it has to meet a certain weight requirement — and it is 50 feet away from a property line then they didn’t require a fence,” Murphy said. “You can see the concern. Fifty feet isn’t that much, especially for a child.”

Another community allowed pool covers in lieu of fencing only if the covers remained closed whenever the pool was not actively being used, he added.

“You can see the potential flaws in there,” Murphy said.

Murphy also questioned recommendations from industry organizations supporting pool covers as an alternative barrier, noting many of the standards were developed alongside pool companies.

“My recommendation on that, my thoughts on that is you have to protect the public here,” Murphy said. “The last thing I would ever want to see is me or any member of council or the city, I mean you read it in the newspapers in different areas where a child walks into a pool and drowns.”

Murphy said property owners are informed early in the process that fencing is required for in-ground pools.

“I do sit down with people before they ever start to build their pool and let them know a four-foot-high fence is required so it’s not like it’s a surprise,” he said.

Vincenzo said his own research found differing requirements in communities around Columbus, particularly involving saltwater pools.

“I did talk to a person in Columbus and the townships there,” Vincenzo said. “Some people don’t need a fence if they have the cover, some say they do.”

He said many saltwater pool owners leave covers open for extended periods because sunlight affects the water chemistry and reduces strain on pool pumps.

Councilwoman Kristi Lee Lipscomb said she supported keeping the existing fencing requirement in place.

“I don’t over regulate on anything but this one point, I just think it’s so important that we need to keep this rule in place,” Lipscomb said. “I would hate for a variance to even be granted on that issue. I would not be happy if I heard that.”

Councilwoman-at-large Lucien Murzyn also questioned whether allowing variances could create liability concerns for the city.

“My question is if we allow a variance and then something happens in that pool, a kid gets in that pool or something, is the city held liable because we offered a variance,” Murzyn said.

Service and Safety Director Scott Harvey said fencing around pools should simply be viewed as a matter of safety.

“To me it’s common sense,” Harvey said. “If it was my pool, I would want a fence around just for my own peace of mind.”

Murzyn said she also questioned whether a pool cover could provide the same visible level of mandated protection as fencing.

“I don’t understand this whole pool cover in lieu of a fence,” she said. “That has to be one strong pool cover. It’s a lot easier to see a fence around a pool than to know how strong that pool cover is.”

Murphy noted many heavy-duty pool covers capable of supporting weight are significantly more expensive than installing fencing with covers costing around $30,000.

“The cost of pool cover that is acceptable as far as somebody standing on it, is a lot more than a fence,” Murphy said. “But I do think it’s common sense and comes back to public safety. No one wants to have their name attached to a child drowning.”

Murphy also said he would like to eventually pursue a broader update of the city’s planning and zoning code, noting some current regulations involving above-ground pools differ because the pool walls themselves can act as barriers when ladders are removed and secured.

Council took no formal action on the matter Tuesday.