CT Pool Fence Legislation RETROACTIVE

[kevinanton7]

Hello everyone, I just wanted to bring to your attention the CT house has passed HB 5169 requiring ALL inground pools to have fences, this includes those that have autocovers AND existing pools. Meaning if you have a pool that was grandfathered in you will have to pay for a fence. Personally, I just spent $10k on a powered autocover to avoid having a fence, in compliance with the law, and now the legislature is poised to force everyone to install a fence.

I don't believe this has passed the Senate yet, so call your local Senator's office to voice your opinion. I can't imagine it is even legal to retroactively enforce a regulation, but it certainly isn't fair.

 

[Newdude]

I can't imagine it is even legal to retroactively enforce a regulation, but it certainly isn't fair.

In really only affects autocover people retroactively, and most people don't get them up here.

Anyone else needed a fence in the first place.

By me, even above ground pools need a fence.

 

[kevinanton7]

In really only affects autocover people retroactively, and most people don't get them up here.

Anyone else needed a fence in the first place.

By me, even above ground pools need a fence.

I believe it affects anyone who is non compliant with the current fence requirements if I am reading the bill correctly. For example, if your fence doesn't have an automatically closing/latching gate, or if your fence has larger openings than are currently allowed, etc, you will have to upgrade or replace (for example when I bought this house a year ago, there wasn't a fence going completely around the pool area, didn't have automatically closing gates and portions of the fence we did have were climbable.

 

[kevinanton7]

(2) Any owner of an in-ground swimming pool that is not subject to
the provisions of subsection (a) of this section and, as of July 1, 2024, is
not surrounded by a barrier that complies with the requirements of the
State Building Code revised to October 1, 2022, shall install a barrier that
complies with the requirements of said section installed not later than
July 1, 2025

 

[Newdude]

I believe it affects anyone who is non compliant with the current fence requirements if I am reading the bill correctly.

Correct. But everybody *should* already be compliant. Previous revisions likely had similar requirements to adapt to the then new code.

Whether or not people did, or didn't and got away with it, is another discussion.

 

[kevinanton7]

Correct. But everybody *should* already be compliant. Previous revisions likely had similar requirements to adapt to the then new code.

Whether or not people did, or didn't and got away with it, is another discussion.

Not necessarily. Some pools existed prior to the barrier requirements, and MANY surely existed prior to the CURRENT requirements. Imagine, two years from now they change the regulations again, and everyone has to reinstall another fence? This is a bad path to go down as far as precedence.

 

[Newdude]

MANY surely existed prior to the CURRENT requirements.

Pull up the 2022 changes and see if everyone had to adapt to those also. They probably did. This likely isn't the very first time your state is requiring retroactive compliance.

 

[ajw22]

What is the enforcement and penalty for non-compliance?

 

[kevinanton7]

Pull up the 2022 changes and see if everyone had to adapt to those also. They probably did. This likely isn't the very first time your state is requiring retroactive compliance.

They were not retroactive, they were adopted as part of the building code which is not retroactive.

 

[kevinanton7]

What is the enforcement and penalty for non-compliance?

You know, potential jail time... From the bill:

The bill results in a potential revenue gain from fines as it requires
these changes to be enforced similar to a building code violation, which
is punishable by a fine of $200 to $1,000 or up to 6 months in prison or
both.

 

[kevinanton7]

Also, amazing they talk about revenue gain from additional building permits.... So I paid for a permit for a pool cover, which including removal of the (not currently compliant) fence, and now I will have to pay for a permit for a fence AND the fence itself!

 

[bmoreswim]

That stinks. That said, I've never felt that exception for autocovers should be allowed. People forget to cover pools, electricity goes out, covers stop working for mechanical issues. I know, I have one.

 

[kevinanton7]

That stinks. That said, I've never felt that exception for autocovers should be allowed. People forget to cover pools, electricity goes out, covers stop working for mechanical issues. I know, I have one.

I understand where you are coming from, I just think the risk isn't that high of a pool cover being stuck open during a power outage and then someone drowning in that pool. There are risks with fences too, gates can stop automatically shutting, they are seldom, if ever locked, people prop them open then forget, etc. In Sweden you don't even need a fence (but they teach everyone to swim in kindergarten).

 

[Newdude]

I just think the risk isn't that high of a pool cover being stuck open during a power outage and then someone drowning in that pool

Agreed. It's much higher relying on the pool owner to remember to close it though. Or to care to keep it closed when not in use.