Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi everyone, I hope that some of the Northport Village residents are on this forum and able to contribute to this thread. Does anyone else feel like some of the Village of Northport's codes are outdated, unreasonably overbroad and leave too much room for non-sensical interpretation by an already too strict (not to mention non-resident) village inspector? In particular, code 264-2 regarding an additional pool enclosure (that encloses just the pool and equipment) regardless of whether there is an automatic safety cover and a completely fenced-in backyard?
If anyone else from Northport Village is having issues with the inspector or her interpretation of the code, please reply. I think it's time that we get together and resolve this issue. There is too much infringement in our freedom as property owners going on here, and our additional village tax should not be used to confine us to tasteless and useless requirements that those in charge are too lazy (or too scared) to change.
You might not care for the code, but it is preferable to the possibility of a child wandering into your fully fenced yard, getting under or falling through the cover and drowning.
Actually, a child that can somehow bypass my 6 foot fence with a self latching gate and a lock will certainly be able to get through the code's 4' fence requirement, and hopefully that same child is also big enough not to drawn in my pool that is no more than 3 feet deep. Howners who opt for an automatic cover are the the not only the ones truly concerned with safety but also the ones who wish to preserve energy (and save money) by keeping their heat from escaping and keeping their pool clean (otherwise why spend such a substantial amount of money for one) so they are very unlikely to leave their pool uncovered. Besides, self-latching gates have to be repaired often, and any unlevelling in the yard (that happens often with erosion) will cause that gate to not close by itself. So one would have to trust that the homeowner keeps the gate with its self latching feature intact (I mean the gate around the pool only enclosure). The drafters of this code did not have in mind the safety of trespassing children, but rather the safety of the homewoners own children and those of their invitees. What the officials are doing with that code is susbtituting for good parenting. The best way to prevent child drowning is a responsible adult present in that child's life. And I find it offensive and outside the scope of government to try to take on responsabilities that I and everyone else should have as a parent. And if they decide that they lack the trust in these parents enough to place this requirement, how can they trust these same parents with making sure that 1) they maintain the enclosure as required, and 2) they keep an eye on their child to make sure that the child does not find a creative way to get through the 4' enclosure?
It's absolutely outdated. Automatic covers are what responsible parents with means should be getting when they place a pool. And the ridiculous extra fence in the yard should never be a requirement when there are better safety features already in place.
Ok, maybe I'm not explaining this as well as I could. Here is the breakdown:
1) Perimeter fences are harder to bypass than the enclosure requirement under this particular section, therefore whoever can bypass the perimeter fence can also bypass the pool enclosure.
2) An automatic cover is as safe ir not safer than the enclosure required under this session to accomplish the same goal.
3) If the issue is trusting the homeowner to turn the key to cover the pool, we should note that under the same code, above-ground pools do not require this enclosure so long as the access is restricted. That means a ladder that the homeowner needs to remember to remove or somehow restrict when the pool is not in use. Since turning a key is much easier and more convenient than removing a ladder, clearly if a homeowner with an above-ground pool can be trusted to remove their ladder, the homeowner with the in-ground pool should be also trusted with turning the key for the automatic cover.
4) Obviously this code is not there to safeguard trespassing children but rather children who are already in the home. However, there is no safety provision in place for indoor pools, which present a much higher risk to the same protected class (the home's children).
It is an absolute disgrace that people cannot do their research and get up to date with the times. If the same safety can be provided by different, more modern means than the ones available when the code was issued, then the code must be amended to include those means. As it stands all this code does is reward poor taste.
Bottomline: you don't want to pay for an inside fence to be within compliance.
Plenty of irresponsible parents out there. Don't fool yourself. Plenty of precocious children who pool hop as well.
If you're not home and one of these little darlings gets into your yard over (or under) the 6' fence, the problem is yours.
YES!!! You are absolutely right in the sense that the problem should be mine (and of that child's parent) and not the village's. So they should allow me to decide to take on that risk. The problem here is, THERE IS NO RISK!!! At least NO GREATER risk than the risk posed by the required enclosure or the risk afforded to the owners of above-ground pools who do not fall under the same enclosure requirements.
YES!!! You are absolutely right in the sense that the problem should be mine (and of that child's parent) and not the village's. So they should allow me to decide to take on that risk. The problem here is, THERE IS NO RISK!!! At least NO GREATER risk than the risk posed by the required enclosure or the risk afforded to the owners of above-ground pools who do not fall under the same enclosure requirements.
But by buying a house in the village and opting to build a pool, you knew (remember, ignorance is not a defense) of the village's requirements. For every 1 "intelligent" person that does install X Y and Z to ensure no kids fall in the pool, there are probably 10 that do not.
It's like buying a car and complaining about insurance.
But by buying a house in the village and opting to build a pool, you knew (remember, ignorance is not a defense) of the village's requirements. For every 1 "intelligent" person that does install X Y and Z to ensure no kids fall in the pool, there are probably 10 that do not.
It's like buying a car and complaining about insurance.
Oh wow, I'm sorry, I didn't know intelligence was re-defined. So, maybe instead of people with a vision and common sense making amendments to the US constitution blacks should still be slaves, women should not vote, and other stupid inadequate laws should still be in place right? I'm sure also that before purchasing your home you took the time to analyze all of your possible future projects and what that town's requirements were simultaneously (and blindly) trusting that those rules you made yourself aware of would never change over time. That's great for people who like being followers, but for every follower there is a leader. I know for a fact that the majority of village residents want this code change, so the more we share that view with each other the more likely we are to bring about that change.
And your X Y Z comment made absolutely no sense at all. Like I said, the code is inconsistent and discriminatory in its rule and application. But you need intelligence to understand that.
Instead of being overly concerned with what people do in their own backyard, village officials (and supposedly caring residents) should concern themselves with the fact that the abandoned gas station on 25A is statistically likely to bring crime into this area, and maybe take a closer look at the questionable housing on 25A near the Wellness Center. Those are real safety concerns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
