ATV Enthusiasts Oppose Ordinance Proposal

John Voket

A revved-up, overflow crowd of what appeared to be mostly all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and dirt motorcycle enthusiasts gathered Wednesday evening at the Booth Library. More than 60 residents turned out to a public hearing to support the modification or termination of a proposed ordinance banning the off-road vehicles from town roads and properties.

That proposed ordinance was one of three on the agenda preceding what was to be a town Legislative Council meeting. But following the public hearing council members determined that there was insufficient posting of the regular meeting, a violation of freedom of information statutes if held, so they cancelled the session.

The council now has 30 days to reconvene and act on the proposal. Members were scheduled to discuss and possibly act on the ordinances from the public hearings; however, council members went home with some ideas and plenty of feedback from about 20 persons who spoke on the record about the ATV ordinance.

Town resident Kevin O’Neill, who spoke to The Bee at length prior to the meeting, distributed a packet of information to each council member that included statistics, safety information, and his proposal to create a town-owned ATV track or trail system, from which the town could earn revenues.

He was one of several residents who said they would not only be willing to support such a venture with tax dollars, but would also staff a local nonprofit ATV riders group that would help maintain and supervise the operation. Mr O’Neill said his rider group would be called NOHVA, the Newtown Off Highway Vehicle Association, and would welcome four-wheel quad operators, as well as dirt cycle enthusiasts.

While the group was primarily representative of those opposing the ordinance, at least three residents went on the record in support of it. Cliff Smith said he recently witnesses a neighbors’ ATV running up and down the town street in front of his house until 2 am.

“It’s getting to be where I can’t have guests over in my back yard,” Mr Smith told council members. He pointed out that posted signs prevent his 12-year-old dog from going into a town park near his house, but until such an ordinance is enacted and enforced, ATV riders can still traverse the town property with little fear of being punished.

Many of those who spoke against the ordinance directly expressed or alluded to empathy for those suffering because of unlawful ATV and dirt bike operators. Others brought along children, who were allowed to speak on the matter.

Kenneth Knapp said he, his wife, and two young daughters are all ATV riders. He spoke in support of Mr O’Neill’s proposal.

“I’ve lived here all my life, and my wife’s family has been in town for 150 years,” he said. “We have a right to ride…I feel town-sanctioned space is required.”

Other speakers against the ordinance repeatedly mentioned the potential for revenue the town might gain by establishing a fee-based permit system to access particular trails, or a town operated ATV park. Most agreed that if such a facility is to be considered, it would require a minimum 50 acres of land, well insulated by surrounding woods.

One speaker mentioned that he recently worked on an ATV activity in nearby New York, where participants helped raise more than $40,000 in one day for the local volunteer fire department.

While Joe Kelly spoke in favor of the ATV ban, he said he would consider supporting a town-operated facility for riders.

“I favor the ordinance; it’s about the noise, there are ruts all over our trails, they’ve been ruined by people driving illegally,” Mr Kelly told the council. “If the town wants to set aside 40 or 50 acres, I have no problem with that.”

Mr Kelly said if the ordinance is enacted, he would like to see fines spent on repairing damaged trails.

“It would be more of a deterrent to those who destroyed it, our tranquility and trails are being shattered,” he said.

Alan Smith blamed parents who allow their children to operate the vehicles without the proper training or supervision, and do not monitor the vehicles to determine if they have been modified to create more noise.

“The noisy quads people are having problems with are usually [operated by] kids,” said Mr Smith. “But it’s the parent’s problem — I’ve got one or two in my neighborhood who are ruining it for everybody.”

Following the hearing, council chairman Will Rodgers commented that several attendees seemed to be confused about the particular application of the ordinance. He referred to several speakers who said they were concerned about a ban on ATV use townwide.

“I’d say 15 to 20 percent of the audience thought the ordinance impacted private land owners,” Mr Rodgers said. “There are a lot of misinterpretations about what the ordinance does.”

Mr Rodgers, who said he logged many hours on a military ATV during his years of service, said he did not want to see residents coming out to a hearing with incomplete or incorrect information.

“It’s unfortunate if you’re going to come out and experience stress over thinking we’re trying to regulate [ATV use] on private property,” he said.

Mr Rodgers also clarified that the proposed ATV ordinance was unrelated to a possible noise ordinance. During several public commentaries, at least three speakers mentioned ATV and noise ordinances as though they were related.

“A noise ordinance isn’t even on the horizon for us now,” he said.

During the hearing, more than a half-dozen speakers touched on the existing state statutes regarding trespassing, and motor vehicle laws prohibiting ATVs on public roads. Several suggested the enforcement of state laws should be up to local police, who would not need a local ordinance to take action.

Mr Rodgers said police officials told him that if there were a town ordinance, town enforcement agencies would be more motivated to “take it seriously.” He said that if a local ATV ordinance is approved, the town would receive fines levied against offenders.

Currently any fines against those violating state statutes are turned back to the state, not the town where the violations occurred, he said.

First Selectman Herbert Rosenthal said the ordinance was drafted in response to an escalating number of complaints about illegal ATV operation that his office and council members have been receiving. But following the meeting, he said, taxpayer representation by those opposing the ordinance was clearly dominant.

“I wish more of the people who called to complain about ATVs came out tonight to support the ordinance,” he said.