The recent decision by the Amador County Board of Supervisors to not initiate any kind of ordinance regulating the use of ATV’s is a major disappointment. What’s worse, it sets up the potential for neighborhood feuds that could rival the proverbial Hatfields and the McCoys.
Let’s face it, if people were left to their own devices to "do the right thing" we wouldn’t need 80% of the laws and regulations that we have. The facts are that in today’s society, most people think that it is their "right" to do what they want to do with little regard for others. This includes everything from holding loud, annoying conservations on their cell phones next to you in the restaurant to passing over a double yellow line because the car driving the speed limit in front of them is "holding them back". It is this same mentality that makes people think it is just fine to ride their loud, obnoxious ATV’s around their property with little regard to what it is doing to the sanity of their neighbors.
The attendee’s at the Supervisors meeting cited "property rights" as the reason to oppose any ATV ordinance. Does it not go both ways? What if the noise and dust of the the ATV track creates a loss of quality of life to the neighbors? What if the neighbor can’t take it any more, decides to move and their property value is diminished because of the ATV track next door? Apparently all of this doesn’t matter because it is "my right to do what I want on my property". But is it?
Building permits and zoning ordinances are just two of the ways that a community regulates the appropriateness of what goes where. This is why "Clyde Jones" can’t just build and operate an auto body repair shop in his backyard without regulatory approval. It is also why an ATV track should be regulated with the same kind of zoning ordinances or building permits that any project with this kind of impact should be. Here are some suggestions as to what these regulations should be:
1.) Enforce distance to the next house, not property line.
2.) Decible levels must not exceed a certain threshold at all times.
3.) No dust must be generated from riding the ATV’s.
4.) Hours of operation strictly enforced.
5.) Neighbors must approve of the ATV track through a "zoning petition" signed and submitted to the City or County.
Of course I respect property rights. We all bristle at too much governmental regulation. But in order for all of us to get along, we are subject to restrictions that forces "manners" on us because without these restrictions it would be chaos. Some say that this ordinance was too flawed to pass "as is". However, by not acting on promoting an alternative ordinance on such an important issue, the Supervisors have allowed the potential for continued ATV problems between neighbors.
I disagree with you. Although I understood the reason the ordinance was drafted (because of a few nuisances), it was a poorly written ordinance and the Board was right in NOT passing it as it was.
Amador County is made up of many large parcels. The smaller more urban-sized parcels are pretty much limited to our cities. Owning a parcel of at least five acres pretty much means you should own an ATV or other type of Off-Road Vehicle to maintain your property.
That ordinance would have made that illegal as it was written. The ordinance had language limiting the use of ATVs/Off-Road Vehicles within “three hundred feet or closer to the exterior boundary line of that parcel” and not to drive “repetitively over the same path, trail, track or road.” So that would eliminate using an Off-Road Vehicle to work on your fence line, drive down the roads on your property, your driveway, to clear brush for your defensible space, etc. Would the county rather I use my SUV or Pick-Up truck to travel around my 20-acre parcel and keep the land properly maintained? Passing this ordinance would have forced many folks to use their BIG SUVs or pick-up trucks to access areas of their property…rather than lighter more efficient farm vehicles, ATVs and other Off-Road Vehicles.
I have neighbors in the agricultural community who heard about the ordinance but told me not to worry because they heard that there was an exemption for agriculture. So I went and read the ordinance myself. The exemption reads, “on any parcel designated by the General Plan for agricultural use and the use of off-road vehicles is part of commercial agricultural operations.” The problem with this is the assumption of “commercial operations.” This could mean that if I used my John Deer Gator to drive through my vineyard and check on my vines I would be okay, but if I used it to dump my lawn clippings or garden clippings I would be in violation. It also brings up the problem with definitions. Just what is a “commercial agricultural operation?” I have many friends here in Amador who farm over 80 acres with their livestock and horses, and they do this as a lifestyle and as a way of maintaining their land safely, but not as a commercial business. They were concerned they would also be in violation. Many agriculturally-zoned parcels do not have any “commercial operation” that they receive income from. Many folks like just farming the land or grazing livestock on their open-space. Some folks farm and ranch for their own consumption and enjoyment, not for any commercial purpose. The way this ordinance was written they would have been in violation simply because they did not receive commercial income for their farming and ranching efforts?
And wouldn’t common sense tell you that you’d rather have these vehicles kept on the farm roads than being run all over the property if possible. And isn’t the most common use probably to get to the far ends of a property and to the fence lines to deal with maintenance…so the three-hundred foot limitation doesn’t make sense.
Your recommendation that it be related to the distance from another house just doesn’t work either. If a neighbor builds their home closer to my fence line why should I be penalized by not being able to go service my fenceline with my farm vehicle…because they built closer to MY fenceline.
Nuisance use needs to be directly controlled not the broad ordinance that was presented to the Board of Supervisors. I applaud them for realizing this was a bad ordinance written for a good reason.
Too many of these are being rushed into law to fix problems without thought about the laws other implications and problems.
Don’t slam the supervisors for being cautious.
From The Editor:
You make some valid points. The real problem here is that ATV issues come from two different viewpoints.
One is yours: you are not the person who seems to drive their ATV around and around on a track with muffler modifications which amp up the decibel level and drive the neighbors in the region out of their minds with noise and dust. (Unfortunately, this is the viewpoint that the Ledger chose to focus on in their news story that the Supervisors seemed to defend.)
Second are those who believe it is their RIGHT to drive their ATV’s around and around on a track with muffler modifications which amp up the decibel level and drive the neighbors in the region out of their minds with noise and dust. This kind of usage is clearly what the ordinance was trying to target, not users such as yourself. Unfortuately, as it stands now - and this is the point I am trying to make - the only "winners" in this are those who choose to not regard noise and dust affects from their ATV’s on their neighbors. I would imagine that you would not want a neighbor who uses their ATV in the nuisance manner as described. Yet, you have no recourse at this time.
In regards to your comments about property size, there are many hundreds of parcels in Amador County from 1 to 5 acres which are not large enough to accomodate an ATV track and not annoy the neighbors. Further, the issue of distance from one home to the next IS appropriate if the ATV rider builds their track close to YOUR home, is it not? So, coming from your perspective which I understand and respect, what solutions could work? Clearly "doing nothing" about the problem is not a solution. This is what the Supervisors chose to do.
Put on the ballot in November, let the majority vote on it not the minority. Last time I checked we live in America.
The neighbor problem sounds more like a civil matter? If neighbor’s try to work out the problem, a solution can usually be worked out.
Also who would enforce an ordinance? Our law enforcement have better things to do.