Council OKs ATV ordinance

By Joseph Cyr
Staff Writer
    HOULTON — Riding an all-terrain vehicle along a town road, provided the rider is trying to gain access to a trail, will become a reality next month in Houlton.
    The Houlton Town Council approved a new ordinance Monday evening by a vote of 5-1, with councilor Sue Tortello opposed, to allow ATVs to use town owned roads, for the sole purpose of accessing a trail.
    In the new ordinance, an ATV operator is allowed to ride on designated town roads at a speed not to exceed 10 miles per hour, to gain access to a trail. The rider must also drive on the extreme right-hand side of the road.
    All streets in the downtown district, bordered by Kendall, Broadway, Military, Water and Prospect streets from Mechanic to Summer streets are excluded in the ordinance. Additionally, all state roads, including Route 1 (North Street), Route 2A (Bangor Road and Military Street) and Route 2 (County Road/Smyrna Street) are excluded and may not be traveled on by ATV operators.
    ATV operation is prohibited from sunset to sunrise and is prohibited from Nov. 30 to May 15.
    Council chairman Paul Cleary stressed the ordinance was only to provide access to trails, not for people to take their ATVs to stores or restaurants, unless they are located on a trail route.
    “This (ordinance) states ATV use is to gain access to a trail,” Cleary said. “Its meaning is to allow access to trails and that’s the only thing they are allowed to do.”
    State law already allowed registered ATV operators to use public roads to gain access to trails up to a maximum of 500 yards, provided they were operating on the far right-hand side of the road. The new town ordinance keeps that right-hand requirement, but takes away any maximum distance an ATV operator may travel on town-controlled roads.
    Joe Hughes, vice president of the Aroostook Riders ATV Club, of Houlton encouraged the council to vote in favor of the ordinance.
    “I have ridden the trails in and around Houlton quite extensively,” he said. “I have seen these ordinances work in other towns, specifically Madawaska, Fort Kent, Van Buren and even in the southern part of Maine.”
    There are more than 140 miles of trails that go around Houlton, Hughes added.
    In the ordinance, any person found to be in violation is subject to a fine of $50 for the first offense; $100 for the second offense; $150 for the third offense; and $200 for subsequent offenses. After the third offense, ATV operators can also be subject to confiscation of their vehicles by the Houlton Police Department.
    Houlton Police Chief Butch Asselin also expressed some concerns with the new ordinance, particularly the language involving penalties.
    “The part about confiscating the ATVs, I have a bit of an issue with that,’ the chief said. “It doesn’t define the amount of time we can keep an ATV. Plus I have a few issues about taking an ATV from an adult.”
    Tortello stated she was not against ATVs on the roads, but that the wording of the ordinance was too vague in some areas.
    “I’m certainly not anti-ATVs,” Tortello said. “I think they are a wonderful form of recreation and I totally believe they give people of all abilities an opportunity to get out in parts of Maine that you normally can’t get to.”
    She questioned if there was an existing problem that needed to be remedied by creating a new ordinance.
    “Over the last five years, we haven’t had a whole lot of complaints coming into the police department,” she said.
    Since 2008, there were 62 complaints. In the past 16 months, there were 15 ATV complaints.
    “I’m wondering if this is even a problem?” she asked.
    “For the most part, I think you will find people have been very responsible,” Asselin said. “Overall people comply with the rules.”
    Concerns over signs designating ATV access routes were also addressed. Both Tortello and Asselin expressed apprehension with how the signs would be erected, where the signs will be posted, and what types of signs will be used.
    “Based on the way the ordinance is written, it could be quite costly for us to do that,” Asselin said. “I would recommend that you review that part so you don’t have to designate every street in town.”
    “We’re proposing every street in the town of Houlton, except for downtown and state streets,” Tortello said. “That’s over 150 streets. That’s kind of expensive. I understand these signs cost $14 a pop, so we are looking at a minimum of $2,000.”
    The ordinance also states the police chief will be responsible for erecting the signs, which Tortello thought was not a good use of his time. She also expressed concerns that the new ordinance did not set a limit for how far a rider could travel on a public road to access a trail.
    “The way it is written, they can go as far as they want,” she said.
    Councilor Mike Jenkins, one of the main supporters of the new ordinance, rejected that notion.
    “They are going to go from point A to point B to get on the trail,” he said. “They are not going to be going down to County Yankee to go to the grocery store and back. Police officers have the right to stop them and ask them where they are going. They should be able to determine (if the rider) is going to the closest trail. It’s pretty simple.”
    He said the signage issue could be resolved by placing them on utility poles, provided the town received permission from Houlton Water Company to do so.
    He added that the local police department has not been a problem for many riders, but county and state police officers have been.
    “Unfortunately, we have other law enforcement agencies in the state that feel they need to enforce the state laws,” Jenkins said. “You can talk to citizens who have been written up for trying to get to a trail.”
    Jenkins also asked the chief why he waited so long to bring forth his concerns.
    “I thought we had input from you before this,” Jenkins asked.
    The chief said he was asked for his input by former town manager Doug Hazlett. At that time, Asselin said he provided some quick observations of the ordinance, but did not have time to “really think it out” until later.
    “If this it becomes a bigger issue, we can come back and revisit this ordinance,” Cleary said.