Breaking News
Local News

Elkins Council votes down ATV ordinance

By Brad Johnson 4 min read

ELKINS -- Elkins City Council voted down a proposed ordinance Thursday evening that would have allowed ATVs and UTVs to drive on city streets.

Three council members voted in favor of the proposed ordinance Thursday, while seven members voted against it. The proposal had been returned to the Rules and Ordinance Committee for revision after it divided council on a 5-5 vote in December.

City Clerk Jessica Sutton began the discussion of the proposed ordinance at Thursday's meeting by saying it had been "substantively changed," although several council members then criticized the proposal and said it had not been changed enough.

Fifth Ward Councilman Dave Parker said he had spoken with Delegate Cody Thompson, D-Randolph, to "get his perspective" about the proposed ordinance.

"According to Delegate Thompson, the state legislation that launched this ATV/UTV question was intended to address concerns and issues specific to the southern counties of our state, that have developed ATV trail systems, such as the Hatfield-McCoy Trails," Parker said. "There are sections of trail that end, and require ATV riders to run on highways to reach the next section of trail …

"Our legislators did not intend this bill to be applied statewide to encourage the use of ATVs and UTVs on highways and roadways in and around our towns," Parker added.

Fourth Ward Councilwoman Karen Wilmoth also voiced her opposition to the proposed ordinance.

"I spoke in opposition to this when it was written," she said. "I read it again, and it still seems to be overly broad. If there were some more restrictions I would be in favor of it, but not a single person in my ward who spoke to me about it is in favor of it."

First Ward Councilwoman Judy Guye also said her constituents opposed the proposal.

"I've had calls from First Ward residents," she said. "Most of them oppose this ordinance."

First Ward Councilman Rob Chenoweth, a member of the Rules and Ordinance Committee, also said he opposed the proposed ordinance.

"I've had many emails and conversations with people, and I'd say the overwhelming majority of them are not in favor of the ordinance," he said. "It's our job to do what our constituents are asking us. I don't think they want this ordinance."

Fourth Ward's Marilynn Cuonzo added, "I have spoken with many, many people in Fourth Ward and I have not had one person in favor of this ordinance.

"I'm disappointed that Rules and Ordinance didn't do its homework on this ordinance," she said. "I was hoping we could do something that would allow riders to get on their bikes and move to trails, but that didn't happen."

Fifth Ward Councilwoman Linda Vest, who is the chair of the Rules and Ordinance Committee, said, "This ordinance allows a person that has a street-legal machine only to operate on the highway and the streets. To be able to leave their home and go to a trail that is outside the city. There are no trails within the city. They're not here to race in our city, they're here to obey the laws."

Vest, Second Ward Councilman Mike Hinchman and Third Ward Councilman Chris Lowther voted in favor of the proposed ordinance. Voting against were Parker, Wilmoth, Guye, Chenoweth, Cuonzo, Second Ward Councilman Charlie Friddle and Third Ward Councilman Carman Metheny.

Friddle and Metheny had voted in favor of the original proposed ordinance in December.

After the vote, Mayor Van Broughton said, "I think this is a good example, we can agree to disagree. It was a good, healthy discussion. I do thank you all for that."

On Nov. 19, Broughton broke a 5-5 tie by casting his vote to approve on first reading the original proposed ordinance. The tie vote came after a lengthy and at time contentious discussion on the ATV ordinance by council members, as well as a motion to send the ordinance back to the committee to be revised -- that vote also resulted in a 5-5 tie.

Council voted 6-4 in early December to send back to the Rules and Ordinance Committee for review the controversial proposed ordinance. The ordinance had been set for a vote on its second and final reading at that council meeting.

Starting at /week.