Topic: Local All terrain vehicle progress in Tazewell County

[Villian ©®™ all rights reserved]

http://bdtonline.com/local/x2063991047/Officials-in-Tazewell-County-looking-forward-to-breaking-ground-on-ATV-trail-system


Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187580.html#msg187580

[Villian ©®™ all rights reserved]

Proposed Ordinance:
Virginia:
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF TAZEWELL COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AT 108 EAST MAIN STREET IN THE TOWN OF TAZEWELL, VIRGINIA ON THE 6th DAY OF MARCH, 2012, UPON DULY ADVERTIZED NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC BY PUBLICATION IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCLATION IN THE COUNTY OF TAZEWELL, THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED, AFTER PUBLIC HEARING, UPON A MOTION AND SECOND:

Ordinance No._________                                               Date_________________

AN ORDINANCE TO PERMIT TRAVEL BY ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES ON CERTAIN STATE ROUTES IN TAZEWELL COUNTY

WHEREAS, the Board intends to develop, through the County’s Recreational Development Authority, a system of recreational trails, including trails suitable and targeted to ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES (ATVs);

WHEREAS, development of such recreational trails will be greatly facilitated by
allowing users thereof to traverse certain State Highway routes in and around the Town of Pocahontas and the area known as Boissevain of Tazewell County, pursuant to Virginia Code § 46.2-915. 

WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of this ATV State Highway Route use Ordinance is to aid in the promotion of tourism with a “build it” promotional economic attitude. Therefore and without duress to recreational operators, it is incumbent for the particulars of this ordinance to aid the growth, acceptance and prosperity of Tazewell County recreational trails and to insure a safe and secure ease of use ability for all users in Tazewell County by All Terrain Vehicles Operators. The insurance of safety, economic promotion, legal use areas and informational data about operational issues will be by signs authorized and approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, recommended and instigated by the County Administrator and placed by the Tazewell County Recreational Development Authority.

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia has enacted legislation authorizing the Board to authorize such travel on certain State Highway routes; pursuant to Virginia code § 46.2-915. Notwithstanding subsection A, all-terrain vehicles may be operated on the highways in Tazewell County if the following conditions are met: Approved by action of the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors for operation along the Pocahontas Trail in and between the Town of Pocahontas and Boissevain; across Virginia Routes 644, 663, 659, 627, 734, and 747; within the corporate limits of the Town of Pocahontas in Tazewell County; and across property of the Virginia Department of Corrections in Tazewell County, provided that permission is granted for such operation pursuant to § 2.2-1150;


NOW THEREFORE, be it  ORDAINED that pursuant to Section 46.2-915.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, the Board of Supervisors hereby does authorize operation of ALL-Terrain Vehicles or ATVs on certain State Highway Routes under certain conditions as hereinafter set forth;
§ 46.2-915.1. All-terrain vehicles and off-road motorcycles; penalty.
A. No all-terrain vehicle shall be operated:
1. On any public highway, or other public property, except (i) as authorized by proper authorities (ii) to the extent necessary to cross a public highway by the most direct route, or (iii) by law-enforcement officers, firefighters, or rescue squad personnel responding to emergencies;
2. By any person under the age of 16, except that (i) children between the ages of 12 and 16 may operate all-terrain vehicles powered by engines of no more than 90 cubic centimeters displacement and (ii) children less than 12 years old may operate all-terrain vehicles powered by engines of no more than 70 cubic centimeters displacement;
3. By any person unless he is wearing a protective helmet of a type approved by the Superintendent of State Police for use by motorcycle operators;
4. On another person's property without the written consent of the owner of the property or as explicitly authorized by law; or
5. With a passenger at any time, unless such all-terrain vehicle is designed and equipped to be operated with more than one rider.
B. Notwithstanding subsection A, all-terrain vehicles may be operated on the highways in Buchanan County and Tazewell County if the following conditions are met:
1. Such operation is approved by action of the Buchanan County Board of Supervisors for operation along the Pocahontas Trail on Bill Young Mountain and across Virginia Route 635 in Buchanan County and approved by action of the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors for operation along the Pocahontas Trail in and between the Town of Pocahontas and Boissevain; across Virginia Routes 644, 663, 659, 627, 734, and 747; within the corporate limits of the Town of Pocahontas in Tazewell County; and across property of the Virginia Department of Corrections in Tazewell County, provided that permission is granted for such operation pursuant to § 2.2-1150;
2. Signs, whose design, number, and location are approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation, have been posted warning motorists that all-terrain vehicles may be operating on the highway;
3. Such all-terrain vehicles are operated during daylight hours on the highway for no more than one mile between one off-road trail and another;
4. Signs required by this subsection are purchased and installed by the person or club requesting the Board of Supervisors' approval for such over-the-road operation of all-terrain vehicles;
5. All-terrain vehicles operators shall, when operating on the highway, obey all rules of the road applicable to other motor vehicles;

For the purpose of this Ordinance, “ATV” shall have the meaning ascribed to “all-terrain vehicle” Section. 46.2-100 of the Code of Virginia as amended.

It is so ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors on this the _____ day of _____, 20__.

RECORDED VOTE:
MEMBERS PRESENT: _________________
MEMBERS ABSENT: _________________
AYES: ____________
NAYS: __________
ABSTENTIONS: ____________

ATTEST:

Mike Hymes, Chairman ______________
Jim Spencer, County Administrator _________________


Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187581.html#msg187581

[Villian ©®™ all rights reserved]

To: Discussion – page 1
From: Villian
Subject: Tazewell County state route ordinance
Date: February 9, 2012

I have written an ATV Ordinance much more suitable to pursue the tourist trade related to the ATV segment of the economy. In order to gain any benefit from the ATV market, we must present the County as the best place of service with fun recreation. We need to implement an ordinance that allows for service and freedom to potential ATV enthusiast. Please compare the vast difference between my ATV ordinance and Eric Young’s bureaucracy ordinance with its anti ATV requirements of fees, fines, permits and rider restrictions. This proposed ordinance is just for crossing the road and riding on the road for less than a mile with an ATV. We must not allow a recreational bureaucracy to control our potential for growth and prosperity with a mission statement of “hard and fast” control that has the outcome of limiting the ATV experience for a fun filled and enjoyable trip outing.

My ordinance is a pro economic improvement designed to appeal to the ATV riding public. It is not an encumbrance on their recreational fun activity. Hypothetical suggesting, I have a fourteen-year-old son and a thirteen-year daughter who normally accompany me on ATV outings. It is my experience that young people are as safe and reasonable in their ATV operation as adults. We want to attract this business into Tazewell County. The proposed Eric Young prepared ATV ordinance will drive potential ATV business elsewhere. Look at my ATV Ordinance as part of an economic development strategy, and then you will appreciate the particulars of my ordinance. We do not need to create an authority that is permitting and fining potential ATV business operators. The Recreational Authority needs to emphasize those issues that expand the recreational aspect and fun associated with ATV operation. Give me a heads up of your understanding so I can continue to lobby you.

It is the intention to promote the Northern District of Tazewell County by attracting “All-Terrain Vehicle” use on a system of recreational trails suitable to ATV recreational purposes. The purpose of this Ordinance must be to demonstrate to the ATV public that we are serious about their using our facilities, our recreational trails and Tazewell County for recreational purposes. We, therefore, strive to accommodate a reasonable use environment amenable to a safe, fun and helpful individual ATV operator outcome. Tazewell County authorities recognize the importance of an incentive driven ATV recreational location and promise an “ease of operation with a best of service” outcome for ATV tourism. It is the intention of this governing Board to cooperate with other Counties and others states to implement a desired outcome for ATV operation within Tazewell County and to develop a reputation that serves the ATV community for a good and fun ATV experience.

I believe the purpose of the ATV ordinance should be promotional for encouraging tourism and for economic development rather than a cumbersome and discouraging process than limits potential users on Tazewell County riding trails. Fines and permits should not be a part of this ordinance at this time. Maybe later, if needed to control abuse based on obtained substantiated data, and then these particulars could be considered. The operational ATV age limit should be twelve (12) when accompanied by someone over the age of sixteen (16). Building an autocratic Recreational Authority is counter-productive to the development of these trails. Some people bring younger children to ride. Many people are expected to come from other states. Causing restrictive issues will be a non-starter for many riders. Fines and permits are a bad idea.

Sincerely,


Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187582.html#msg187582

[Villian ©®™ all rights reserved]

To: Discussion – page 2
From: Villian
Subject: Tazewell County state route ordinance age limit
Date: February 9, 2012

State law sets the age for young ATV riders at no lower than 12 years of age. The question of why would a locality require a different and higher age limit without first giving the standard set by the state a chance. Setting the age at the state level and gaining and compiling data and evidence on which to gauge documented outcomes and needs is the right way to approach this age limit set within the ordinance minimum rider age requirement.

Here is the problem with the age thing. Some adult riders have children in the 12 – 16 age range that ride with them. They are experienced riders with skills exceeding the adults in many cases. Hypothetically speaking, I have a daughter who is thirteen and a son who is fifteen and they generally go ATV weekending with me. We travel from North Carolina to the Pocahontas, Virginia area Friday evening, park our vehicles and move out onto the ATV trail to find a nice place to pitch our tent for the night. The teenagers wear protective headgear, and for this age group it is required by the Ordinance.

We must consider and keep in mind that we are competing with other near-by localities for the ATV riders. We need to keep our red tape and requirements to a minimum. If, at some future time, certain requirements are necessary then the ATV Ordinance can be changed/amended to reflect factual needs. Remember, this Ordinance is just for the short times the riders are on the state right of way. Therefore, it is unnecessary to make substantial requirements that restrict the growth and prosperity of our objective of economic development. We must be a better locale than our neighbors in attracting the ATV business with its growth and prosperity. We need to be cautious about out rhetoric, our actions and our requirements. We have an opportunity to create something here for the Northern District.

It is our intention to grow the economic viability of the Pocahontas area and we must make it amenable to the ATV riders. ATV riders will go to the area with the least rules and regulations, with the best services and attitudes toward ATV activities. We must cultivate a reasonable relationship and cause riders to recommend Tazewell County so we can become the destination of choice. Making a bureaucratic Tazewell County Recreational Authority that levels fees, permits, fines and other requirements that thus far are unneeded, bothersome and generally restrictive to the customer is counter productive to the expectation of a reasonable fun filled weekend.

Sincerely,
Villian


Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187583.html#msg187583

[Villian ©®™ all rights reserved]

To: Discussion – page 3
From: Villian
Subject: Tazewell County state route ordinance purpose
Date: February 9, 2012

This discussion about Tazewell County authorization of ATV highway use must have a foundation for understanding. The question of why this ordinance is necessary must be answered. The State of Virginia has made this ordinance necessary to engage the rights given to the County by State governance so ATV riders can have a limited and legal right to travel on the highway. The State of Virginia made it possible for localities to control the local ATV road policy and set parameters of local state highway use near off road trails. It is necessary for the ATV enthusiast to cross a highway or travel a short distance on the highway to connect with an adjoining trail. The flavor of the ordinance can be made as a restrictive document or the ordinance can become an accommodating document that encourages ATV operation within Tazewell County.

The function of this ordinance is directly related to the philosophy of the approving Board. The Board can make the ordinance so restrictive that ATV operation is limited and ATV use within the County minimized. The Board can make the ordinance an ATV rider-accommodating document with a large usage of available service and trail amenities. The question of the philosophy guiding the construction of this ordinance is the defining outcome. Do you want to use this ATV activity as a component for area economic development?  Do you want to use this ATV ordinance to restrict and limit ATV use? What are your outcome expectations toward the use of the limited state highway access authorized by you in this ordinance? Do you need to make stricter controls than currently set by the State Highway and Virginia law?

I would state that the need for Capitalistic type jobs and economic growth within Tazewell County is substantial and that this document should have as its foundation the best use for growth and prosperity with the emphasis on its economic potential..
 
Sincerely,
Villian

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187584.html#msg187584

[Graybeard]

Villian, here is something that was overlooked in the WV atv ordinances, off road motorcycles. Dirt bikes should also be included in the right to limited usage of the roads. Although small in numbers compared to atv users, there is a large number of dirt bike riders who use the Hatfield McCoy system. Local law enforcement doesn't harass responsible riders using trail bikes, but they technically could if following the letter of the law as currently written.

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187586.html#msg187586

[Villian ©®™ all rights reserved]

Villian, here is something that was overlooked in the WV atv ordinances, off road motorcycles. Dirt bikes should also be included in the right to limited usage of the roads. Although small in numbers compared to atv users, there is a large number of dirt bike riders who use the Hatfield McCoy system. Local law enforcement doesn't harass responsible riders using trail bikes, but they technically could if following the letter of the law as currently written.

Graybeard,
I understand the need and will send an attachment to responsible authority stating that this was an oversight in the W.VA ATV ordinance.

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187588.html#msg187588

[Villian ©®™ all rights reserved]

Virginia State law defines ATV:
"All-terrain vehicle" means a three-wheeled or four-wheeled motor vehicle powered by a gasoline or diesel engine and generally characterized by large, low-pressure tires, a seat designed to be straddled by the operator, and handlebars for steering that is intended for off-road use by an individual rider on various types of unpaved terrain. The term does not include four-wheeled vehicles, commonly known as "go-carts," that have low centers of gravity and are typically used in racing on relatively level surfaces, nor does the term include any "utility vehicle" as defined in this section or any "farm utility vehicle" as defined in this section.

We don't have authority to list two wheeled vehicles as I read the Va. code 42.2 - 100 definition of ATV. This is something that Delegate Morefield and Senator Puckett will need to address later. I will inform the controlling authority to this need.

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187589.html#msg187589

[Villian ©®™ all rights reserved]

I have emailed the post made here to the Tazewell County authority.

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187590.html#msg187590

[Graybeard]

I appreciate that. I hope you can see the dilemma that the law presents to people like myself. I can't legally ride to the local store with friends on Atvs. Isn't that the true purpose of the trail, getting us into town and spending money? On another two wheel issue, are you aware of the effort to promote route 16 from Tazewell to Marion as a motorcycling destination?

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187591.html#msg187591

[Villian ©®™ all rights reserved]

Yes! I scheduled a hearing between Back of the Dragon supporter Larry Davidson with Delegate Morefield and Senator Puckett. I also introduced Senator Pucket to Larry Davidson at the town of Tazewell's Heritage event this past summer. Larry Davidson and Tazewell County Economic Director Margie Bandy ______ presented a hearing to these legislators about this project. Larry Davidson only asked them for signage on the roads in Marion and Tazewell.

Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187592.html#msg187592

[Villian ©®™ all rights reserved]

March 4, 2012
 
Public input sought on ATV ordinance in Pocahontas, Va.
KATE COIL
 Bluefield Daily Telegraph The Bluefield Daily Telegraph Sun Mar 04, 2012, 04:55 AM EST

POCAHONTAS, Va. — The Tazewell County Board of Supervisors is asking for input on an ordinance that would permit ATV traffic on certain county roads in the Pocahontas area as part of the development of the Spearhead Trail.

According to the ordinance, the operation of ATVs would be permitted between ATV off-road trails on certain portions of State Routes 664, 663, 659, 627, 734 and 747 in the Pocahontas and Boissevain areas of the county.

Tazewell County Administrator Jim Spencer said some of the routes listed in the ordinance will help connect segments of the Pocahontas branch of the Spearhead Trail.

“With us trying to develop the Pocahontas Trail through the Spearhead Trail system, there are roads we have to cross to get from one section to another,” Spencer said. “We also have to come into the town so the town can be part of the trail. This hearing will allow us to get public input and then use the town for the trail similar to what they have done in West Virginia.”

Spencer said the Board of Supervisors devised the ordinance based on ATV regulations, ordinances already in place by the state, and guidelines in place by the Spearhead Trail Authority.

“A lot of it is observing what the manufacturers say on the ATV,” Spencer said. “All of them have a sticker saying the does and don'ts. We will be following those guidelines. I also anticipate the Board of Supervisors will ask for the Spearhead Trail Authority to have input on this before we pass it.”

According to Spencer, the ordinance must be in compliance with the regulations of the Spearhead Trail Authority as the trail authority will take over operations of the trail once it is build in the county.

“Our goal has never been to operate the trail,” Spencer said. “We are building it and handing it over to Spearhead. We want their input on riding, the do's and the don'ts for when they take up operation of the trails. The ultimate goal is for them to have fun but be safe while doing it.”

 Northern District Supervisor Dr. Tom Brewster said the ultimate goal of the ordinance is for economic development in the town of Pocahontas.

“Right now, what we have is an ordinance that fits mostly within the guidelines set by the Commonwealth,” Brewster said. “The reason for having the ordinance is to give ATV riders an opportunity to connect with the town of Pocahontas and connect from the trails to the town in order to take advantage of the economic opportunities, the businesses and historical sites available within the town. The idea is to pull people off the Spearhead Trail and connect them back to the Spearhead Trail and open the roads in a limited number of areas so ATV riders can access those roads into town. It is more or less the surrounding roads that go in and out of the town.”

In addition to complying with state and trail regulations, Brewster said the board is also seeking input from Pocahontas residents and town officials.

“The ordinance has the state regulations, which require riders be 16-years-of age,” Brewster said. “One of the things we will do with the ordinance, once we get input during this week's public meeting, is get input from the town of Pocahontas. Mr. Spencer and I went to the town council meeting and presented the ordinance to the town a few weeks ago for their input. Finally, we want input from the Spearhead Trail on the ordinance. We need to make sure it fits in with the Spearhead Trail's ordinances and that it is what the town wants. The town is the entity that recommended we do the ordinance. We want to make sure that we have certainly met their needs and intentions.”

Brewster said the trail has the potential to aid economic development in Pocahontas. He said he hopes the trail will attract tourism and help preserve the history of the town.

“We certainly believe once the trail system is in place that Pocahontas will be a destination site,” Brewster said. “People are going to want to go there for mining history and mining culture. They will want to see the churches, the buildings, the opera house and all of these things the town has to offer. There will certainly be shops and stores that can take advantage of this. It is all about tourism and economic development. The town of Pocahontas is a jewel with lots of rich history. It is beneficial for Tazewell County because if people come into Pocahontas, they will be doing business in Tazewell County.”

The public hearing regarding the ATV ordinance for Pocahontas will be held during the next Tazewell County Board of Supervisors meeting, which will begin at 7 p.m. Tuesday, March 6. For more information on the ordinance, contact the Tazewell County Administration Office at 276-988-1203.

— Contact Kate Coil at kcoil@bdtonline.com
http://bdtonline.com/local/x579803074/Public-input-sought-on-ATV-ordinance-in-Pocahontas-Va




Linkback: http://4seasonschat.com/index.php/topic,17192.msg187928.html#msg187928

[Tags:]

Tags: