ATV ordinance gets final OK

Township establishes rules for the use of off-road vehicles and amends its noise ordinance.

By: Charlie Olsen
   The Township Committee unanimously adopted a pair of ordinances to regulate noise and curtail disruptive use of Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs), despite eleventh hour criticism from four residents.
   The ORV ordinance limits use of ORVs – such as ATVs – to private property provided that the operator of the vehicle is on the property with the owner’s permission. The ordinance also requires the operator be at least 450 feet from the nearest occupied dwelling and creates no harsh, objectionable or unreasonable noise, or dust and debris beyond property lines.
   The other ordinance is an amendment to the Township Code concerning noise. This ordinance provides that two or more residents within 200 feet of the property line who are in agreement that a noise is harsh, objectionable or unreasonable – excluding ORVs operating within the limits of the ORV ordinance — is evidence of a violation. It also defines persistent barking of dogs for 30 minutes or the sounding of alarms for 15 minutes without termination as excessive noise violations.
   The noise ordinance, which was part of a December presentation to the committee by an advisory committee, was the most discussed ordinance among the few residents who showed up for the hearing.
   Anthony Monticchio, of Millstone River Road, said that what constitutes noise is relative and that he was concerned that because one person could start the complaint process, the system would be abused.
   "There’s a saying that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder,’" said Mr. Monticchio. "Well, noise is in the ear of the listener."
   He further proposed that the ordinance should be rewritten to collect the input of all properties adjacent to the offender.
   "If all adjacent properties don’t agree, then the noise probably doesn’t exist," said Mr. Monticchio. "You’re trying to build a community and trying to solve a problem, let’s not create another … we should use adjacent properties as a measure."
   Howard Miller, of Orchard Drive, said that one complaint should be enough and he didn’t need another person to validate his complaint, citing a group of people walking and talking so loudly in his neighborhood early in the morning that he and his wife are awakened when they have the windows open.
   "It’s affecting me. I don’t need someone else to validate that it’s affecting me," said Mr. Miller. "I think I should be able to sleep with my front windows open."
   Mayor Carl Suraci said that the intent of the ordinance, as he understood it, was that two or more people within 200 feet of the property could file complaints.
   "The intent was that the two neighbors on either side would be able to file complaints," said Mr. Suraci.
   If neighbors would be civil, most problems could be solved if they spoke with each other, he said.
   Deputy Mayor Ferrera said it was unfair of Mr. Monticchio and Mr. Miller to attack the ordinance at the final public hearing, when the impartial ATV Advisory Committee spent a year drafting the ordinance in open meetings and took it back for adjustment after 200 people showed at the public hearing in December.
   Lt. Paul Merkler said that 99 percent of the time issues can be solved by the responding officer without a problem. But "once in a while, we get two parties that can’t agree that end up before a judge."
   Committeeman Paul Drake emphasized that officer discretion will play a large role in carrying out this ordinance because it isn’t an automatic issuance of summons.
   Charles Golcheski, of Euclid Avenue, said that he was concerned that his barking dogs would get him charged with a violation, then showed pictures of his dogs to the committee.
   "If nobody called today, they’re not going to call tomorrow," said Mr. Ferrera. "The ordinance is for dogs that are barking nonstop."
   Mr. Golcheski again voiced his concerns and ended with the comment, "dogs bark, they don’t speak English."
   Township Administrator Kevin Davis said that he believed the indicator of the ordinance’s success to be the number of people who showed up to contest it.
   "There were 200 people here in December," said Mr. Davis. "There are not 200 people here now, so clearly there must be some kind of agreement."
   Mr. Suraci closed the comments after an additional reminder from Mr. Davis that the ATV Committee contained two people in favor of ATVs, two against and one neutral party.