The Times - Serving Waitsburg, Dayton and the Touchet Valley

WAITSBURG – At last week's regular meeting, Waitsburg's city council not only made it perfectly clear where U-turns are and are not allowed in the city, but they imposed penalties for breaking the law. After a brief but lively discussion, council members commented that some general public education regarding U-turns and double lines would be beneficial. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done because some rules are more clear than others.

U-turns

Here is what drivers can count on, following Wednesday night's amendment of Waitsburg's municipal code 12.06A.010 regarding U-turns. While it is legal to make a U-turn at the intersections of Main and First Streets as well as at Main and Third Streets, it is illegal to do so at any point in between. The code also states that no person shall make a U-turn across double-yellow lines.

The city code now imposes a penalty for violating these provisions. A first offense is punishable by a $50 fine, a second offense will earn a fine of $100 and third and subsequent offenses shall be punished by fines, in the discretion of the court, up to $300 per infraction. Previously, city code stated that U-turns between First and Third streets were "illegal" but failed to provide a penalty for violation. The issue of legality also became a discussion and the wording was modified to say "no person shall" rather than "it shall be illegal."

At the August city council meeting, Sheriff John Turner commented briefly on the situation, saying that U-turns across double-yellow lines are not unlawful under state law, as long as it is done safely. However, individual municipalities can choose not to allow U-turns in their cities or in parts of the city, as Waitsburg has done. Waitsburg simply had no penalty associated with the violation, making it impossible to enforce.

Turner also said that there is a state law against failure to obey posted traffic signs, however the signs have to meet minimum DOT size requirements, which is larger than the No U-turn signed posted at Main and Second Streets in Waitsburg.

Council member Jim Romine spoke out against drivers crossing the double-yellow lines to angle park on the opposite side of the street, saying it is a state traffic violation to cross a double-yellow line. Council member Kate Hockersmith argued that it has to be legal because drivers must cross double lines to enter the post office parking lot. This is where the "public education" comment came in.

According to the Washington State Driver's Manual (page 3-9) "you may cross yellow lane markings, except medians, to turn left if it is safe." A median is designated by 18-inch solid yellow pavement markings or by yellow crosshatchings between two solid yellow lines.

After a good bit of research, it is apparent that arguments exist, even among experts, for both sides of the angled parking issue. The majority seemed to hold the position that if a U-turn is allowed, then crossing double lines to angle park would also be acceptable so long as it was done safely. However, since crossing double-yellow lines to make a U-Turn in Waitsburg is not allowed, the assumption would be that crossing them to angle park would be a violation as well.

Council members also mentioned that drivers often cross from the right driving lane to the left side of the street in front of the post office to drop mail in the mailbox, then return to the right side of the street, which is dangerous and not legal.

Deputies have been instructed to be on the lookout for U-turn violators, according to city officials.

Livestock Violations

Council members modified a proposed code amendment regarding livestock in the city limits to make it less stringent before approving it. The proposed code stated that livestock, other than swine, could be kept in the city limits only if there was one-quarter of open pasture space per individual animal. It also stated that swine are not allowed in any zone in the city, regardless of acreage, with the exception of the existing facilities at the fairgrounds.

City Manager Randy Hinchliffe said the proposal was in response to several complaints the city had received, mostly regarding the smell from pigs, over the last year.

"We really don't have the manpower and I really don't want to call the health department to come and take a look at someone's pigs. It's easier for us to encourage them to be at the fairgrounds facilities," Hinchliffe said.

4-H parent Gwendolyn Detinger said she felt it would be detrimental to the community if kids were not allowed to keep pigs for 4-H. She lives on Seventh Street, with plenty of room, and said she would prefer to have pigs there rather than at the pig barns.

After significant discussion, council member KC Kuykendall made a motion to strike the "per individual animal" reference and to allow swine in the city limits on a case-by-case basis, which was approved unanimously.

"Not every 10,000 square feet is equal. Some is heaving encroached by neighbors and others, like Frank Reser's place, has a cemetery on one side and a river on one side. I hate to see us get too prescriptive in this and at the same time deal with the issues," Kuykendall said.

Animal Control

The council unanimously agreed to modify the city code as it pertains to "dangerous, potentially dangerous or vicious animals." Hinchliffe said city code must be at least as restrictive as state law, and Waitsburg's was more lenient. The changes bring city codes up to state code requirements, he said. The updates were approved unanimously.