Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalks And Recreational Trails topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates wording of recreational-trails ordinance, asks staff to reconcile sidewalk definitions
Summary
Pepper Pike City Council members spent the July 22 meeting probing definitions in Ordinance 2025‑11, asking staff to reconcile inconsistent definitions of “sidewalk” and whether to treat sidewalks as recreational trails for maintenance and liability purposes.
Pepper Pike City Councilors on July 22 asked staff to reconcile inconsistent definitions in Ordinance 2025‑11, the second reading of a measure addressing recreational trails, and discussed whether sidewalks and recreational trails should be treated the same for maintenance and liability.
Councilmember LeMay said he had a “substantive concern” about the ordinance’s definition of “recreational trail,” saying “the way it’s worded now makes it exactly synonymous with sidewalks.” He recommended reconciling two definitions that appear in separate sections of the code so they read the same and adding “and bicyclist” where appropriate.
The discussion focused on three items: (1) inconsistent language between a general code definition and traffic-code references (one citation cited subsection 25 of 402.02 but should instead reference 202.02), (2) whether the term “street” in the definitions should read “right of way” to avoid confusion about what area is covered, and (3) whether defining recreational trails to be synonymous with sidewalks would shift maintenance or snow‑removal obligations for commercial property owners.
Councilmember LeMay outlined the possible effect: if sidewalks along commercial corridors such as Chagrin Road were labeled recreational trails, “those owners would now declare them to be recreational trails,” which could change maintenance duties. Other council members said they had not observed consistent business maintenance of sidewalks and noted the city has not routinely enforced private maintenance requirements.
City staff agreed to make the definitions consistent and to correct the section citation. A staff participant (identified in the discussion as “Steve”) and councilors recommended substituting “right of way” for “street” in the relevant definitions to clarify scope.
Council members also discussed whether to preserve a distinction for sidewalks in front of businesses. Several members said they were inclined to make the definitions uniform across residential and commercial areas and to revisit any commercial exceptions later if needed.
No final vote on Ordinance 2025‑11 took place at the July 22 meeting. Council instructed staff to draft the reconciled language and return it for further consideration at the next meeting.
