Planning commission affirms staff interpretation allowing recreational trails in low-density residential areas

The Lebanon Planning Commission voted to affirm staff's written code interpretation CI-24-01, concluding that recreational trails identified in the city's Trails Master Plan can be classified as "city parks" or park/open-space uses and therefore may be allowed in the low-density residential zone through the review types tied to parks.

The decision, reached after a public hearing and deliberation, was made by a 5-1 roll call and directs no immediate code change; commissioners and staff said a formal development-code amendment is likely appropriate as a next step to remove ambiguity.

Staff presented the application as a code interpretation request asking whether recreational trails shown in the adopted Trails Master Plan are permitted in the city's RL (low-density residential) zone. Kelly (city staff) told commissioners the Trails Master Plan, adopted in the late 2000s, explicitly shows proposed trail alignments that cross multiple zones and that the development code's definition of "city parks" includes "public trails maintained by the city for public use," so "recreational trails can be considered as parks and open space and recreational uses in our opinion." The staff report cited section 16.02.010(E) (consistency with plans) and the code's instruction that the most restrictive standard governs when conflicts exist.

Residents and stakeholders offered opposing views. Laura LaRocque, who identified herself as a resident of Walnut Street, testified she opposed the staff interpretation and urged denial: "This interpretation directly contradicts expressed language in the development code that prohibits recreational trails in the low density zone," she told the commission, saying the code's use tables and glossary explicitly list "recreational trail" separately from parks and specify when trails are permitted. LaRocque urged the commission to deny the interpretation and require a formal development-code amendment.

Rod Sell, president of Build Lebanon Trails, testified in support of staff and highlighted local trail history and ongoing projects. Sell said the organization and the city have long implemented trail work across zone types and that trails provide connections to greenways and riverfronts. "I am in support of the staff's report and decision on this," he said.

Commissioners debated legal and practical implications. The city attorney (unnamed in the record) explained why the matter was treated as a legislative code interpretation rather than a quasi-judicial proceeding, saying the question "is an application that would be applicable to multiple properties throughout the city" and therefore legislative in character. Commissioners asked whether the staff interpretation might create an open-ended route for any property owner to seek trail development in low-density areas; Kelly replied that if trails are classified under the park/open-space use they would be subject to the review types tied to parks: typically a conditional-use permit unless a trail implements the adopted master plan, in which case administrative review could apply.

During deliberations several commissioners said they saw merit in both positions but ultimately sided with staff's interpretation while expressing support for a future code amendment to resolve the inconsistency. One commissioner said the commission should "take another look and maybe iron out some of the incongruencies," and multiple commissioners asked staff to bring forward a formal development-code text amendment to align the code with the Trails Master Plan.

A motion to approve staff's written interpretation CI-24-01 was made, seconded, and passed by a tally of five in favor and one opposed. The minutes and public record show the motion text as "move to approve staff's written code interpretation CI-twenty four-one." The commission did not record individual roll-call votes in the transcript beyond the final tally. The commission chair said the public hearing record will be forwarded with the planning commission recommendation should the matter be appealed to the city council.

Next steps identified at the meeting: the commission's decision will be part of the record if appealed to city council; staff acknowledged the matter could be the subject of a future development-code amendment and commissioners requested staff to return with options and a timeline to address the code/plan inconsistency. The public testimony remained part of the record and the public hearing was closed before commissioners voted.

Why it matters: the ruling affects where the city allows public trails to be built and how they are reviewed. If trails are treated as park/open-space uses, certain trail projects in RL zones would be permitted through the established review process rather than categorically prohibited, but staff and commissioners emphasized that most trail projects would still require public review and permits. Several speakers urged that the long-term fix is a formal amendment to the development code so language is clear for residents, applicants and staff.