Upper Arlington council debates ordinance to ban motorized devices on park paths, carve out assistive-device exceptions

Upper Arlington City Council debated a proposed ordinance (No. 6-2025) on Feb. 10 that would amend Chapter 383 and related park rules to prohibit motor- or battery-propelled devices on park paths while expressly permitting electric wheelchairs and other personal assistive mobility devices.

The proposed ordinance, introduced by Senior Attorney Sean, would consolidate traffic rules that apply to all non-pedestrian modes of transport, update outdated language (including rules about roller skates and motorized bicycles), and add or clarify park rules such as a prohibition on animal releases, an expanded smoking ban to include vaping and e-cigarettes, and clearer criteria for vendors seeking business permits in parks. Senior Attorney Sean said the change would allow the city to regulate “behavior rather than mode,” and make the code easier to adapt to future devices.

The ordinance’s principal park provision would bar devices “used to transport people that are propelled by motor or electricity” from park paths. Senior Attorney Sean told council, “If you have an e‑bike and you’re actually pedaling it like a bike, because they are bikes, that’s okay because it’s not powered by the power.” He added the draft explicitly permits “electric wheelchairs and personal assistive mobility devices.”

The draft also replaces the existing traffic-code section with broader language meant to capture new and future mobility devices without repeated statutory revisions. Among the changes are a rule that users must carry no more people than the vehicle was designed for and a requirement to “take due care when passing” so pedestrians on paths are not endangered.

Council members pressed staff on where the exception for side‑by‑side travel (currently written for bicycles in the street) should apply and whether the exception should extend to other vehicles such as scooters. Vice President Clifton asked whether that exception should be expanded “to all modes of transportation other than walking.” Senior Attorney Sean said he would confirm the text and could revise it to apply to all modes on public streets.

Several council members raised concerns about enforcement and equity. Councilman Lemontz asked whether local rules would differ from state law on age limits for motorized scooters; Senior Attorney Sean said the city currently defaults to the Ohio Revised Code and can impose more restrictive local limits but cannot legalize something unlawful under state law. Councilman Baddens and others asked how the city would communicate and enforce carve‑outs for people with visible and invisible disabilities: Debbie (parks staff) said the ordinance’s language is intended to be permissive for assistive devices, and that enforcement would begin with a conversation rather than immediate citation.

Chief Hall (police) said the police department supports focusing on behavior rather than mode. “PD is very supportive of this idea of let’s focus on behavior rather than mode,” he said during the discussion. Staff described a communications plan that would include signage in parks and electronic outreach after the ordinance is finalized.

Council members noted Thompson Park has generated the most complaints because of long paved paths where devices can reach higher speeds; Northam Park and other parks with wider paths were also discussed. Staff said the city would consider signage, targeted path widening, and periodic police or park-staff patrols as part of implementation.

The ordinance was discussed at length but not voted on that night; it remains on the council’s three‑reading schedule. Senior Attorney Sean and staff said they can prepare clarifying language (for example, to extend the side‑by‑side exception beyond bicycles on public streets) and will work with the police and parks departments on enforcement guidance and public outreach prior to the next reading.

The discussion included repeated reassurances that the draft does not ban e‑bikes entirely: pedal‑assisted riding would still be allowed in parks when the motor is not engaged, and assistive mobility devices are explicitly permitted. Council members and staff emphasized the proposal is intended to reduce incidents of people being passed “too closely” on multi‑use paths and to give parks staff and police clearer authority to address dangerous operation.

The council signaled it wants more time and possible textual refinements (skateboard language, side‑by‑side exceptions, and clarifications tied to state preemption) before further votes. Staff said PRAB (the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board) reviewed the draft and moved to support the proposed amendments. A final vote is expected at a later meeting after revisions and outreach planning are completed.

The ordinance as drafted would also: clarify permitted park lighting hours for ballfields and similar facilities; prohibit animal releases; expand the smoking ban to vaping and e‑cigarettes; and add specific criteria for commercial activity in parks.

Staff signaled a largely discretionary enforcement approach: initial interactions would be conversational, with citation or removal used only for repeated or reckless conduct. That approach was repeated several times by staff and council members as the group discussed the balance between safety, sustainability of micromobility options, and encouraging responsible use.

The council’s consideration will continue at subsequent readings, and staff said they will prepare clearer, consolidated language and a communications plan in advance of spring park usage.