Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents sharply divided over proposed Bell Road walking path; council scales design and may seek voter approval
Summary
Public comment at the council meeting focused on a proposed walking path from Spring Drive to Route 306. Supporters cite safety and park access; opponents raised cost, rural character, tree and fence impacts, cemetery concerns and the projects $1.8 million estimated price tag (including an $800,000 grant). Council said the design has been narrowed from a bike path to a 5-foot walking path and emphasized the option of asking voters to approve the local share.
Dozens of residents turned out to comment on a proposed walking path along Bell Road that would connect Spring Drive with South Russell Park and the Route 306 area. Elsie Tarsi, who lives near the proposed route, said she opposed using NOACA grant funds for a walking path and questioned who would use it, arguing it "does not serve most of South Russell." David Rust said he appreciated low taxes and doubted heavy use, while Leah Johns, a recent newcomer, said a sidewalk on Bell would be "amazing" for safety and for her children.
Residents raised multiple concerns: potential loss of fence lines and trees, impacts to a historic cemetery and a rare tamarack tree, conflicts with underground gas lines, and whether the village had completed traffic and feasibility studies. Catherine Longquist, who leads a local hiking club, urged caution about tree and wildlife impacts and asked the village to consult wildlife experts before clearing.
Council members and staff responded that the project had been reduced from the original bike-path concept to a narrower 5-foot walking path (not the 10-foot shared-use standard for bicycles), and that roughly $800,000 of the estimated $1.8 million would come from a NOACA grant with $1,000,000 remaining to identify. Finance chair Chris Brewer explained that the village would need to raise that local share through private donations, other grants, or a levy on the ballot.
Solicitor and engineering staff said legal/technical details remain to be resolved (including whether the path could be designated shared use under Ohio law and whether e-bikes would be permitted). Several residents asked for written materials showing right-of-way impacts, tree locations and any planned removal; councilors said staff would prepare additional written information and cost estimates and bring them back to committees before the ballot-deadline decision.
No formal vote on the path was held; council tabled final decisions and emphasized the need for further engineering details, legal review, and outreach before any levy placement.
