Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Peru board debates opening conserved 110‑acre parcel to e‑bikes and trails; deed restrictions, insurance cited
Summary
Board members and residents discussed whether a conserved 110-acre parcel with deed restrictions allowing only conservation uses could be opened for mountain-bike/e-bike trails, disc golf and community gardens. The board requested deed and easement documents and will approach the former sellers/agency; no formal action was taken.
Peru Town Board members spent a sustained portion of the meeting reviewing deed restrictions on an approximately 110‑acre parcel acquired under a conservation grant and discussing community interest in trails and recreation.
Board members noted the deed language restricts development and motorized vehicles (“no motorized vehicles, no buildings…no bridges,” as read during the meeting) and that these constraints preclude many of the proposed uses without modification of the easement. A parent who had raised the issue asked whether the town could provide a safe place for children to ride mountain bikes or e‑bikes; the board acknowledged strong public interest but said it must respect restrictions tied to the grant and the original deed terms.
Members and residents suggested possible, lower-impact options — natural trails, disc-golf placement, community gardens and small, secured tool sheds — but repeatedly raised concerns about enforcement and risk: who would police unauthorized ATVs, how the town’s insurance carrier would view expanded recreational uses, and the safety implications of faster e‑bikes being used by younger riders. One board member warned of a “slippery slope” from allowing e‑bikes to subsequently permitting dirt bikes or ATVs.
Town staff and board members asked for copies of the deed and the original easement paperwork and proposed sending a concise proposal to the former sellers or the grant agency that created the restriction laying out a range of permitted uses (from minimal to more expansive) to see what would be allowed. No vote or formal direction to alter the easement occurred at the meeting; the board requested legal and insurance guidance and additional information to bring back to a future meeting.
The discussion closed with an instruction to staff to provide the deed and listing paperwork and to outline the town’s preferred incremental uses before engaging the original grantor or seller, leaving the matter unresolved but scheduled for follow-up.
