UPDATE 04/30: The Fairbanks Borough Trails Advisory Commission voted on Monday to recommend adoption of an ordinance designed to streamline the permitting process for trailheads. The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner has a STORY about the vote and discussion surrounding it.
From the story: “The trails commission voted unanimously to recommend adoption by the borough Assembly. The ordinance will go to the Planning Commission for recommendations on May 27 and back to the Assembly by June 13.”
The ordinance is not yet on the Planning Commission agenda for that date. You can see Planning Commission agendas on this PAGE.
ORIGINAL POST
The Fairbanks Borough Assembly is considering an ordinance that should make it easier to build trailheads in the borough.
The primary purpose of the ordinance is to allow more zones (among borough land-use zones) to be eligible for a conditional use permit for trailheads. It would also allow trailheads to be a permitted use in outdoor recreation (OR) zones, and therefore not need a conditional use permit, as is needed now.
The ordinance will go before the Trails Advisory Commission at its April 28 meeting. The TAC will make recommendations, which are due back to the Assembly by June 13.
You can see the proposed ordinance HERE.
Trails advocate Stan Justice, when he was president of the Interior Trails Preservation Coalition, had brought up a similar proposal to the TAC in 2023. His proposal included a difference between large and small trailheads, and included other trail-related items, such as trail maintenance. You can read his proposal HERE.
HOW TO ACT
If you have opinions about the proposed ordinance, you can address the Trails Advisory Commission. You can either attend the April 28 meeting, or contact TAC members (see “Members and Contact Information” on the TAC page). See the TAC page HERE.
MY OPINION
While this ordinance may change before it comes before the Assembly in June, I feel this is generally a move in the right direction because it will make it easier to build trailheads. We have many, many miles of trails in the borough, but we have few trailheads. We need more trailheads.
Trailheads have two big advantages: They make trails more accessible to the public and they can reduce impacts of trail users on neighboring landowners.
More Accessible
Trailheads allow space for parking cars and can provide other important things, such as bathrooms, signs, and maps. These make trails more inviting and easier to use. Providing access to public trails helps people improve their physical and mental health by making it easier for them to get outside and exercise. I think everyone agrees we would like people to be happier and healthier.
Less Impact On Neighbors
In many places in the borough, people are already using trails even without trailheads. Often they park on the side of the road, sometimes restricting access for nearby landowners or for others trying to use public roads (such as delivery trucks and emergency services vehicles). Trailheads with parking lots, will help reduce that problem.
Organized trailheads can also have educational signage and trash cans. Unfortunately, some trail users don’t think about the impact they have on nearby landowners, for example by leaving trash or letting their dogs run loose. (Sometimes trail users don’t even realize houses are nearby.) Trash cans give people a place to put their trash. And signs can remind people how to behave politely, such as by not blocking driveways (yes, that is a driveway over there) and by leashing their dogs.
Sure, it would be nice If people just did those things. Some might argue we don’t need signs because it’s just “common sense.” But common sense is not innate. We are social creatures and we learn from others. Public signs are one way we help set the standards for what is acceptable and what is not.
If you’ve read this far, sorry for the preaching. I’ll shut up now. Whether you agree with me or not, if you have an opinion about this ordinance, make sure to comment.
Right on Eric! I ponder why some zones were not included. Maybe wise people looked at the political landscape and decided to go for a limited change. How about GU (General Use) zone? It is our least restrictive zone yet trailheads would not be allowed as the ordinance is written.
Good question. I haven’t had time to dig into it. It might be that trailheads are allowed under GU rules already. I just don’t know.