Motocross and motor-vehicle racing prompt council debate; members ask staff to draft framework before seeking state enabling law

Discussion of a proposed policy to legalize motor-vehicle racing — including motocross — drew heavy public turnout and extensive council debate. Councilor Dan (who presented research and a draft resolution asking the state to enable local regulation of motorized racing) said he wants Richmond to be able to permit safe, legal racing and to set a model for other towns; he noted other New England jurisdictions regulate such tracks.

Dan told the council he had researched regional examples and suggested the town pursue enabling legislation at the state level to permit and regulate motor-vehicle racing locally. He said the council should keep the enabling language broad so Richmond could regulate vehicle types, site safety, noise, and other operational details in local ordinance.

Public comment was extensive and divided. The operator of the Buttonwoods motocross track (who addressed the council and asked for direct discussion and not additional retroactive restrictions) warned that changes applied retroactively would be unlawful and could damage a business that has already invested in permitted uses and approvals. The operator emphasized safety practices already in place — waivers, on-site safety procedures, coordination with the fire marshal and police — and urged the council to engage operators in drafting any rules.

Supporters in the audience told the council the track provides a safe recreational outlet for residents and urged the council to work constructively with operators rather than impose punitive retroactive restrictions. Others urged caution and told the council any framework should protect neighbors (noise, hours, traffic) and require clear site plans, EMS access, and appropriate insurance.

Council members debated next steps and several said the policy should be drafted carefully and in consultation with the operator, neighbors and the police and fire departments before any request is made to the state legislature. Councilor Madnick said he preferred a measured approach and recommended having a clear framework before seeking enabling legislation; other members said a draft resolution could aid the town’s state legislator in framing a bill but should be more specific about the areas the town wants authority over.

The council took no binding action. A motion to send a draft resolution to the May 6 agenda was introduced and then rescinded after members agreed they wanted staff to produce a clearer framework and obtain more input — including a site visit to a functioning facility — before pursuing state-level action. The council closed the item by directing staff to prepare draft policy language and to arrange further engagement with the owner/operator and other stakeholders.