Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mooring Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Acton Select Board moves to ask voters to rescind mooring ordinance after state rules it unenforceable
Summary
After state review found Acton’s mooring ordinance noncompliant, the Select Board voted 4–1 to place an article on the April warrant to rescind the current ordinance, citing certification and registration requirements that would create substantial administrative work.
The Town of Acton Select Board voted Feb. 18 to place an article on the April town warrant asking voters to rescind the town’s current mooring ordinance after the state’s Inland Fisheries office determined the ordinance is not enforceable as written.
Tom McGurty moved to adopt an article rescinding the ordinance; Ed Walsh seconded. The motion passed 4–1, with Chair Daniel Norwood recording the lone dissent. The board’s action sends the question to voters at the April town meeting rather than immediately attempting to enforce or rework the ordinance under the state’s requirements.
The Town Administrator told the board the state review identified several issues, including a requirement that a harbor master be certified and a new registration process for mooring owners. McGurty said those changes would "create a whole bureaucracy that was far in excess of what other towns in the state were doing" and that rescinding the ordinance and returning to the status quo was the prudent next step until lake associations or residents press for a different approach.
Board members discussed alternatives, including amending the ordinance to meet state rules, but agreed the added training and administrative burdens — such as a week-long certification for a harbor master and new application-processing duties — would be onerous for the town staff who had been identified to fill those duties.
Because the Select Board lacks authority to enforce an ordinance the state deems noncompliant, the board concluded placing rescission on the warrant allows voters to decide whether to remove the ordinance or direct staff to produce a legal, enforceable replacement. The rescission will appear on the April warrant for town meeting voters to decide.
What happens next: the article will be on the April warrant; if voters rescind the ordinance the town will have no local mooring rules in force until (and unless) a legally compliant replacement is adopted. If voters do not rescind it, the board acknowledged it cannot enforce the ordinance as written under state guidance.
