Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Harbor Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bristol Select Board approves tighter mooring rules, raises harbor fees and harbor-master pay
Summary
The Bristol Select Board approved updates to its Harbor/Landing ordinance that tighten mooring rules (including a new floating-home definition), introduce an online mooring application, raise mooring fees (particularly for nonresidents) and increase compensation for harbor masters and committee members. The board moved the fee schedule during the meeting; vote tallies were not specified in the transcript.
Bristol Select Board members on Wednesday reviewed and approved a revised Harbor/Landing ordinance that tightens mooring rules, adds a clear definition for floating homes and raises fees and compensation tied to harbor operations.
Harbor Committee presenter John, who led the review, said the rewrite was intended primarily to "plug holes in the dam, so to speak," aligning the town's language with changes in state ordinance and adding clearer definitions to reduce ambiguity. John said the ordinance now explicitly defines "nonwater dependent floating structures" (floating homes/houseboats) and clarifies that those structures cannot be treated as standard recreational moorings if they lack proper sewage systems. "We don't want people coming in and thinking they can anchor or moor and live on a boat that's not gonna has no gray water. I mean, black water," John said.
The board heard a detailed explanation of how the town will manage moorings under the new rules: harbor masters will continue to assign mooring locations, recreational moorings will remain non-transferable, commercial fishing moorings are limited to those who derive a substantial portion of their income from fishing, and a separate category — water-dependent enterprises — covers marinas, boatyards and businesses that need moorings for barges or transient commercial use. The presenters noted that some transfers and rental arrangements also require approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Board members raised enforcement and capacity concerns. Select Board members described repeated incidents of oversized vessels — sometimes 42–44 feet — placed on moorings originally laid out for 37-foot fishing boats, producing safety and crowding complaints. Presenters acknowledged the town has limited enforcement backup; harbor masters can issue summonses but pursuing them requires court testimony, creating legal and resource burdens.
The Harbor Committee also proposed a notable fee increase, directed more heavily at nonresident mooring users, and recommended raising compensation for harbor masters (which had been about $3,000 a year) and committee members (proposed at $1,000 a year). According to presenters, tallying harbor-master hours showed prior compensation was likely below minimum wage for the time required to perform duties.
A Select Board member moved to approve the harbor and landing fee schedule as presented by the Harbor Committee; the motion was seconded and the board called for a vote. The transcript records the motion and the board's assent language but does not provide a roll-call tally or named votes. The town will post the ordinance text and related materials on the town website after finalization.
What happens next: the revised ordinance and fee schedule will appear on the town meeting warrant and go to the public for the scheduled vote. The Harbor Committee and staff will deploy the online mooring application to track mooring assignments and waiting lists. The board and presenters said some suggested edits from an outside reviewer will be held for a subsequent year of revisions.
