Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Waterways No Wake topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents press Richmond County to formalize no-wake zones; Board schedules public hearing

Richmond County Board of Supervisors · July 14, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After residents described safety risks and enforcement gaps near local boat ramps, the Board set a public hearing for Aug. 13 at 7 p.m. to consider resolutions requesting state no-wake markers in several waterways.

Residents of local waterways pressed the Richmond County Board of Supervisors to formalize no-wake zones at popular boat ramps and creek mouths, citing safety concerns for paddlers, swimmers and dock owners. The Board set a public hearing for Aug. 13 at 7 p.m. to consider resolutions requesting state-installed markers.

Damon Place (speaker 11), representing the Toasted Creek Planning Owners Association, told supervisors his association has paid privately to install markers and buoys and wants clearer enforcement. “Enforcement's a big thing if you're gonna have a no wake zone, and education,” he said, noting costs for buoys and signage and the limits of local enforcement resources.

Other residents described repeated incidents of buoys being struck or removed, erosion and property damage near busy landings and weekend crowds unfamiliar with local rules. County staff explained the state-managed process for official buoys — which typically requires a local public hearing, a Board resolution specifying buoy locations and identification of who will pay for and maintain markers — and said they had contacted state officials to confirm existing markers.

Supervisor discussion focused on practical coverage (proposals ranged from two markers to continuous coverage from a creek mouth to the landing), enforcement responsibility (state marine police or conservation officers) and funding (often borne by property owners unless the locality agrees to assume costs). The Board agreed to advertise a public hearing covering two primary locations and additional potential buoy placements so residents can testify.

The Board’s public hearing will allow residents and property owners to comment on exact buoy placements, cost responsibilities and any alternatives considered by the Department of Wildlife or the state agencies that manage navigational markers.