The Township Council on Oct. 6 did not advance Ordinance 25-02, a proposed rule that would have limited where residents may park or store boats, RVs and certain commercial vehicles in residential districts, after the motion to introduce failed for lack of a second.

The proposal drew a large public turnout and more than a dozen citizen speakers who said the ordinance would hurt working residents, penalize volunteers and would be impractical for lake communities. Christopher Meyer, who said he has lived in town for 51 years, called the draft “absolutely ridiculous,” and asked why people who earn their living with vans or trucks should be restricted from parking at home.

The ordinance grew out of the planning board’s review tied to the town’s master plan reexamination, officials said. Mayor Peter Calamari described the planning board’s role and told residents: “To be clear, the planning board does not make or change ordinances. They review and recommend.” The planning board and the township planner recommended that the council consider codifying standards for vehicles and recreational equipment that adjacent towns have adopted, council members said.

Public speakers — including tradespeople and members of the lake association — told the council the policy would be burdensome or impossible to meet. David Perneste, who said he works “24 by 7 for a utility company,” said he keeps a work vehicle at his house and cannot afford off-site storage. Anthony, president of his neighborhood lake association, said the lake community routinely stores boats at the side of houses and asked council to consider local traditions and needs.

Residents also raised technical and enforcement concerns. One speaker noted state and local code provisions that restrict the location and height of landscaping near the public right-of-way and argued a required six-foot buffer on both sides of a driveway would make it physically impossible to store a 24-foot boat in a typical 26-foot driveway. Others said small-business owners and volunteers — including firefighters and coaches — would be unduly affected if they had to find commercial storage.

Council members described the ordinance as part of a broader master-plan reexamination. One council official said the town’s master plan was older than the decennial review cycle and that planners identified gaps the reexamination should address. The council debated whether the draft was too strict, whether there were documented complaints to justify it, and whether the town’s neighbors had similar rules.

After the public comment period, a motion to introduce and pass Ordinance 25-02 at first reading failed for lack of a second and therefore died. No formal vote on the substance of the ordinance occurred.

Why it matters: The draft would have created townwide standards affecting homeowners who keep boats, RVs or work vehicles at their residences — a matter that residents said touches livelihoods, volunteer activities and longstanding local practices. The discussion also highlighted friction between a planning-board recommendation tied to a master-plan update and residents who say the proposal does not fit local conditions.

What’s next: Council members suggested further review; several said they would prefer not to proceed if there is no local complaint record. The planning-board recommendation remains a potential future item if the council reintroduces a revised draft.