A proposed borough ordinance aimed at keeping tractor-trailers and oversized recreational vehicles off residential streets is headed back to the solicitor after Jim Thorpe council members discovered Thursday the draft language was so broad it would ban virtually every trailer in town.

The draft before council during its April workshop meeting seemed to include small utility trailers nobody wanted to touch.

“The original request from the police committee was to prohibit commercial vehicles over 26,000 pounds,” council President Connor Rodgers said. “We’re looking to prohibit buses, boats, boat trailers, RVs, campers, recreational vehicles and tractor-trailers. What we did not want to prohibit was personal trailers, such as utility or enclosed trailers, and vans, box trucks, things of that sort.”

Councilman Lyle Augustine, however, pointed out a critical flaw in the language. Reading through the proposal, he said, the draft says “any truck trailer or combination thereof,” and then the definition of a trailer is “literally any trailer.”

“Once this is enacted, you will not be able to park a trailer on the street regardless of the size of it,” Augustine said.

Rodgers acknowledged the draft missed the mark.

“I don’t think our attorney understood our direction on it,” Rodgers said. “We have to change that. It wasn’t our intent.”

Council voted in March to authorize the borough solicitor to draft the amendment after Rodgers said the ordinance was needed to address safety, traffic visibility and road damage on borough streets. Mayor Eric Cinicola said at the time that the measure made sense from a safety standpoint if large vehicles were obstructing views at intersections. Police Chief Joe Schatz said the department had seen tractor-trailers parking in town, and that they can affect safety and whether emergency vehicles can get around.

The parking problem the ordinance was designed to solve has not reached crisis level, but Rodgers said waiting is a mistake. Tractor-trailers have appeared on borough streets within the last two years, even if none are parked there now.

“Let’s do it now, while there aren’t any, before it becomes a problem,” Rodgers said. “I’ve gotten quite a few complaints. And I think the reason I’m pushing it really hard now is tractor-trailers.”

The debate over the ordinance’s language quickly expanded into thornier territory: What to do about boats, campers and recreational vehicles owned by residents who use them seasonally. Under the existing borough code, any vehicle parked on a borough street for more than 72 hours is subject to a citation.

Councilwoman Alice Roberti argued that a blanket ban on boats and campers would unfairly burden residents who depend on the street to stage equipment before a weekend trip. People who store a boat or camper outside of town might need to bring it home for a day or two before they leave.

“If somebody has a boat — it’s summertime, they’re camping, they’re boating — they store it in Lehighton or somewhere far away, and they want to bring it to town and let it sit there for two days till they get ready to go away for the weekend, I feel that it’s unfair to have to not allow that at all,” she said. “A lot of people that live in this borough are going to have a problem and not be able to use their recreational equipment.”

Roberti stopped short of defending year-round street storage of recreational equipment.

“You can’t sit there and bring your motorhome and park it on North Street for the entire summer,” she said. “And parking in front of your house all winter is a different story.”

Schatz said his department already handles problem vehicles on a case-by-case basis, contacting owners by letter before resorting to a tow. Snowplowing has historically been the main flashpoint as large vehicles parked in tight alleys create problems for plows and fire apparatus alike. He said a seasonal approach to the recreational vehicle question might be worth trying before going to a year-round ban.

“Maybe try seasonal, and see how that works, and if it doesn’t work, then come back to the drawing board and go year-round,” Schatz said.

The definitional tangle extended to the line between a utility trailer and a small camper. Resident Ed Gula pointed out that, depending on title and use, two trailers of identical size could be treated completely differently under the proposed ordinance.

“You’re saying a utility trailer is all right. I can get a camper the same size as a utility trailer,” Gula said. “What’s different, except one’s titled as a camper? The other one’s a box trailer, but they’re the same size, and the camper might look a whole lot better in my neighborhood than the utility trailer.”

Council ended the discussion without taking action, sending the item back to committee to be reworked with the solicitor before it returns for a vote at a future meeting. Rodgers said he wants the language to clearly protect utility trailers while giving the borough the tools it needs to deal with commercial vehicles and oversized recreational equipment before another tractor-trailer decides to make a borough street its home base.

“We definitely need to make sure utility trailers are OK, because that’s not the point,” Rodgers said.