Motorists needing a tow in Plainsboro have been pretty lucky — they have been paying one of the lowest prices around for service.
That’s about to change. Plainsboro Township Committee is expected to introduce an ordinance on Wednesday, February 10, that would increase the rates charged for towing.
According to Police Chief Richard Furda, the fees a towing company is allowed to charge is set through township ordinance, although the township makes no profit from towing. The township does not get a cut from those towing companies after they respond to a call, either, said Furda.
However, the ordinance sets a rate the towing companies are allowed to charge. It also sets a rotating log for the calls, so that when a car needs to be towed, the companies who have applied to be included on the township’s list will be called on a rotating basis to give them all a fair chance, Furda explained.
“They can make an application to be on the towing list, and as long as they comply with the ordinance,” they will be called to the scene, Furda said.
The rate that is charged to a driver or the driver’s insurance company is currently $85 in Plainsboro — “substantially lower” than the fees in other surrounding communities, Furda said. “We’re looking to upgrade those charges.”
According to Furda, the rates in neighboring communities averages around $140 a tow. Although Plainsboro has not yet decided on a formal rate because the ordinance is still in draft form, “we will take a look at the rates and see how they compare.” The ordinance solely covers tows ordered by the police in the township.
Truck Ordinance
Plainsboro Township Committee wants to hear from residents who will be affected by proposed changes to two ordinances that would essentially prohibit home business commercial vehicles on residential roads.
The ordinances were originally scheduled to be introduced on Wednesday, February 10, but Mayor Peter Cantu suggested delaying the ordinances until Wednesday, February 24, so that residents could give their input on the matter.
This came after Committeeman and Deputy Mayor Neil Lewis said during the January 27 meeting that he knew of a few residents who wanted to weigh in on the matter. Township Administrator Robert Sheehan said that otherwise, no one has voiced concern to him or other township officials.
The committee began talking during the summer about making changes to the ordinance due to complaints in the past few years from homeowners regarding construction, storage, and commercial vehicles being parked on their streets.
Committee members said they do not want to see commercial vehicles stored on residential streets on an ongoing basis if they are associated with a business. But they said caution needed to be taken in crafting the language to prohibit parking of commercial vehicles not associated with a home construction project on the street to “protect the integrity of the residential zone.”
The new ordinance would create additional restrictions for street parking and driveway use for commercial vehicles. Officials are looking to prohibit commercial vehicles from being “kept” on the street. The prohibition would not only be for commercial trucks associated with home businesses, but also storage units on streets.
Officials said that the problem exists with the storage of vehicles and equipment, like pod storage units and trailers used for business. For example, lumber for home projects in units would be prohibited from being stored on the streets. The prohibitions would encompass the whole right-of-way, although driveways would be excluded from this section of the ordinance, to encourage use of the driveways for home construction.
Driveways, however, would not be a place to park a commercial truck or other large vehicle associated with a home office occupation, under the changes being proposed. The regulations would not prohibit homeowners from parking commercial vehicles in the street or driveway for a short period of time such as a lunch break, but those vehicles must be stored in a garage.
Officials have said they feel the intent is correct with regard to prohibiting 18-wheelers without being too restrictive. Otherwise, a person’s ability to park a company car, used for commuting to work, would be prohibited overnight, which is not the intent.
