Enforcing semi-tractor parking ordinance would be a challenge

Not all Newton City Council members are on board with an amendment to a proposed ordinance excluding semi-tractors from being listed among the large commercial vehicles that would be prohibited from parking in residential areas. The issue will be settled at the Nov. 15 council meeting upon its third reading.

The amendment, created by council member Randy Ervin, gives an exception to semi-tractors, which would be allowed to park in residential areas. But they can only be parked in a 72-hour period on three days of a seven-day period while on a hard service and when not continuously running.

Otherwise, all other large commercial vehicles and equipment parked outside on residential properties would be considered a nuisance code violation.

During its Nov. 1 meeting, the city council passed the second reading of an ordinance amending the public nuisances chapter of city code that directly addresses outside parking and storage of vehicles and trailers on residential properties. The action passed in a close 4-2 vote from council.

Fran Henderson, a resident of Newton, told council members she opposes the ordinance and encouraged them to vote “no,” noting one of the goals of the city’s comprehensive plan is to improve curb appeal in neighborhoods. The desire for better curb appeal, she argued, is also shared by citizens.

“Semi-tractors parking in neighborhoods does not meet this goal,” Henderson said. “…Some of our streets are narrow, with parking only on one side. And this makes it more difficult for traffic, especially a large vehicle like a semi-tractor. And (getting) in and out of driveways is very difficult.”

Newton’s neighborhood streets are also not designed to withstand semi-truck and heavy vehicle traffic, she added. But perhaps the most compelling reason to vote no, Henderson said, is Newton Police Chief Rob Burdess’ explanation of how difficult it would be for officers to enforcement the ordinance.

Burdess it is challenging to enforce the 72-hour restriction because officers would not know when the vehicle was first parked on the property. Plus, when the driver would leave the property, the clock would start again, resulting in what Burdess said is a “perpetual time limit that really never stops.”

Which is why the council added the three days in a seven-day period into the 72-hour restriction. However, Burdess said that, too, can be a challenge.

“Part of the discussion with council was to allow truck drivers to drive to work every day in their truck and then come back home and park that same truck they drive with,” Burdess said. “At three days in a seven-day period, I would not allow them to do that in a normal work week. I would only allow them to park on that property for three days.”

Again, three days is subjective, the police chief added, and can only be observed or counted down when an officer first sees the vehicle parked on the property. Burdess said the city attorney would have to assist the police department in trying to prosecute if there was a violation.

Ervin reminded council this is the second time the city has proposed this specific ordinance. Citizens have reached out to him about the issue and he, too, sought their feedback. Other than Henderson, Ervin said he has heard of no other resident wanting the council to oppose the amended version of the ordinance.

Ervin also disagreed with the city’s language to justify the ordinance, saying he was “appalled” by its use of words like “blighting” when referring to impacts upon the residential quality and character of neighborhoods. Ervin claimed those phrases are picking on a “certain class of people.”

“We’re not saying, ‘Bring a tractor trailer home.’ We’re not saying, ‘Leave it out in the street.’ We’re not saying, ‘Leave it out in the parking.’ We’re talking about parking them on their own driveway, in their own property, on a hard surface,” he said. “I don’t find that offensive.”

Council member Evelyn George said she understands the concerns. George asked the city attorney what would happen if the city finds out there are unintended consequences should this ordinance pass. City attorney Matthew Brick said the city would have to give public notice and then put it on the agenda.

“You could waive the second and third (readings),” Brick said. “So it could be done in a single council meeting if that’s the desire. I would tell you making a quick change to an ordinance usually involves making a slow quick change after the fact. So I would tell you any changes probably should go through your normal channels.”

Council member Craig Trotter there are not many people living in town who drive semi-tractors for work and park them on their properties. George and council member Steve Mullan voted no, opposing the amended ordinance.

Contact Christopher Braunschweig at 641-792-3121 ext. 6560 or cbraunschweig@newtondailynews.com