Can a Maryland city ban parking large trucks in residential areas even though state law regulates parking too?

Plain-English summary

Rockville's zoning and parking ordinances restricted parking large trucks and trailers on private property in residential zones, and a delegate asked the Attorney General whether the Maryland Vehicle Law preempted the city from doing this. An earlier, less complete review inside the Attorney General's office had suggested Rockville lacked the authority, but after a fuller review the opinion reversed that initial assessment: it concluded the state's vehicle parking statutes mostly regulate parking on highways, not off-street private property, so Rockville's ordinance did not cover the same ground as state law and was not preempted, in fact or in purpose, by the Maryland Vehicle Law.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Does Maryland's state vehicle law stop a city from banning big trucks from parking on residential driveways?
Not according to this opinion. The Attorney General concluded that the Maryland Vehicle Law's parking provisions mainly govern parking on highways, while Rockville's ordinance covered off-street parking on private property, so the two did not overlap and the state law did not preempt the city's rule.

Did a state law letting people park on private property with the owner's permission give truck owners an unstoppable right to park there?
No. The opinion read TR §21-1004(e)(1), which prohibited parking on someone else's property without permission, as a narrow restriction protecting property owners against unauthorized parkers, not as an affirmative grant of an unrestrictable right to park whenever the owner did consent.

Why did the city change its mind about whether it had this power?
The opinion explained that an earlier assessment by a member of the Attorney General's office had been based on incomplete information about the ordinance, and that a fuller review of the relevant statutes led to the opposite conclusion: Rockville did have the authority to regulate truck parking on private property.

Background and statutory framework

Rockville's zoning ordinance limited off-street parking in certain residential zones to passenger vehicles and small delivery vehicles, and a separate city ordinance, as amended in 1986, restricted parking of larger vehicles in residential areas unless a special permit was obtained, with very large vehicles barred outright. The question was whether the Maryland Vehicle Law, which comprehensively regulates traffic and includes an express preemption provision at TR §25-101.1(c) making state law "prevail over all local legislation and regulation on any subject with which the Maryland Vehicle Law deals," displaced Rockville's ordinance.

The opinion found that the Maryland Vehicle Law's parking provisions, including TR §21-1001 (stopping and standing restrictions), §21-1003 (prohibited parking locations), and §21-1004 (additional parking regulations), overwhelmingly regulate parking on highways rather than private, off-street property, citing Walmsley v. State for the point that the statutory definition of "highway" does not reach private parking lots and driveways. The only state parking provisions that touch private property at all, the opinion noted, are TR §21-1004(e)(1) (barring parking on another's property without permission) and TR §21-1006 (requiring handicapped spaces at certain retail lots), neither of which the opinion read as granting an unqualified right to park on private property whenever the property owner consents; it was simply silent on other private-property parking scenarios, and silence does not amount to an affirmative grant of rights that would trigger preemption.

The opinion also relied on TR §25-102(a)(1)'s express reservation of parking regulation to local authorities, and on City of Baltimore v. Sitnick and Firey's rule that a local government "may prohibit what the State has not expressly permitted," to conclude that the general assembly had not meant to occupy the entire field of private-property truck parking. Because the purpose behind Rockville's ordinance, separating an incompatible land use from residential neighborhoods, differed from the purposes behind the state's parking laws (facilitating traffic flow, per Whoolery v. Hagan and Maggitti v. Cloverland Farms Dairy, Inc., and protecting property owners from unauthorized parkers), the opinion found no conflict between enforcing both regimes side by side. It concluded the city had ample independent authority to enact the ordinance under its general police power (Article 23A, §2(a)) and its zoning and planning powers, including Article 66B, §4.01(a)'s express grant of authority to regulate off-street parking.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Rockville City Code §3-401(1)
• Rockville City Code §11-1.02
• Ordinance No. 29-86 (September 8, 1986)
• TR §21-1001(b)
• TR §21-1001(c)
• TR §21-1003
• TR §21-1004
• TR §21-1004(e)(1)
• TR §21-1006
• TR §25-101.1(c)
• TR §25-102
• TR §25-102(a)(1)
• TR §26-301(b)
• TR §11-127
• Article 23A, §2(a)
• Article 25, §2
• Article 25A, §5(S)
• Article 23A, §2(b)(30) and (36)
• Article 25A, §5(X)
• Article 66B, §4.01(a)
• Chapter 388, Laws of Maryland 1966
• Chapter 375, Laws of Maryland 1977

Cases:

• Walmsley v. State, 35 Md. App. 148, 151-52, 370 A.2d 107 (1977)
• City of Baltimore v. Sitnick and Firey, 254 Md. 303, 317, 255 A.2d 376 (1969)
• Whoolery v. Hagan, 247 Md. 699, 706, 234 A.2d 605 (1967)
• Maggitti v. Cloverland Farms Dairy, Inc., 201 Md. 528, 532, 95 A.2d 81 (1953)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1988/Volume73_1988.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

Local Government—Vehicle Laws—Preemption—Parking—City of Rockville Has Authority To Regulate Parking of Trucks on Private Property.

August 17, 1988

The Honorable George W. Owings, III
Maryland House of Delegates

You have requested an opinion concerning the authority of the City of Rockville to regulate the parking of trucks on private property. Previously, a member of this office was asked for her view of the matter. Her initial assessment, based on incomplete information regarding the ordinance, was that the City did not appear to have that authority. We have now had an opportunity to review the issue in fuller detail, and, for the reasons given below, we conclude that Rockville does have authority to regulate the parking of trucks on private property.

                                      I
                             Relevant Laws

A provision of the zoning ordinance of the City of Rockville limits the vehicles that may be parked "off street" in certain residential zones to "passenger vehicles, not more than one (1) delivery type commercial vehicle not exceeding three-fourths ton capacity and one (1) trailer which shall not be used for dwelling purposes or any accessory use, provided such trailer is parked behind the front building line." Rockville City Code §3-401(1). In addition, the City has enacted an ordinance generally regulating the parking of trucks in residential areas. Rockville City Code §11-1.02 (as amended by Ordinance No. 29-86 (September 8, 1986)). Under the ordinance, vehicles below a designated size and weight and having no more than four wheels generally may be parked in any residential area; certain larger vehicles may be parked in residential areas only with a special permit; and very large vehicles may not be parked in residential areas.1 The

1
A permit is required for any vehicle with a rated-load capacity of more than three-fourths ton, but not more than one ton; a gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds but not more than 13,000 pounds; more than four, but not more than six, wheels; or a width of not more than 96 inches. Vehicles that exceed these standards may not be parked in residential areas.

parking permit may be granted only on the basis of findings that the parking would not (i) overburden roads and other public facilities; (ii) be detrimental to the use or development of nearby properties; (iii) adversely affect the health or safety of residents or workers in the area; (iv) or constitute a violation of any other law.
The Maryland Vehicle Law, titles 11 through 27 of the Transportation Article ("TR" Article), regulates all aspects of traffic. Title 21 of the Maryland Vehicle Law particularly regulates parking, extensively and in detail. For example, TR §21-1001(b) prohibits leaving a vehicle standing on a highway outside a business or residential district without providing an unobstructed width of the roadway opposite the vehicle for the free passage of other vehicles; §21-1001(c) prohibits stopping a vehicle on a highway outside a business or residential district unless the vehicle can be seen clearly from 200 feet away in each direction on the roadway. See also TR §21-1003 (prohibiting stopping, standing, or parking in 29 specified types of places) and TR §21-1004 (additional parking regulations). In particular, TR §21-1004(e)(1) provides that "[a] person may not stop, stand, or park a vehicle on any private property not owned by the owner or driver of the vehicle unless the person has express or implied permission from the property owner, his tenant, or his agent to stop, stand, or park the vehicle, as the case may be."
It has been suggested that the parking provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law preempt local authority to enact regulations like Rockville's. In particular, it has been suggested that the enactment of TR §21-1004(e)(1) indicates that, had the General Assembly believed additional regulation of parking on private property to be appropriate, it would have included the regulation in the Maryland Vehicle Law.

                               II
                     Preemption Analysis

The Maryland Vehicle Law is in general intended to preempt local legislation. Indeed, TR §25-101.1(c) is an express preemption provision:

Except as otherwise provided in the Maryland Vehicle Law:
(1) The provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law prevail over all local legislation and regulation on any subject with which the Maryland Vehicle Law deals;
  (2) All public local laws, ordinances, and regulations that are inconsistent or identical with or equivalent to any provision in the Maryland Vehicle Law are repealed; and
  (3) The charters of all political subdivisions of this State are modified to prohibit the political subdivision from making or enforcing any ordinance or regulation in violation of the Maryland Vehicle Law.

Nonetheless, the Maryland Vehicle Law is not intended to preempt all local regulation of traffic-related matters. TR §25-102 enumerates various powers that a local authority may exercise "as to highways under its jurisdiction"; those powers include "[r]egulating or prohibiting the stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles ...." TR §25-102(a)(1).2 In addition, a "political subdivision" may "[r]egulate the parking of vehicles," enforced by impoundment and citation. TR §26-301(b).

Thus, the City of Rockville, like other local authorities, may regulate parking on City streets. Further, we believe that the City has equally clear authority to regulate parking on private property, that is, off-street parking.
In our view, the Maryland Vehicle Law does not preempt Rockville's regulation of off-street truck parking because, quite simply, the matters covered by Rockville's ordinance are not covered by the Maryland Vehicle Law. The State statutes pertaining to parking generally regulate parking on highways; with few exceptions, they do not apply to off-street property. See, e.g., TR §§21-1003 and 21-1004(a) through (d). Cf. TR §21-1003(v) through (z) (prohibiting parking on property owned by certain county boards of education). TR §11-127 defines the term "highway" to include "the entire width between the boundary lines of any way or thoroughfare of which any part is used by the public for vehicular travel," but the term does not include private parking lots and driveways. Walmsley v. State, 35 Md. App. 148, 151-52, 370 A.2d 107 (1977). Indeed, the only State parking laws that explicitly address any question of parking on private property are TR §21-1004(e)(1), which prohibits parking on the private

2
A "local authority" is "a political subdivision or a local board or other body, that, under the laws of this State, has authority to enact laws and adopt local police regulations related to traffic." The City of Rockville, as an incorporated municipality, clearly has that authority under the general grant of police power in Article 23A, §2(a). Cf. Article 25, §2 (granting county commissioners power to regulate parking of vehicles on public highways) and Article 25A, §5(S) (granting police power to chartered counties).

property of another without the property owner's permission, and TR §21-1006, which requires handicapped parking spaces on certain retail store lots.
We do not think that TR §21-1004(e)(1) can be construed to grant an unabridgeable right to park on private property when the owner permits or when the property owner also owns the parked vehicle. That provision is no more than a prohibition against parking on private property in one set of circumstances, without "the express or implied permission of the property owner...." In the absence of further restrictions, parking on private property under other circumstances would undeniably be permitted. But that would result merely from the absence of other restrictions, not because TR §21-1004(e)(1) affirmatively grants a right immune from other restriction.
The Court of Appeals has pointed out that "a political subdivision may not prohibit what the State by general public law has permitted, but it may prohibit what the State has not expressly permitted." City of Baltimore v. Sitnick and Firey, 254 Md. 303, 317, 255 A.2d 376 (1969) (emphasis in original). TR §21-1004(e) clearly does not itself expressly grant permission to park on any private property. Moreover, we think that TR §25-102(a)(1)'s express designation of parking as a matter subject to local regulation indicates that none of the provisions of the Maryland Vehicle Law is intended to grant implied permission to park in certain locations merely because State law does not prohibit parking there.
Further, we believe that there is no inconsistency between Rockville's parking ordinance and the State's parking laws. The purpose for which the State regulates parking generally is simply to facilitate and expedite the movement of traffic. Whoolery v. Hagan, 247 Md. 699, 706, 234 A.2d 605 (1967); Maggitti v. Cloverland Farms Dairy, Inc., 201 Md. 528, 532, 95 A.2d 81 (1953). TR §21-1004(e)(1) evidently addresses a different concern: protection of the right of property owners to prevent unauthorized persons from parking on their property.3 The legislative purpose of Rockville's parking ordinance is different from either of those purposes: As reflected in the conditions for granting a special parking permit, that purpose is

3
As originally enacted, that provision made it a misdemeanor to park a motor vehicle on the property of another after the property owner or the owner's tenant or agent asked that the vehicle be removed. Chapter 388, Laws of Maryland 1966. It was amended by Chapter 375 of the Laws of Maryland 1977 to prohibit parking on another's property without permission.

to separate from residential areas a land use deemed inappropriate and detrimental to persons and property in those areas. The enforcement of Rockville's ordinance would in no way interfere with the accomplishment of the purposes of either TR §21-1004(e)(1) or the State's parking regulations generally. By the same token, the enforcement of the State's laws in no way interferes with the accomplishment of Rockville's purpose.
Hence, we think that Rockville's truck parking ordinance is not "inconsistent or identical with or equivalent to any provision in the Maryland Vehicle Law," nor does it deal with any subject covered by the Maryland Vehicle Law. Accordingly, we believe that Rockville's ordinance is not preempted by any provision of the Maryland Vehicle Law.
We have no doubt that, in the absence of State preemption, the City has power to enact an ordinance prohibiting parking large trucks in residential areas. Under Article 23A, §2(a), the City has broad power to enact ordinances that it "deem[s] necessary in order ... to protect the health, comfort and convenience of the citizens of the municipality ...." Cf. Article 25A, §5(S) (grant of police power to chartered counties). In addition, the City has express authority to enact planning and zoning regulations to promote the orderly development and use of land and structures. Article 23A, §2(b)(30) and (36). Cf. Article 25A, §5(X) (planning and zoning powers of chartered counties). Further, Article 66B, which grants municipal corporations and county commissioners zoning and planning powers, expressly grants authority "to regulate and restrict ... off-street parking ...." Article 66B, §4.01(a). The City's truck parking ordinance clearly is related to the health, comfort, and convenience of the citizens of the municipality; moreover, it furthers the general policy of zoning ordinances to separate incompatible land uses.

                              III
                         Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that the City of Rockville has authority to regulate the parking of trucks on private property.

       J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General
       C.J. Messerschmidt, Assistant Attorney General

Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions & Advice