Residents, contractors press Glenarden officials over commercial-vehicle parking enforcement

Hundreds of residents and several small-business owners spoke at a Glenarden City Council citizens-comment meeting to urge changes to how commercial vehicles are regulated and enforced in the city.

The council session on pending legislation focused heavily on a county code that restricts parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas and on a city fine that many residents said is driving small businesses to the brink. “You are taking $200 out of my children’s food,” said Victor, a construction worker and resident, testifying about fines he received. “You’re legally stealing from us,” another resident said.

The issue matters because Prince George’s County defines a commercial vehicle by weight, markings and configuration, and Glenarden must follow county limits. Mr. Green, the city’s director of code enforcement, read the county ordinance at the meeting and quoted Section 27‑6305(h)(2): “parking of commercial vehicles … is restricted to one commercial vehicle which may not exceed 8,500 pounds … may contain no advertising other than a firm or company name not exceeding 4 inches high … may not include vehicles that exceed 300 cubic feet of load space …” He added that dual rear axles, platform trucks, dump trucks, cranes and tow trucks are excluded from allowed residential parking.

Multiple residents said the 4‑inch lettering rule and the 8,500‑pound threshold are impractical for small contractors who rely on visible vehicle branding to get work. “We had to remove the letters and our business almost failed,” said Sochi Loretta, who said she and her husband own a local small business and that theft of tools from offsite storage forced them to return logos to their vans. Others asked whether car covers, tarps or magnets would satisfy enforcement. Mr. Green said reduced lettering or removing branding and staying below the 8,500‑pound limit are common ways residents have made vehicles compliant; he said carports are not “wholly enclosed” and therefore do not qualify as garages under county rules.

Council members acknowledged the hardship but repeatedly described a legal constraint: the city may be more restrictive but cannot be less restrictive than the county. Council President Curtis and Council Vice President Ferguson told speakers the city had attempted to set an allowance at a 10,000‑pound threshold but had to lower it to 8,500 pounds to match county law. “We cannot override the county as it relates to the laws that they enact,” Vice President Ferguson said, and urged residents to bring complaints and advocacy to county meetings and representatives.

Speakers pressed for local solutions such as a city‑leased parking lot or a municipal garage for commercial vehicles. Richard Montgomery, a Ward 3 homeowner, asked whether the city could designate a lot where homeowners could pay to park work vehicles; council members said the idea had been discussed previously but gave no commitment and directed citizens to coordinate with staff about feasibility and budget.

The meeting record shows that the city’s commercial‑vehicle fine is $200 per offense and that the city’s ordinance controlling fines is catalogued in the municipal code (citations provided during the meeting). Residents repeatedly asked whether the city would waive or reduce fines; council members said they had no authority to stop county enforcement and that enforcement decisions are carried out by code officers who rely on registration and vehicle inspections to determine gross vehicle weight.

City staff and some council members offered to follow up with residents: Mr. Green said code officers will check vehicle registrations to confirm weight and to advise which vehicles meet the county thresholds; City Manager Simpson offered to examine options such as designated lots or pilot programs and report back. Several council members said they would accompany residents to county hearings and lobby for change there.

Where the discussion may lead: the council urged residents to attend county meetings and to contact District 5 county representatives. No ordinance or policy change was adopted at the meeting; the item remained a subject of public comment and staff follow‑up.