Oyer and Arp Have Words Over Parking

Community, Featured Stories, News

Now available click to read the entire email from City Attorney David Syfan. During the Regular Blue Ridge City Council Meeting held on the 13th, Steve Oyer was there to talk about downtown parking and the troubles he has been having with one city council woman.

Oyer took to the floor by stating,

“On New Year’s Eve I got a phone call from a downtown merchant saying ‘We are losing parking spaces again on Depot St.’, then on the way to my restaurant i notice that we were losing parking on Church St.”

You could hear the frustration in his voice, Oyer then went on to read a excerpt of an email City Attorney David Syfan had written to the council. The email was discussing several of the parking spots around downtown that came within 50 foot of a rail road track.

The email further stated information about a merchant parking a vehicle in prime spots with the car having an advertisement on it. Oyer went on to say,

“That’s evidently me…I move the vehicle every three days…I move it from Depot Street to Mountain Street, then all of a sudden we lost all the parking on Mountain Street. Evidently that might have been allergic to my car too.”

It appears Mr. Oyer feels targeted as he went on to say-

“It seems that I have been singled out.”

Oyer along with Mayor Whitener would then read a statement about the railroads in question stating that the tracks past Depot street were “exempt track” so the 50ft rule does not apply.

Mayor Whitener stated she would still like GDOT Rail to come up and look at the track and all the spots to make sure they are following the law in regards to the parking spots.

If the 50 ft law was true the pavilion that is in the downtown park would also have to come down.

Oyer ended by making a statement to Council Woman Angie Arp,

“Whenever you open a can of worms you want to make sure it doesn’t stink a whole lot, and this stinks.”

This is one of many discussions that seem to stem from deeper conflicts that may exist from other issues rather than where someone may park.

Below is the email in question from the attorney followed by the videos from that night.

Mayor, Angie and everyone:

As everyone will recall, I was recently requested to give an opinion as to whether the City could validly have permanent parking spaces within the downtown area within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing. My understanding of the situation is that there are a couple of parking places near the downtown depot and which are within 50 feet of the nearest rail of one of the railroad crossings downtown. Evidently, at least one merchant is parking a vehicle in these spaces and which has advertisements for the merchant’s establishment upon the vehicle. The vehicle is evidently left by the merchant within the parking spaces for days at a time and thereby providing the merchant with an advantageous advertising location while the vehicle is parked at this location. A question has arisen as to whether the parking spaces in issue are validly marked permanent parking spaces under Georgia law due to the parking spaces being partially or completely within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing. I am of the opinion, that the Georgia Uniform Rules of the Road, do not allow the City to create permanent parking spaces that are within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing.

As the Council will recall, the City has for some time adopted the Georgia Uniform Rules of the Road as being applicable to traffic situations within the City of Blue Ridge. The City Council in order to update the City’s radar permit, also recently readopted or is in the process of readopting the Georgia Uniform Rules of the Road. Therefore, traffic situations within the City of Blue Ridge, for the most part, are governed by the Georgia Uniform Rules of the Road.

Included within the Uniform Rules of the Road, is O.C.G.A. Section 40-6-203 and which is attached above for your review. Subsection (a)(3)(A) provides that: “Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control device, NO PERSON SHALL park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing, except temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading and unloading property or passengers.” Emphasis added.

The use of the term, “shall,” under Georgia law always creates a mandatory requirement. Therefore it is a mandatory requirement that no person park a vehicle within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing except for temporary parking to load or unload property or passengers. Therefore, the statutory law contemplates that there can be temporary parking to unload or load property or passengers, but not the type of long term parking typically contemplated by a permanent parking place for parking.

O.C.G.A. Section 40-6-203 is consistent with other Uniform Rules of the Road that create certain crossing requirements by vehicles when vehicles approach within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing. See O.C.G.A. Sections 40-6-140, 141, 142 and 143. All of these statutory provisions create certain traffic requirements within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing. I think that the intent behind these statutory sections is to try to regulate vehicles navigating railroad crossings and attempt to increase the traffic requirements at railroad crossing to try to eliminate as much as possible collisions between vehicles and trains. The requirement that there be no permanent parking within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing would in theory prevent vehicles from being parked within 100 feet of a crossing and would help to maximize the sight distance of operators of vehicles attempting to cross the railroad crossings for on-coming trains [and thus help prevent collisions between the vehicles and trains].

Therefore, in order for the City to be consistent with the Georgia Uniform Rules of the Road, the City would be unable to create permanent parking spaces within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing. The City Council, in its discretion, could create a temporary loading or unloading zone within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing, but someone would have to study the specific location to be sure that such a zone would not on a regular basis impede the sight distance of vehicles approaching the railroad crossing. The loading or unloading zone would need to be clearly marked with signage that states a maximum occupancy time [subject to citation for violation] within the zone of 5 to 15 minutes as determined by the City Council. The creation of such a loading or unloading zone by the City Council is optional and up to the discretion of the City Council [and after a study of the location to be sure that the loading or unloading zone will not create a problem for the crossing]. It may be with the heavy parking use of parking in the downtown area that such a loading zone would be continuously used and therefore inappropriate as interfering with the crossing in that it would be continuously filled [at 5 to 15 minute intervals].

I do want to note, that the Mayor has mentioned to me, a concern that the nearest rail to the depot, in the area in question, may be rarely, if ever used, and also wants me to discuss the situation with an agent of the railroad assigned the area and rails in question. I will be glad to talk to this agent. However, I would note that the statutory provision is not keyed to the frequency of use of the rails of the railroad crossing and is only keyed to the fact of a railroad crossing. It may be that if the nearest rail was in fact rendered incapable of receiving a train to pass over the crossing, that as a practical matter we could consider the rail not to be an operable rail and interpret the statute to not apply. But this hypothetical has not occurred and my understanding is that technically the nearest rail of the crossing closest to the depot can still in theory handle trains and therefore the statutory prohibition would still apply.

Finally, a question also was raised as to whether Bill or other agent of the City needs direction of the Mayor and/or the Council to institute traffic safety measures. I think that where an issue of traffic safety arises, that Bill or any other agent should take those measures to comply with the Uniform Rules of Road and ensure traffic safety, and they do not necessarily have to wait for direction of the Council. In the subject situation, since it became a point of disagreement among the Mayor and Council and there was no immediate traffic safety issue [given the fact that the spaces have been there for some time without incident], I think that Bill and the other agents of the City acted appropriately to wait until I could give a legal opinion to resolve the situation. In this manner, Bill and the other agents did not have to interject themselves into the middle of the disagreement among the Council.

I think that I have answered the questions that have arisen in this situation, but if you have further questions, please don’t hesitate to let me know. I hope that all have great holidays.

Thanks, David

R. David Syfan
HULSEY,OLIVER & MAHAR, LLP
200 E.E. Butler Parkway
P.O. Box 1457 (30503)

Watch Oyer’s Comments below:

You can watch the full 2:30 minute meeting below:

Back to Top