Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/08/1999

Home

Z.B. October 10, 1999 -- Page 3 Code Violation m Owner says she used 4-foot-high grass as 'means of art and of expression' ALABAMA (8/27/99) -- Norman lived in Montgomery. The city cited her based on the condition of her yard, which it Iabeled a public nuisance. The city zoning ordinance allowed the building inspector to declare as a nuisance "any such litter or trash or weeds or tall grass over twelve (12) inches in height ... found u. pon private property." It defined a weed as a "plant of no value, unde- sirable and usually of rank growth; grass, shrubs, underbrush, and other veg- etable growth higher than twelve (12) inches." The building inspector said Norman had vegetation and weeds 3 to 4 feet high growing next to the street. He said there was seed rye growing waist-high next to the street and that there was other vegetation taller than 12 inches in the yard. He said the city normally didn't issue citations or warnings for gardens located in backyards and maintained in a "neat fashion." He said he told Norman ~the city wouldn't bother her if she moved her "gardening" operation into the back. yard. Norman said the-condition of her property evolved as an attempt to reclaim the street, which she said was plagued by prostitution. She said she spent fruit- less years complaining to police and felt she needed to assume a stronger resi- dential presence to curtail the prostitution. Norman also said her yard was · designed to create an ecologically sound and economically viable yard-man- agement system that wouldn't exploit the environment. She said, "My yard is agricultural in the sense that I have chosen to grow edibles instead of grass." Norman was convicted in a municipal court of creati~.g a public nuisance. Norman appealed. She argued the zoning ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and violated her free speech rights because she used her yard "as a means of art and of expression" and to "show her desire to revitalize and reclaim a community blighted by crime." The court dismissed the charges against Norman, finding the definition of "weed" in the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The zoning ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague and didn't violate Norman's civil rights. Although the definition of "weed" was broad, the ordinance provided fair notice to landowners that any plant taller than 12 inches might be declared a nuisance. By providing a specific height at which a plant might b~ declared a nuisance, the ordinance gave building inspectors definite enforcement guide- lines. Additionally, the building inspector said he considered the plant growth in relation to the surrounding area before declaring it a nuisance and said the city didn't issue citations for gardens that were in backyards. In fact, the build- ing inspector told Norman the city wouldn't bother her if she moved her "gar- den" to the backyard.