Noxious weed: “Organic Garden” Not Exempt From Mowing Ordinance?

Practically every state has a noxious weed statute requiring eradication of certain listed weeds by owners and possessors of effected land.  Many towns have also adopted similar ordinances.  In this case, the plaintiff requested an exemption from the town mowing ordinance when he planted an organic garden and indigenous grasses in his back yard. The city requested that he maintain his yard “in an appropriate manner.” The city subsequently adopted a mowing ordinance requiring property owners to keep their lawn mowed to 8 inches or under. Under the ordinance, the mayor had the power to exempt certain areas of town as conservation areas.  The mayor denied the plaintiff’s request for an exemption and ordered that he mow his “noxious weeds.” The plaintiff appealed to the town city council and at a public hearing the city council denied the plaintiff’s request for an exemption. 

The trial court denied the plaintiff a permanent injunction, and he filed an appeal that challenged the ordinance’s constitutionality. The plaintiff claimed that the ordinance’s exemption of conservation areas was “unconstitutionally vague” under the Due Process Clause. The court stated that the legal test for vagueness of city ordinances is “if the statute’s meaning is fairly ascertainable by general meaning and common acceptance of words used.” The city ordinance, in this case, specified that the conservation area must be “compatible with the environment” and maintained. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff should have tried to maintain his organic garden in a way that was compatible with the surrounding environment. Thus, the statute was not unconstitutionally vague even though the word “environment” was not defined in the ordinance. Jensen v. City Council of Cambridge, No. 0-087/09-0697, 2010 Iowa App. LEXIS 573 (Iowa Ct. App., Jun. 16, 2010).