This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq.
A March 2018 decision from the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri upheld an ordinance that required at least 50% of all yard areas to be planted with turf grass.
The Duffners, who claimed to be allergic to grass, had planted their entire yard with a flower garden instead of grass, in violation of the city’s 50% turf grass requirement. In recognition of the fact that their yard was attractive and well-maintained, the zoning board granted them a variance lowering the required turf grass coverage to just 5% of their yard. The Duffners weren’t satisfied with this offer of variance relief, however, and so they brought litigation to challenge the validity of the turf grass restriction. The federal district court did not agree with them, however, and found the ordinance to be valid and constitutional.
Preliminarily, the court explained that the Duffners failed to identify any protected property interest or fundamental right that was affected by the turf grass ordinance. The court did not appreciate their argument that they had a fundamental rights to use their property in any harmless manner of their own choosing, as such a broad characterization of fundamental property rights would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s “tradition of carefully formulating the interest at stake in substantive-due-process cases.” Moreover, if such vast property rights were considered to be fundamental, nearly all zoning laws would be subject to heightened scrutiny, and this would present very substantial deviation from the longstanding rule that zoning regulations are to be reviewed under the rational basis standard.
Even assuming that the plaintiffs could establish a protected property interest, the court found that their lawsuit would fail on the merits. As the court noted, the turf grass ordinance had been adopted after the city received several complaints about a particular property that had been landscaped with wild flowers and natural grasses, and although the plantings were not weeds, they nevertheless looked like weeds to many residents. In response, the city eventually settled on the 50% turf grass requirement, which it believed was necessary to ensure basic community standards while still allowing the flexibility for residents to have vegetable gardens, flower beds, and other unique yard designs. Even the Duffners conceded that the city had a legitimate interest in protecting the quality and character of the neighborhood, and they failed to convince the court that the turf grass ordinance had no rational relationship to this purpose. Nor did they provide sufficient evidence that the turf grass ordinance, as applied to their property, was so “truly irrational” as to be amount to a violation of their substantive due process rights.
The Duffners also claimed that the penalties authorized under the turf grass ordinance were excessive and violated their Eighth Amendment rights. The court concluded that this claim failed on the merits, however, as the Duffners offered only conclusory allegations that their noncompliant yard “has not harmed anyone,” such that the penalties assessed on them were grossly disproportionate. In contrast, the city cited to its authority under state law to impose fines for municipal violations and it demonstrated that the penalties included in the turf grass ordinance mirrored this statutory grant of authority.
Finally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Duffners’ remaining state law claims, based on interests of comity and judicial economy. As the court noted, the Duffners’ takings and zoning claims were clearly not federal issues and would be better resolved by the state courts. This was especially true with respect to their claim that the city had exceeded its statutory zoning power, because there was no established state law on this point and thus “fairness and comity favor a state forum.”
Duffner v. City of St. Peters, 2018 WL 1519378 (E.D. Mo. 3/28/18).
Leave a Reply