City crew cuts $3,000 bee lawn

A Kent Street resident is seeking changes to city processes after his bee-friendly lawn was mistakenly clear-cut by a city-hired crew. Adam Dullinger questions whether city policy on tall grass and weeds complaints is in conflict with state law meant to promote and protect natural landscaping and lawns.
“This is absolutely unacceptable,” he said.
After hearing Dullinger’s case in August, St. Paul City Council members agree that a mistake was made. Council members also want to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
“This particular case is a little bit awkward,” said Legislative Hearing Officer Marcia Moermond. She noted that her recommendation to approve Dullinger’s appeal and not make changes to his lawn didn’t even get to the city council before the lawn was mowed.
Four years ago Dullinger spent about $3,000 to transform his yard into a pollinator-friendly habitat, with plantings of a type of fescue grass and Dutch clover. Dullinger has also worked to protect seedlings from his 100-year-old silver maple tree. Those were also mowed down.
Ward Five Council Member Hwa Jeong Kim called for the appeal to be granted, although she noted it was moot at that point. She also said this isn’t the first time she has had such an issue in her ward.
“This is a way folks want to contribute, by having native plantings,” Kim said.
Other council members agreed with her and also agreed with Dullinger’s call for a change in city process. They questioned whether or not there had been sufficient communication.
A tall grass and weeds complaint was filed in late June against Dullinger’s property. That automatically generated a letter to him. Complaints can be made by neighbors, with those filing the complaint remaining anonymous.
In mid-July, a city inspector paid a visit to follow up the letter. In an email to other city staff, it was noted that the lawn appeared to have some wildflowers and native grass. But plants considered to be overgrown grass and weeds were also seen.
Dullinger was out of town for work when the notice was mailed, but trimmed alley overgrowth upon his return. He took his case to a legislative hearing and explained that he specifically paid to have his yard be a no-mow pollinator yard, adding that it provides habitat. The yard also includes milkweed and flowers.
Dullinger won his appeal. But before his appeal could be approved by the city council, contractors mowed his lawn.
When an appeal is filed on what are considered to be property code violations, action by the city is supposed to be stayed until the appeal is resolved. The exception would be a life safety issue, which was not the case here.
“It’s extremely disheartening that this happened. . . I don’t have a say every single time my neighbors complain about my lawn,” said Dullinger.
He was especially disappointed to lose silver maple seedlings. “Those were the babies of my tree.”
One issue discussed in the hearing process is aesthetics. Although Moermond recommended granting the appeal, citing state law on managed natural plantings, she also noted that granting the appeal wasn’t a guarantee that there will not be complaints in the future.
At a legislative hearing in July, Moermond also noted that Dullinger has taller plantings closer to his house. He explained that those are grown to keep his house cooler and don’t affect his home’s foundation.
“I know it’s public appearance,” Dullinger said at the hearing. But he said the aesthetics of others shouldn’t govern how he keeps his lawn.
Moermond recommended that Dullinger post a sign in his yard explaining that it is meant to be pollinator friendly. Dullinger responded that he had such a sign in place but that it was stolen.