Zoning ordinance; Special use permit; Agricultural district; Facial constitutional challenge; Void for vagueness; Due process; Fair notice; Planning Commission discretion; Adjacent property; “Natural environment”; Excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, or glare; Master plan; Distinguishing People of Grand Rapids v Gasper

The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant-township’s zoning ordinance governing special-use permits was facially unconstitutional as void for vagueness. Plaintiffs operated commercial businesses on their property, had a special-use permit revoked, and later sued seeking a declaration that the township’s current and former zoning ordinances were vague. The court first held that plaintiffs raised a facial challenge, which required showing “no set of circumstances” under which the ordinance would be valid. It held that the ordinance’s requirement that a special use be “harmonious” with adjacent property and the surrounding area was not vague because the term could be understood by its dictionary meaning and constrained the Planning Commission to compare the proposed use with nearby properties. The court next held that the “natural environment” and “essential character” language was sufficiently clear when read in context because a person of ordinary intelligence could determine whether a proposed use was compatible with the relevant zoning district. It also rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the word “excessive,” reasoning that traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, or glare were excessive only if detrimental to health, safety, or welfare. Finally, the court held that the master-plan criterion contained explicit standards, and distinguished Gasper because this ordinance gave fair notice and constrained enforcement discretion. Affirmed.