In Whitman v Galien Township, published June 10, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals considered the specificity required of a special use ordinance.  Here, the plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal the circuit court's order affirming the zoning board of appeals' grant of a special use permit for the operation of a snowmobile, dirt bike and ATV racetrack in the township's agricultural district.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued the board's decision was unlawful because the underlying ordinance did not comply with the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA).  The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the circuit court's decision.

Pursuant to MCL 125.3504(1), a zoning ordinance that allows special uses "shall specify the special land uses and activities eligible for approval...."  The court interpreted this language to "mandate that a zoning ordinance must set forth in explicit, precise, definite and detailed language both customary uses and the specific actions and functions that are eligible for special use permits."

Under the township's zoning code, the uses eligible for special use status in an agricultural district were "establishments for the conducting of commercial or industrial activities." The court held these broad, sweeping and undefined terms failed to provide the required specificity.  Because the zoning ordinance failed to comply with the MZEA, the board's decision to grant the special use did not comport with the law and could not stand.