## Facts

- In 1978 Fountain Gate Ministries, Inc. (Fountain Gate) bought roughly 21 acres in Plano, Texas, zoned “SF-2” (single-family residential).
- Fountain Gate used the property for a church, an academy (primary/secondary program), and a program it described as a university.
- The SF-2 ordinance generally limited the district to single-family residences, with exceptions that included “church and rectory” and “school, public or parochial.”
- The ordinance defined “school, public or parochial” as a school sponsored by a public or religious agency with a curriculum generally equivalent to public elementary or secondary schools (excluding private, trade, or commercial schools).
- SF-2 expressly prohibited certain uses, including “college or university,” along with uses such as boarding houses and rooming houses.
- Fountain Gate applied for a special-use permit to operate the university; the City of Plano denied the permit.
- The City sued for a permanent injunction to stop activities it alleged were prohibited “college or university” uses.
- After trial, the court granted a permanent injunction barring specified university-related activities (including operating dormitory-type housing, offering courses of study for college credit, and related higher-education functions), while allowing continued operation of the church and the K–12 academy.
- The trial court made findings supporting the classification of the challenged activities as a prohibited college/university use, including that most applicants and students in the university program were not members of the church.
- Fountain Gate appealed, arguing (among other points) that enforcing the ordinance and injunction violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses and that the ordinance and injunction were vague and overbroad.

## Issues

1. Whether Plano’s SF-2 zoning ordinance, which permits churches and K–12 schools but prohibits colleges/universities, was unconstitutionally vague or overbroad as applied to Fountain Gate’s activities.
2. Whether applying the ordinance and enforcing it by injunction against Fountain Gate’s university operations violated Fountain Gate’s First Amendment rights (free exercise, free speech, or the establishment clause).
3. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that Fountain Gate’s activities constituted a prohibited “college or university,” rather than a permitted “church and rectory” or “school, public or parochial.”
4. Whether the permanent injunction was impermissibly vague, imprecise, or broader than necessary to restrain the zoning violations.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment granting a permanent injunction.
- The court rejected Fountain Gate’s challenges to the ordinance’s validity, including claims of vagueness and overbreadth.
- The court rejected Fountain Gate’s First Amendment arguments, holding that enforcement of the zoning classification against the college/university activities did not violate free exercise, free speech, or the establishment clause.
- The court held the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that the enjoined activities were college/university functions prohibited in SF-2 and did not fall within the ordinance’s permitted “church and rectory” or K–12 “school” uses.
- The court upheld the injunction as sufficiently definite and appropriately limited to stopping prohibited land uses while permitting the church and academy to continue.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality may use zoning to distinguish among institutional land uses (e.g., church and K–12 school versus college/university) in a residential district, so long as the ordinance is a valid exercise of zoning authority and is applied on neutral land-use grounds.
- A zoning ordinance is not void for vagueness when the permitted uses are defined with workable standards and the prohibited use (here, “college or university”) is expressly identified such that regulated parties can understand what is barred.
- The First Amendment does not bar enforcement of a neutral, generally applicable zoning restriction against a religious organization’s higher-education program where the regulation addresses land use and does not prohibit worship services or other permitted religious uses.
- A city need not satisfy a “compelling interest” test merely because a religious entity is affected by a neutral zoning rule regulating land use rather than religious belief or worship.
- Injunctive relief enforcing zoning restrictions must describe the prohibited conduct with reasonable certainty and may restrain specific college/university indicia (such as dormitories and college-credit coursework) while leaving lawful uses in place.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Plano’s SF-2 zoning scheme and affirmed an injunction stopping Fountain Gate from operating a college/university use on residentially zoned land, while allowing the church and K–12 academy to continue as permitted uses under the ordinance.


Fountain Gate Ministries v. City of Plano, 654 S.W.2d 841 (1983)