**JIM MATTOX**  AttorneyGeneral

**Suprem cwrl**  **SulldlnQ P.** **0. Box** **11548 Auslln.** **TX. 7S71** 

**I. 2!m**  **512l4752661 Telex** **81a674.1367 telecopier** **612l476.0266**

**714 Jackson.** 

**Sulle 700**  **Dallas. TX.** **75202ao6 214i742+.Q44** 

**924 AIberIa** **Ave.. Sullr** **160**

**‘ aso.** **TX. 76Wt279.3**  **3Iol5353464**

**1001 Texas.** **sqite 7w**  **Houslon. TX.** **770023111 713i223.6666** 

**606 Broadway.** 

**Suite 312**  **Lubbock.**

**TX. 794014472**  **6ow747-6236**

**4366 N.** **Tenlh. Sull.**  **S MCAIIen.** 

**TX. 76601-1666**  **5w662-4647**

**200 Mel**  **mua. Slme** **UK) Sm** **Antonlo. TX.** **762OW767 512/2264161**  

# TheAttorney General ofTexas

Lily 5, 1984

Booorable Fred M.Ba,xker Parker county Attorcey County Courthouse Weatherford. Texar 76086 opinion, no. ~~-180

Be: Whether an auxiliary county courthoure 10 subject to city zoning ordinances

Dear Mr. Barker:

You ask whether Parker County ’s uee of a tract of land for an auxiliary courthoum! within the city limits of the county seat la eubject to ,the city ’s ‘zoning ordinancea and building codes. We conclude that the ccunty ’a use of land for an auxiliary courthouse is subject ~to the munic:ipality ’e zoning ordinances only tomthe extent that nuch ordinancmt ‘do not prevent the county from reasonably locating its auxilicuy courthoucle within the municipal limits of the county seat. Addit:looally, ve conclude that the county muat comply with the munfcipalitp’e building and fire coder.

Texas **courte** have yet to determine the acope of a municlpality ’e zoning power over county property located within municipal llmita. We recently held that buildinge, structures. and laod controlled **by** federal or etate aga!c,ciemari ixeapt from municipal ronlug. Attorney General Opinion m-117 (1983). Bowever. a political rubdivision ’o property Is **not** ltate property for purpoaea of resolving conflict8 **with another**  politiml rubdivirion. Port Arthur Independent School Dlatrfct v. City of **Grovea.** 376 S.W.2d 330, 333 (Tex. 1964); Attorney General Opinion lN-Gi)(1982).

**A** municipal acnln8 ordinance which conflict8 vith or is inconsistent with e’tate legislation 1~ invalid. City of Brookside Village v. Comeau, liZI S.W.2d 790. 796 (Tex. 1982). However, state legislation In e particular field does not automatlcally preempt that ,field from amicipal regulation; local regulation ancillary to and in harmony with the purpose **of** the state leginlation is acceptable. **Id.** Thur, whether amunicipality mayexercise zoning paver over a countauxiliary courthoure: located vlthln the municipality depend6 upon reconciliation **of** two different, potentially conflicting legislatively **created powerr.** 
The coumieefone:rtl court **of** a county ha6 **the** authority to provide auxiliary courthouse8 in the county seat. V.T.C.S. art. 1605a-5.Honorable **Fred** M.Barker - Page 2 (JM-180)

51(a)(l); V.T.C.S. art. 23753 ’5, Il. Subsection l(a) (1) of article 1605a-5 specifically 

### authorizeathe comissionera court to provide auxiliary courthousea

in any part of the city, town, or village designated **a8 the**  **comty** eeat, including apart of the municipality atlcled to the municipelity after it became the cow&p rut. but not including a part of the munic:ipality that la outside the county. (Emphasis mlded)

. liowever. the legfrlative history does 

### notindicate that “in any part”
was intended to address a c:onflict with city zoning ordinances; rather. it wan intended to indicate **that the**  county la 

### notlimited to the “town center ”

. Additionally, counties hwe the right of eminent domain

fourthe purpose 

### of condemning and acquiring land, right **of** way or tuhaement in land, private or public

. . . whew said laod. right of vay ‘or .caeement ie neceeaal)min the construction of

. . . courthouses

. . . . V.T.C.S. art. 3264a. Article 6702-l. section 4.302. grants counties the right of eminent domain for road construction and maintenance purposes within the bouadazles of ounicipalltlcs and expressly raquircs the prior,consent of r:hemunicipality. Nosimilar statutory requirement for a muaicirv~lity ’a : consent amlies tom county co~dexmations pursuant to,.art&le :3264& **Cf.** Cir;-of fpler v. Smitir ~County, 246 S.l?.2d.601~(Tex. 1952); El Pasoaty v. City of El Peso, 357 &U.2d 783 (Tex.. Civ. ,App. - 81 **Paeo** 1962, nowrit) (resolution of conflict over condemnation by one political subdivieion of property belonging to an equally empour~‘cd subdivision ultimately **reste** on the paramount use and best interests 

### ofthe public). Zoning regulation io a recognired tool of cowaunity planning vhich allova a municipality, 

### in .itm legislative dircretion, to restrict the use of property fc,c the protection of the general health, safety, and velfare of the public. City of Broobide Village v. Comeau. a; see V.T.C.S. nrts., 1011a through 10113 (the zoning enebllng act 

### ofzas which l u,thorixes building and zoning regulation by municipalities). Became a municipal roalng ordinance vhich conflicts with or lo inconrlrtturt with ltatelenjslation cannot stand, **City** of Brookside Village v. **Ctmeau,**a , an orditica **which** defeata the legislative authorization ~~countica to ertabliah courthoueer ia Invalid.Honorable Fred M.Barker - P#ll;e3 (JM-180)

Texas courts dealing with conflicts .betwean municipslitiea and school districts employ thicl reasoning to hold that municipalities cannot use their zoning po!n,ra totally to exclude the reasonable location of achoo~.facilitic~ within municipal boundaries. Austin Independent School Dietrict o,, City of Sunset Valley, 502 S.W.Zd (Tex. 197,3); Port -Arthur Independent ,School District v. City of Crivea
, 376 S.W.2d, .330:. (Tt;:. 1964); City of Addison v. Dallas Independent School, District, (132S.W.2d 771.(Tex. Civ. App. ‘- Dallas 1982. .writ ref

’d n.r.c.). AlLn&~g such **an**exclusion would defeat the school district’s power of end,nent domain. Austin Independent School District v. City of Sunset **Valley,** B; City of Addison v. Dallas Independent School District, eupra, **Nor** can the zoning ordinances of municipalities override the eminent domain powers granted by the legislature to other types of cntitiea. Sea Gulf, C. 6S.P. Ry. Co. v. m, 281, S;W.Zd 441 (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1955, writ ref ’d **n.r.e.);** Fort Worth 6 O.C. **Ay.** Co. v. Auunons. 215 S.W.Zd407 (Tex. Civ. App. -.Amarillo 1948; writ ref ’d 0.r.e.).

As a practical matter, a political subdiviaion ’a “immunity

” from rC munidipal **zotilng** ‘is limited by a rule of reasonableneaa. For example,

despite language ,in~the **Sunset** Valle case that school districts are -- 4

’ absolutely immune from a city s zoning power, the supreme court emphasized that its holding was

**not** that the Sch,,l District can act with impunity

. ~.. . ( Yhia immunity is absolute unless the City in #:given instance can show **that** its **exercise** is unreasonable or arbitrary.’

502 S.W.2d,.at ,674:; (quoting ,ulth epproval from City of Nevark v. University of Delaware, .,3D4-A.,:!d 347. ,349 (Del. Ch. 1973)); see City of Addison -v. Dallas Indepe~~lant School District, 632 S.w.?d at 772-773. ‘

. Similarly. in Porter v. Southwestern Public Service Co., 489 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. Civ. App. - &rillo 1972, writ ref ’d n.r.e.3. the

**r** court held **that,,** absent i su&lined challenge, a city did **not** usurp --- the eminent domain power of a public utility by requiring it to meet certain standards under tit:? zoning ordinances. Therefore, ve conclude that Parker County ’s IMCof land for an auxiliary courthouse is subject to the city’ s zoning ordinances only to the extent that such ordinances do not prevent the county from reasonably locating its auxiliary courthouse within the municipal limits of the county seat.

However, the **county** must comply with city regulations regarding the construction of its rcxiliary courthouse. Texas courts distinguish between municipal :#,ntrol over the location of buildings of another political subdiviair~c and control over the construction of such buildin8a. See, e.g., %eet Valley, m, at 673. The supremeHonorable Fred M.Barker - Pr,fe4 (JM-180)



### court**in** Port Arthur fndeperdent School Oiatrict v. City of Groves, supra, held that a school district 

### must complywith the 

### city's building regulations. The legislature, .by 

### l uthoriainS the ,achool district to locate a school Sacility vithin 

### a ~nicipality.did~not preempt the city's police povcc to enforce necessary health and aafety regulatione. Port 

### Arthur I!dependent School ~Diatrict v. City ~of 

### Groves,B, et 334. ~LoAttorneyGeneralOpiuim~M~l-508.(1982), ~-office ~extended~thia"~ratlonele to counties end detelrined -.thet couuty buildings within munic:~.palitfes are subject to municipal-fire codes. See al~eoAttorney Geno::al Opinion WV-218(1957). Although particular "poli:e power" regulations vhich. in effect, prevent the location of another political subdivision's fecilitiea may be invalid, see. e.g., Cit of Addison v. Dallas Independent School

. Ofstrict, supra, +- the county II authority to locate buildings in a municipality does not abrogc.re municipal authority to protect the public health, safety, andveXare. See City of Fargo, Case **County** v.

~ Harwood Township, 256 N.W.2'1 694 (N.O. 1977); Lincoln County v. Johnson, 257 N.W.Zd 453 (S.11, 1977); Wilkinsburg-Peaa Joint **Water** Authority v. Borough of ChurclG, 417 Pa. 93, 207 A.2d 905 (1965); Pal-Uar Water Hanagement Oia~rict v. Martin County, 377 So.2d 752 (Fla. Diet. Ct. App. 1979).

&II MMARY

Parker County's ure of land for sn auxiliary courthouse within the municipal limita of the county seat ,ia subject to the munlcipality'e zoning ordinances only to the extent that such ordinances do not 

### prrrentthe county from loceting its auxiliary courthcuae within the municipality. l'he county must comply vith municipal regulations regardinS the couw:ruction of its auxiliary courthouse.

Very truly yo 8 

# LJ!!!k

m

JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas

TOM GREEN First Assistant Attorney Genera,]

DAVIDIL RICHARDS Executive Assistant **Attorney** General. -

Honorable 

### FredM.Barker - Pa&c5 (JM-180)

Prepared by Rick Gilpin Aaeiatent Attorney General

APPROVZD: OPINION

CQEMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Ghairman Go1111Carl Susan Gerriaon JimMoellinger Nancy Sutton