ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT

July 23, 2008

The Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr Comal County Criminal District Attorney 150 North Seguin Avenue, Suite 307 New Braunfels, Texas 78130

Dear Mr. Barr: Opinion No. GA-0648
Re: Whether a municipality may adopt particular subdivisionordinances applicableto its extraterritorial jurisdiction and whether a county may do so in its unincorporated areas (RQ-0664-GA)

You ask for an opinion on "(1) whether a municipality may regulate density/zone through plattingwithinits extraterritorialjurisdiction

... and (2) whetheraCountymayregulate density/zone through platting in the unincorporated areas ofa county."! You inquire aboutthe validity ofcertain municipal and county regulations under Local Government Code chapters 212 and 232, which provide respectively for municipal regulation of plats and subdivisions in the extraterritorial jurisdiction 2 (the "ETJ") and county regulation ofplats and subdivisions in the unincorporated area ofthe county. 

### See Request Letter, 

### supra note 1, at 2, 3-6.


### I. Legal and Factual Background
Your questions arise from a disagreement between Comal County and the City ofBulverde about the application ofparticular subdivision and platting regulations in Bulverde's ETJ. A city governing body may adoptrules governing plats and subdivisions ofland within itsjurisdiction "to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare ofthe municipality and the safe, orderly, and healthful developmentof themunicipality." TEX. Loc. GOV'TCODEANN. §212.002(Vernon2008). A city may also extendthe platand subdivisionregulations adoptedunder section212.002 to its ETJ with certain exceptions. 

### See id. §§ 212.002 (municipality may adopt rules governing plats and subdivisions ofland within itsjurisdiction), 212.003 (rules adopted under section 212.002 may be extended to ETJ subject to exceptions). When the owner of a tract of land located in a city

lLetterfrom Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr, Comal County CriminalDistrictAttorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, at 1 (Jan. 10, 2008) (on file with the Opinion Committee, also available at www.texasattorneygeneral.gov) [hereinafter Request Letter].

2A municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction is the unincorporated area contiguous to the municipality's boundaries and located a specific distance from the boundaries, the distance based onthe municipality's population. See TEX. Lac. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 42.021(a) (Vernon 2008).The Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr

- Page 2 (GA-0648)

subdivides the land, he must have a plat prepared according to municipal laws and regulations and recorded with the county clerk after approval by the appropriate municipal authority. See ide §§ 212.002 (municipal governing body), 212.004 (plat preparation and recording), 212.005-.006 (approval by municipal planning commission or by governing body ofthe municipality). Ifa city has extended its regulations to the ETJ, these requirements apply to land in the ETJ. See id § 212.003.
A similarprocedure applies to subdividing landintheunincorporatedareaofacounty, which includes the unincorporated area within a municipality's ETJ. See id §§ 232.001-.003 (Vernon 2005); see also ide 

### §42.021 (a) (Vernon2008). Chapter232, subchapterEprovides for infrastructure planning in counties. 3 See ide §§ 232.101-.109 (Vernon 2005 & Supp. 2007). Section 232.101(a) provides that "the commissioners court may adopt rules governing plats and subdivisions ofland withinthe unincorporated areaofthe countyto promotethe health, safety, morals, orgeneral welfare ofthe county and the safe, orderly, and healthful development ofthe unincorporated area ofthe county." Id. § 232.101 (Vernon Supp. 2007). A landowner who subdivides land must have a plat prepared according to requirements appliC"able in the county and recorded after approval by the commissioners court. See id. 

### §§ 232.001 (Vernon 2005) (plat preparation and recording), 23.2.002 (approval by commissioners court), 232.003 (subdivision requirements). Thus, a municipality and the county in which the municipality is located have concurrent jurisdiction over plats and subdivisions of land within the municipality's ETJ. See La Cour Du Roi, Inc. V. Montgomery County, 698 S.W.2d 178, 186 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0366 (2005) at 1. Chapter 242 ofthe Local Government Code deals with inconsistent municipal and county requirements in the ETJ by requiring the municipality and the county to enter into an agreement allocating authority to regulate subdivision plats and approve related permits in the ETJ. See TEX. Lac. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 242.001(c) (Vernon 2005). Section 242.001(d) provides four ways of allocating authority between the city and county. See id 

### § 242,001(d). Pursuant to Local Government Code section 242.001, Comal County and the City of Bulverde entered into an interlocal cooperation agreement on April 4, 2002 to establish consistent subdivision and plat regulations in the city's ETJ. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1 (Exhibit A, Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Comal County and City ofBulverde for Subdivision Regulation within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ofthe City ofBulverde) (the "Agreement"); see also TEX. Lac. GOV'T CODEANN. 

### § 242.001 (Vernon 2005). While you state thatthe Agreement was written to expire onDecember 31, 2007, its provisions establishthe contextforyourquestions. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1-2, 14 & note 

### i.
The Agreement was based on section 242.001 (d)(4), which authorizes the municipality and the countyto enterinto aninterlocal agreementthatestablishes oneofficeto "acceptplatapplications for tracts ofland located in the [ETJ];" to "collect municipal and county plat application fees in a

3As adoptedin 2001, chapter232, subchapterE applied onlyto certainurban counties, as defmedbythe statute. See Act ofMay 17,2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 736, § 1,2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1459, 1459-60. A 2007 amendment removed this limitation. See Act ofMay 15,2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1390, § 4, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 4779,4780.The Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr

- Page 3 (GA-0648)

lump-sumamount;" andto "provide applicants oneresponse indicating approval ordenial oftheplat application." TEX. Loc. GOV'TCODEANN. § 242.001 (d)(4)(A) (Vernon2005). Anagreementunder this provision must also establish "a single set ofconsolidated and consistentregulations related to plats, subdivision construction plans, and subdivisions of land as authorized by Chapter 212 [applicable to municipalities], Sections 232.001-232.005, Subchapters Band C, Chapter 232 [applicable to counties], and other statutes applicable to municipalities and counties that will be enforced in the extraterritorialjurisdiction." 

### Id. § 242.001 (d)(4)(B). You state that the Agreement provided that Bulverde would enforce its subdivision regulations and certain Comal County regulations in the Bulverde ETJ. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1-2.
As we have explained, chapter 212 ofthe Local Government Code provides for municipal regulation of subdivisions, including subdivisions in the municipality's ETJ, while chapter 232 provides for county regulation ofsubdivisions in the unincorporated areas ofa county. See TEX. Loc. GOV'T CODE ANN. chs. 212 (Vernon 2008), 232 (Vernon 2005 & Supp. 2007). A municipality's authority to regulate subdivisions in its ETJ is set out in section 212.003, which provides in part: (a) The governing body ofa municipality by ordinance may extend to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the municipality the application ofmunicipal ordinances adopted under Section 212.002 and other municipal ordinances relating to access to public roads or the pumping, extraction, and use ofgroundwater by persons other thanretailpublic utilities, as definedby Section 13.002, WaterCode,4 forthepurpose ofpreventingthe use orcontactwithgroundwaterthat presents an actual or potential threat to human health. However, unless otherwise authorized by state law, in its extraterritorial jurisdiction a municipality shall not regulate: (1) the use of any building or property for business, industrial, residential, or other purposes; (2) the bulk, height, or number ofbuildings constructed on a particular tract ofland; (3) the size ofa building that can be constructed on a particulartractofland, including withoutlimitation anyrestrictionon the ratio ofbuilding floor space to the land square footage;

4This provisiondefmes "[r]etailpublic utility" as "anyperson, corporation, public utility, water supply or sewer service corporation, municipality, political subdivision or agency operating, maintaining, or controlling in this state facilities for providing potable water service or sewer service, or both, for compensation." TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 13.002(19) (Vernon 2008).

### The Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr

- Page 4 (GA-0648)

(4) the number ofresidential units that can be built per acre ofland.


### Id. § 212.003(a)(1 )-(4) (Vernon2008) (footnote**~dded).** 

### "Unless otherwise authorizedby statelaw," a commissioners court is subject to the same four restrictions on its regulatory power that section 212.003(a)(I)-(4) applies to acity. 

### See ide § 

### 232.101(b) (Vernon Supp. 2007).5 Thus, chapters 212 and 232 impose on a city and a county the same four limits on plat and subdivision regulations.


### II. City ofBulverde Ordinance Provisions
Your first question, whether a municipality may regulate density or zone through platting withinits ETJ, is directed at specificprovisions ofthe Bulverde subdivision ordinance. 

### See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. You suggest that specified provisions ofthe ordinance are invalid when applied in theETJ under section 212.003 because you believe they regulate "the bulk, height, or number ofbuildings constructed on a particular tract ofland" and "the number ofresidential units that can be built per acre ofland." 

### See ide at 9-10. You single out the following provisions ofthe ordinance:


### Section 2.03 General Design (a) Development Density
The density of a development shall be classified by the number ofequivalent dwelling units (EDU) provided for in the development.

. .. An EDU shall be approximately equivalent to the demand for services of a single family residence

.... Density shall be classifiedinto three categories as follows: 1) Low density: Less than 0.17 EDU's per acre. 2) Medium Density: 0.17 ormore EDU's per acre but not more than 0.4 EDU's per acre. 3) High Density: more than 0.4 EDU's per acre. 

### (b) Blocks

.... (c) Lots

5These limits were in place when the City ofBulverde and Comal County entered into the Agreement in 2002. See Act ofMay 29,1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 822, § 6,1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 3770,3775 (amending Local Government Code section 212.003); Act ofMay 10, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 736,2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1459 (adding Local Government Code section 232.101).The Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr

- Page 5 (GA-0648)

(i) Lots shallhave aminimum sizebasedonthe density category ofthe subdivision as follows: 1) Low Density: 5.01 acres. 2) Medium Density: 2.01 acres 3) High Density: 20,000 square feet for singlefamily residential lots with a density ofno more than one residence per 30,000 square feet of the entire tract being subdivided, excluding the 100-year floodplain, commercial property and school property. Lots other than single-family residential shall be a minimum of30,000 square feet.


### See 

### ide at 9 (Exhibit B, quoting BULVERDE, TEX., ORDINANCE 

### No. 74-02-02-12, § 2.03 (2002) at 22-23) [hereinafter Bulverde Ordinance]. 

### See also Bulverde Ordinance § 1.03, at 2 (defining "equivalent dwelling unit" (EDU) as "[a] measure ofutility services").
The Bulverde Ordinance provisions repeatedly referto density and also establishresidential lot size limits. 

### See Bulverde Ordinance § 2.03 (2002) at 22-23. Thus, the ordinance provisions appear on their face to be inconsistent with Local Government Cqde section 212.003(a)(1)-(4). However, abriefsubmitted by the Bulverde City Attorney states that "the lot size regulations inthe ordinance that are applicable inthe city limits and ETJ were adopted bythe City as aresult ofwater quantity issues and concerns.,,6 

### See Bulverde Ordinance§§ 1.01(a)(i), at 1 (among otherpurposes, regulations are adoptedto maintain water availability and quantity), 4.03, at 63 (protection ofwater quality; application ofTexas Commission on Environmental Quality Edwards Aquifer Rules, 30 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 213, to certain subdivisions).
The City ofBulverde relies on the Texas Supreme Court decision in 

### Quickv. City of Austin to uphold the ordinance you question. 

### See Bulverde Brief, 

### supra note 6, at 4-5 (referring to 

### Quick ·V. 

### City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 1998)). 

### Quickinvolved a challenge to a City ofAustin water pollution control ordinance that provided water quality control in Barton Creek. 

### See Quick, 7 S.W.3d at 113. The ordinance, known as the Save our Springs Ordinance ("SOS Ordinance"), was approved by voters in areferendum and adoptedbythe city councilpursuantto its power as ahomerule**city~** 

### See 

### ide at 112, 122.
Persons contesting the SOS Ordinance argued that it was invalid on various grounds, including the ground that it was adopted withoutthe public hearing required by Local Government Code section 212.002. 

### See 

### ide at 120. They also argued that the ordinance violated Local

6Brieffrom Frank 1. Garza, Bulverde City Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General ofTexas, at 1 (Feb. 22,2008), citingBulverde Ordinance § 2.03(c) (2002) at22-23 (onfile withthe OpinionCommittee) [hereinafter Bulverde Brief].The Honorable-Geoffrey I. Barr

- Page 6 (GA-0648)

GovernmentCode section212.003 becauseitsrestrictions onimpervious7covereffectivelyregulated the use, bulk, height, number, or size ofbuildings in the city's ETl. See ide at 120-21. The City of Austin arguedthat section 212.003 didnot applyto the SOS Ordinance, whichwas awaterpollution control measure, and the court agreed with the city. See ide The court observed thatthe stated goal ofthe SOS Ordinance was to protect andpreserve a "clean and safe drinking water supply," and "to prevent further degradation ofthe water quality in Barton Creek" and certain springs. Id. at 121. The impervious cover limitations had effects on land use, but they were "typical features in ordinances protecting water quality." 

### Id The court stated that "[b]y their express terms, sections 212.002 and 212.003 apply to ordinances that 'govern plats and subdivisions of land.'" Id. Moreover, legislative history revealed "that section 212.003 was not intended 'to affect the ability ofamunicipalityto apply water control requirements' in its extraterritorialjurisdiction." Id. (citing CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REpORT, Tex. H.B. 3187, 71st Leg., R.S. (1989)). Thus, "sections 212.002 and 212.003 apply only to zoning statutes, not water control measures such as the Ordinance." Id. Although the SOS Ordinance affected land use through its imposition of impervious cover restrictions, those restrictions were a recognized method ofpreserving water quality. See ide Quickdetermined that "the Ordinance is not a zoning regulation seeking to shape urban development, but rather is a measure designed to protect water quality." 

### Id The court held "thatthe requirements ofsections 212.002 and 212.003 are not applicable to the Ordinance, andthe. Ordinance cannot be invalidated by these statutes." Id.
There are significant differences between the circumstances addressed in Quick V. City of Austin and those at issue inthe conflictbetween Comal County and the City ofBulverde. A homerule city like the City ofAustin derives its powerfrom article XI, section 5 ofthe Texas Constitution and is not dependent on the Legislature for a grant of authority. See ide at 122 (citing Lower Colorado RiverAuth. V. City of San Marcos, 523 S.W.2d 641,643 (Tex. 1975)). Bulverdeis atype A general-law city governed by chapter 22 of the Local Government Code. 8 A general-law municipality is a political subdivision "created by the State and, as such, possess[es] those powers and privileges that the State expressly confers upon [it]." Tex. Dep't ofTransp. V. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637, 645 (Tex. 2004). The City ofBulverde is subject to Local Government Code section 212.003, which prohibits a city from regulating certain aspects ofdevelopment in its ETl, such as "the bulk, height, ornumber ofbuildings constructed on aparticular tract ofland" and "the number ofresidential units that can be builtper acre ofland." Moreover, unlike the ordinance at issue in Quick, the Bulverde Ordinance regulates density but is claimed to be a water quantity ordinance. The ordinance in Quickfacially regulatedwater, while opponents claimedthatitactually regulated the number, use, and size ofbuildings in the city's ETl. See Quick, 7 S.W.3d at 112.
This office generally does not construe city charters or ordinances, although when the meaning ofa charter or ordinance provision is clear, we will determine whether it is consistentwith state or federal law. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Ope No. GA-0217 (2004) at4-5. See generally Tex. Att'y Gen. Ope No. GA-0433 (2006) at 1. The question before us is whether certain provisions ofthe

7Non-porous.
8See http://www.tml.org/source/Members/TML_Directory_Profile.cfm?ID=460 (last visited July 14,2008).The Honorable Geoffrey 

### I. Barr

- Page 7 (GA-0648)

Bulverde Ordinance are consistent with Local Government Code section 212.003, but we cannot answer this question without interpreting the ordinance provisions, and this would require us to address and resolve fact questions, such as whetherthe ordinance provisions actually impact water supply ratherthan building density. See generallyLloydFry Roofing Co. 

### v. State, 541 S.W'.2d 639, 642-43 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1976, writ ref'dn.r.e.) (ifthe statute does not define a technical term, courts have interpretedthe statute inthe lightof thetestimony ofexpertwitnesses familiarwith the particular art, science, or trade). This office cannot investigate and resolve disputed questions offact or mixed questions oflaw and fact in an attorney general opinion. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Ope Nos. GA-0459 (2006) at 3-4, 0-3382 (1941) at 5. Although the Bulverde Ordinance provisions appear on their face to be inconsistent with Local Government Code section 212.003, we cannot make that determination as a matter oflaw. See generally City o/Lucas 

### v. N Tex. Mun. WaterDist., 724 S.W.2d 811,820 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) ("Ruling upon an ordinance does not involve an abstract issue oflaw but an issue oflaw predicated upon the facts ofthe individual case.").


### III. Kendall 

### County Regulations
You also ask whether a county may regulate density or zone through platting in the unincorporated areas ofthe county, with a particular focus on the Kendall County Development Rules and Regulations. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1, 11. The Kendall County rules state that they are not intended and should not be interpreted to regulate "the bulk, height, or' number of buildings constructedonaparticulartractofland" or any ofthe othermatters that section232.10 1(b) ofthe Local Government Code prohibits a county from regulating. See ide at 11 (citing Exhibit D, KENDALL COUNTY, TEX., DEVELOPMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS 103.1000(11) NOTE(Sept. 25, 2006) at 7). A table in the rules summarizes "[m]aximum density and corresponding lot sizes

.and road frontage depending on the source/type ofwater and sewage disposal system." KENDALL COUNTY, TEX., DEVELOPMENTRULES AND REGULATIONS 301.1700 (Sept. 25,2006) at 34). With respect to this tabular summary you state that "[g]enerally speaking, the allowable density per subdivision is determined first by the source ofthe water and sewage disposal system. Next, each category has its own divisor

... that determines the allowable number oflots in the subdivision." RequestLetter, supranote 1, at 11 (citingExhibitD KENDALLCOUNTY, TEX., DEVELOPMENTRULES AND REGULATIONS 301.1700 (Sept. 25,2006) at 34). You ask whether such a development regulation would be valid under Local Government Code section 232.101 and the Texas Supreme Court's reasoning in Quick. See ide at 12.
Your question about the validity ofKendall County's development regulations cannot be answered as a matter of law. We note that the regulation refers to "density," but we cannot determine from its language whether it is among the regulations that section 232.101 prohibits "[u]nless otherwise authorized by state law." See TEX. Loc. GOV'TCODEANN. § 232.101 (Vernon Supp.2007). This inquiry also raises fact questions, such as the actual impact ofthe regulation on water supply. Accordingly, this question cannot be answered in an attorney general opinion. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Ope No. GA-0459 (2006) at 3-4. Assuming without deciding that Kendall County's minimum lot size requirements are valid, you ask whether Comal County could adopt such a regulation and apply it to the ETJ ofBulverdeThe Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr

- Page 8 (GA-0648)

by virtue ofan interlocal agreement under section 242.001(d). See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 12. You inform us thatthe Cow Creek Groundwater Conservation District (CCGCD), created in 1999 with boundaries coextensive with the boundaries of Kendall County,9 is responsible for regulating groundwater production in Kendall County. See id. at 11. The ·CCGCD "has all ofthe rights, powers, privileges, authority, functions, and duties provided by the general law ofthe state, including Chapter 36, Water Code, applicable to groundwater conservation districts created under Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitution." Act ofMay 27, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 966, 

### § 3.0104, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1991, 2023 (uncodified). The Kendall County rules state that they are consistent with the CCGCD rules. KENDALL**COUNTY~** TEX., DEVELOPMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS 103.1000(3) (Sept. 25,2006) at 5-6; see Request Letter, supra note 1.
The information provided about the Kendall County regulations suggests thatthey must be consistentwiththe CCGCD rules. Comal County is not, however, subjectto the CCGCD rules and its commissioners courtcannotrely onthoserules tojustifyminimumlot sizes withinits boundaries. Regardless of whether Kendall County's minimum lot size requirements are valid within its boundaries, the Comal County Commissioners Court may not adopt such regulations unless Local Government Code chapter 232 authorizes it to do so. 

### IV. Integrity Group, Inc. v. Medina County Commissioners Court
Inconnectionwiththe validityof platand subdivisionregulations intheunincorporatedareas ofthe county, you askwhetherIntegrity Group, Inc. v. Medina County Commissioners Courtstands for the proposition that a county may not regulate lot size. See Integrity Group, Inc. v. Medina County Comm 'rs Court, No. 04-03-00413-CV, 2004 WL 2346620 (Tex. App.-San Antonio Oct. 20, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.). In Medina County,part ofa developer's tract was located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. See id. at *1. In 1995, Medina County rejected the developer's plat for non-compliance with a rule requiring a minimum lot size of one acre for subdivisions that would use onsite sewage facilities inthe Edwards AquiferRecharge Zone. See id. The court held that Medina County's powers were limited to those allowed by the platting statute found in chapter 232 ofthe Local Government Code, and it therefore could not reject the plat because of lot size. See id. at *2. However, the Medina court did not address chapter 232, subchapter E of the Local Government Code, which broadened county authority to regulate subdivisions andplats. SubchapterE was adoptedin2001 andis applicable onlyto platapplications filed after its effective date. See Act ofMay 17, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 736, 

### § 3(b), 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1459, 1461 (adopting TEX. Lac. GOV'T CODE ANN. chapter 232, subchapter E). SubchapterE includes section 232.101, whichprovides that a county may notregulate "the number ofresidential units that can be built per acre ofland," unless "otherwise authorized by state law." TEX. 

### Loc. GOV'TCODEANN. 

### § 232.10

### I(a) (Vemon Supp. 2007) (emphasis added). It also provides

9S

ee Act ofMay 28, 1999, 76th Leg., R.S., ch. 1331, 1999 Tex. Gen. Laws 4536 (creating CCGCD); Act of May 27,2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 966, art. 3, pt. 1,2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 1991,2023-25 (ratifying CCGCD, subject to election); Act ofMay, 25, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1349,2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 3337 (ratifying CCGCD, subjectto election); Act ofMay 20,2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 1349,2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 4214 (granting CCGCD additional authority).The Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr

- Page 9 (GA-0648)

that "[t]he authorities under this subchapter are cumulative ofand in addition to the authorities granted under this chapter and all other laws to counties to regulate the subdivision ofland." Id. § 232.107 (Vernon 2005). The Medina court's statement that a county's powers were limited to those allowed by the platting statute found in Local Government Code chapter 232 appear to be inconsistent with the provisions ofsubchapter E. In our opinion, a court would hold that Medina County no longer correctly states the law on a county's authority to regulate lot size.

### The Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr

- Page 10 (GA-0648)



### SUMMARY Chapter 212 of the Local Government Code authorizes municipalities to regulate subdivisions and plats within their boundaries and their extraterritorial jurisdiction. Chapter 232 authorizes counties to regulate subdivisions and plats within the unincorporated area ofthe county. Unless otherwise authorized by state law, counties and cities may not adopt subdivision or plat regulations applicable to a city's extraterritorial jurisdiction that regulate (1) the use of any building or property for business, industrial, residential, or other purposes; (2) the bulk, height, or number ofbuildings constructed on aparticulartract ofland; (3) the size ofabuilding that canbe constructed on aparticulartract ofland, including without limitation any restriction o.n the ratio ofbuilding floor spaceto the land square footage; or (4) thenumberofreside'ntial units that can be built per acre ofland.
Certain city regulations and county regulations addressed in this opinion appear to be facially inconsistent with the Local GovernmentCoderestrictions onlot size andresidential unitdensity, but some ofthese regulations are claimed to actually protect water supply. However, because interpreting regulations requires the investigation and resolution of fact questions, their validity under Local Government Code chapters 212 and 232 cannotbe determined as a matter oflaw in an attorney general opinion.
Very truly yours,

KENT C. SULLIVAN First Assistant Attorney General
ANDREW WEBER Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
NANCY S. FULLER Chair, Opinion Committee
Susan L. Garrison Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee