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

subdivision ordinances applicable to 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

platting within its extraterritorialjurisdiction ... and (2) whether a Countymay regulate density/zone

through platting in the unincorporated areas of a county."! You inquire about the validity of certain

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

jurisdiction2 (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 of particular subdivision and platting regulations in Bulverde's ETJ. A city

governing body may adopt rules governing plats and subdivisions ofland within itsjurisdiction "to

promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare ofthe municipality and the safe, orderly, and

healthful development ofthe municipality." TEX. Loc. GOV'TCODEANN. §212.002(Vernon2008).

A city may also extend the plat and subdivision regulations adopted under section 212.002 to its ETJ

with certain exceptions. See id. §§ 212.002 (municipality may adopt rules governing plats and

subdivisions ofland within its jurisdiction), 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

lLetter from Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr, Comal County Criminal District Attorney, 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 on the 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). If a city

has extended its regulations to the ETJ, these requirements apply to land in the ETJ. See id

§ 212.003.

A similar procedure appliesto subdividing land in the unincorporated area ofa county, which

includes the unincorporated area within a municipality's ETJ. See id §§ 232.001-.003 (Vernon

2005); see also ide §42.021 (a) (Vernon 2008). Chapter 232, subchapter E providesfor 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

within the unincorporated area ofthe county to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare

of the county and the safe, orderly, and healthful development of the 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 CODE ANN. § 242.001 (Vernon 2005). While you state that the Agreement was written

to expire on December 31, 2007, its provisions establish the context for your questions. 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 county to enter into an interlocal agreement that establishes one office to "accept plat applications

for tracts ofland located in the [ETJ];" to "collect municipal and county plat application fees in a

3As adopted in 2001, chapter 232, subchapter E applied only to certain urban counties, as defmed by the statute.

See Act of May 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-sum amount;" and to "provide applicants one response indicating approval or denial ofthe plat

application." TEX. Loc. GOV'TCODEANN. § 242.001 (d)(4)(A) (Vernon 2005). Anagreementunder

this provision must also establish "a single set of consolidated and consistent regulations 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 extraterritorial jurisdiction." 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 of subdivisions in the unincorporated areas of a 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 of groundwater by persons other

than retail public utilities, as defined by Section 13.002, Water Code,4

for the purpose ofpreventing the use or contact with groundwaterthat

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 of buildings constructed

on a particular tract ofland;

(3) the size of a building that can be constructed on a

particulartract ofland, including without limitation any restriction on

the ratio of building floor space to the land square footage;

4This provision defmes "[r]etail public utility" as "any person, corporation, public utility, watersupply orsewer

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 of residential units that can be built per

acre ofland.

Id. § 212.003(a)(1 )-(4) (Vernon 2008) (footnote ~dded). "Unless otherwise authorized by state law,"

a commissioners court is subject to the same four restrictions on its regulatory power that section

212.003(a)(I)-(4) applies to a city. 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 of Bulverde Ordinance Provisions

Your first question, whether a municipality may regulate density or zone through platting

within its ETJ, is directed atspecific provisions 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 of buildings 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 of equivalent 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 classified into three categories

as follows:

1) Low density: Less than 0.17 EDU's per acre.

2) Medium Density: 0.17 or more 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 of May 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 shall have a minimum size based on the 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 of no 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 of 30,000 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 of utility services").

The Bulverde Ordinance provisions repeatedly refer to density and also establish residential

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, a briefsubmitted by the Bulverde City Attorney states that "the lot size regulations in the

ordinance that are applicable in the city limits and ETJ were adopted by the City as a result ofwater

quantity issues and concerns.,,6 See Bulverde Ordinance§§ 1.01(a)(i), at 1 (among other purposes,

regulations are adopted to maintain water availability and quantity), 4.03, at 63 (protection ofwater

quality; application of Texas 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 ofAustin

to uphold the ordinance you question. See Bulverde Brief, supra note 6, at 4-5 (referring to Quick

·V. City ofAustin, 7 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 1998)). Quick involved 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 a referendum and adopted by the city council pursuant to its power as a homerule 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 without the 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) at 22-23 (on file with the OpinionCommittee) [hereinafter

Bulverde Brief].
The Honorable-Geoffrey I. Barr - Page 6 (GA-0648)

GovernmentCode section 212.003 because itsrestrictions on impervious7 cover effectively regulated

the use, bulk, height, number, or size ofbuildings in the city's ETl. See ide at 120-21. The City of

Austin argued thatsection 212.003 did not apply to the SOS Ordinance, which was a water pollution

control measure, and the court agreed with the city. See ide The court observed that the stated goal

ofthe SOS Ordinance was to protect and preserve 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

ofa municipality to apply water control requirements' in its extraterritorial jurisdiction." 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 of preserving water

quality. See ide Quick determined 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

"that the requirements ofsections 212.002 and 212.003 are not applicable to the Ordinance, and the.

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 in the conflict between Comal County and the City ofBulverde. A homerule city like the City ofAustin derives its power from 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 ofSan Marcos, 523 S.W.2d 641,643 (Tex. 1975)). Bulverde is a type

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 ofSunset

Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637, 645 (Tex. 2004). The City of Bulverde is subject to Local Government

Code section 212.003, which prohibits a city from regulating certain aspects of development in its

ETl, such as "the bulk, height, or number ofbuildings constructed on a particular tract ofland" and

"the number ofresidential units that can be built per 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 Quick facially regulated water, while opponents claimed that it actually

regulated the number, use, and size of buildings 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 consistent with

state or federal law. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Ope No. GA-0217 (2004) at 4-5. 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 whether the ordinance provisions actually impact water

supply rather than building density. See generally LloydFry 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 interpreted the statute in the light ofthe testimony ofexpert witnesses familiar with

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. Water Dist.,

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 of the 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 constructed on a particulartract ofland" or any ofthe other mattersthatsection 232.101(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 of water 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."

Request Letter,supra note 1, at 11 (citing Exhibit D 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 of Kendall 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 ofBulverde
The Honorable Geoffrey I. Barr - Page 8 (GA-0648)

by virtue of an interlocal agreement under section 242.001(d). See Request Letter, supra note 1,

at 12. You inform us that the 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 of May 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 that they must be

consistent with the CCGCD rules. Comal County is not, however, subject to the CCGCD rules and

its commissioners court cannotrely on those rulesto justifyminimum lotsizes within its 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

In connection with the validity ofplat and subdivision regulations in the unincorporated areas

ofthe county, you ask whether Integrity 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 of a 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 in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. See id.

The court held that Medina County's powers were limited to those allowed by the platting statute

found in chapter 232 of the 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 and plats. Subchapter E was adopted in 2001 and is applicable only to plat applications

filed after its effective date. See Act of May 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).

Subchapter E includes section 232.101, which provides that a county may not regulate "the number

ofresidential units that can be built per acre ofland," unless "otherwise authorized by state law."

TEX. Loc. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 232.10 I(a) (Vemon Supp. 2007) (emphasis added). It also provides

9See Act of May 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, subject to

election); Act of May 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 of and in addition to the authorities

granted under this chapter and all other laws to counties to regulate the subdivision of land." 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 of buildings constructed on a particular tract ofland; (3) the

size ofa building that can be constructed on a particular tract ofland,

including without limitation any restriction o.n the ratio of building

floor space to the land square footage; or (4) the number ofreside'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

Government Code restrictions on lotsize and residential unit density,

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 cannot be 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