### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00580- CV

Marc Sewell, Ap pellant

v. City of Ll ano, Brenton Lew is, Diane Fir estone, Let itia McC asland , Marc y Met hvin ,

Todd Ke ller, Jeanne P uryear and Tom Milam , Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F LLANO COUNTY , 33RD J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. 185 04, H ONO RAB LE J. ALLAN GARRETT, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Marc Sewell filed a “Ve rified Petition” pursuant t o T ex as L ocal
Gover nment Co d e s ection 211.011 complaining of actions taken by the L lano City Planning and
Z oning Commi ssion and the L lano City Council. See Tex. L oc. Gov’t C o d e § 211.011. Section 211.011 provides for

judicial revie w of decisions of a board of adjustm ent. See id. § 211.011(a)

. 1
A person ag g rieve d by a decision of the board of adjustment may prese nt a verifie d petition stating
that the dec ision of the board of adjustment is ill eg al in whole or in pa rt. Id. The c ourt may

g rant
a writ of certiorar i direc ted t o the board requiri n g i t t o file a verifie d return setting forth fac ts that
show the g round of the decision being challeng ed. Id. § 211.011(c)

. I n the prese nt case , the district

Texas L ocal Gover

nment Cod e s ec t i o n 211.008 provides that the g overning body of a 1 municipality may appoint a “boar d of adjustment,” which it may authorize to, in appropr iate case s an d s u b j ec t to appropr iate conditions and safe g uards, make specia l exceptions to the terms of a zoning ordinanc e. See Tex. L oc. Gov’ t Code § 211.008(a)

.court, without conducting a hear ing on the merits of Sewell’s claims, issued the follow i n g order :

“Af ter consideration of the Ver ified Petition for J udicial Review, it is he reby order ed that the Writ
of Certiora

ri is denied.” Sew ell attempts to appea l from that orde r. Appellee s have filed a motion to dismiss the appea l, asser ting that the order appea led from is not a final, a

ppeala ble orde r. We ag ree . This Court has jurisdiction only in case s where a final judgme nt has been rende red or wher e a statute specific ally authorizes an interlocutory appea l.
See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgme nt is final for purposes of appeal i f i t d i s p o s es of all pending parties and claims. Id. The trial court’s denial of a writ of

cer tiorari does not e nd a suit for judicial revie w broug ht pur suant to se ction 211.011. See Hagood

v. City of Houston Zoning Bd. of Adjustment , 982 S.W .2d 17, 18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (“The denial of the writ does not end this case .”). Subsection 211.011(e) provides that
the trial court may take evidence or appoint a ref ere e for that purpose, and subsection 211.011(f)

states that “[t] he co u rt m ay re v erse or aff irm, in whole or in part, or modify the decision that is

appea led.” Id. § 211.011 (e ), (f)

. I n the present case , the t rial court’s one-se ntence order does not constitute a ruling on the merits.

Moreove r, while Sewell pur p o r ts to b ring a suit for judicial revie w pursuant to section 211.011, his petition actua lly asser ts that the L lano City Z oning and Planning Commi ssion and the
L lano City Council violated cer tain local an d s t at e re g ulations rela ted to the proce dures to be
followed when establishing zoning ordinanc es. Sewell reque sts that the court “re scind” the chang es

2made to the ordinanc es. The trial court’s order does not dispose of Sewell’s complaints reg arding 2
the manner

in which the ordina

nces w ere chang ed. 3
The order deny ing a writ of cer tiorari does not dispose of all pending claims, and the
district court has there fore not rende red a final, appea lable judgme nt. Acc ording ly , we gra n t appellee s’ motion and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field
Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

29, 2014

We observe that beca

use Sewell has not challeng ed actions taken by a board of adjustment, 2 his claims are not g overne d by Texas L ocal Gover nment Code section 211.011, which is limit ed to judicial revie w of decisions made by boards of adjustment. Whil e Sewell’s petition invokes a statute inapplicable to his claim, it is plain that he is challeng ing the proce dures employ ed by the L lano City Planning Commi ssion and the L lano City Council in amending cer tain zoning ordinanc es. Specifica lly , he alleg es that “cha ng es wer e made to zoning reg ulations without written notification to individual proper

ty owner s,” “no preliminary repor t descr ibing the chang e was cre ated prior to the Public Hea

ring ,” and “the reque sted chang e was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.” Sewell’s petiti on also reque sts t h at the court impose “misdemea nor offense charg es and 3 fines [aga inst the defe ndants] under Section 211.0012,” whi ch provides that a person commits a misdemeanor offe nse if he violates the zoning reg ulat i o n s co n t ai ned in section 211 and may be subject to fines, imprisonment, and civil penalties. Whil e this reque st was likewise not ruled on in the trial court’s order , we expre s s n o opinion as to whether the court would have jurisdiction to consider Sew ell’s re quest for c riminal char g es or f ines.
3