t

JIM MATTOX Attorney General

SupremeCourtBulldIng P.0. Box1254S *ustIn. TX.7571%2540 512l4752501 Taisx9101874-1367 Teleco~ler 512/475028S

714JAckson.Suite700 Dallas.TX.75202.4506 214l742-SS44

4S24AlbertaAve.,Suite160 ElPaso,TX.789052793 915l5333S4

,r ems. Suite700 HG-van, TX.770023111 713l2235SS5

SO6Broadway.Suite312 Lubbock,TX.794013679 SOW’47-5238

4309N.Tsnlh.Suite6 McAllen.TX.78501-1685 512mS2.4547

2w MalnPIUS. suite400 SanAntonlo.TX.782052797 512Q25.4191

AnEqualOpportunItyI Altlrmallve ActlonEmployer 

# TheAttorney General ofTexas

October 22, 1985

Honorable S. Dorbandi: Carroll Anderson CountyAttorney P. 0. Box707 Palestine. Taxas 75801 Opinion No.JM-365

ue: Clarification of statute6 relating to approval of subdivision plats

DearHr. Carroll:

Youhave requested clarification of the current statutes relating to the power and dul:y of the comrmissiouers court of Anderson County and the power and duty of the city of Palestine to approve mapsand plats of subdlvisiom that are located outside the corporate limits of the city of Palestine. It is our opinion that within the city of Palestine's one-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, as determined by article 970a. V.T.C.!;.. a subdivision plat shall not be filed without the authorization of lboth the city of Palestine andAnderson County. Both the city and th'zcounty are authorized to independently regulate subdivisions within the area of the one-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, except that. whenever the regulations of the city and the county are in conflkt, the more stringent provisions prevail. In untncorporated areas outside the city's one-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, the county Is authorized to approve or disapprove subdivision plats and the city has no authority to regulate subdivisions or approve the filing of plats, Interlocal Cooperatim Act. except as provided by the

InMarchof 198Z1,this office issued anoplnlon on the authority of the city of Pales,c:ine at that timeto approve subdivision mapsand plats for land locat'ed outside the city limits. Opinion JM-20 (1983). Attorney General traced the enactment of and amendmants to articles 97Qa. 974a. 6626, and6626a. V.T.C.S.. aswell as interpretations of the acts b), the courts and this office, and concluded that the city of Palestine had the authority and duty to approve or diaapprove ~11mapsandplats of subdivisions of land located within five miles of its corporiate boundaries. Since the iasuanca of that opinion, three sessic~ns of the legislature have enacted, reenacted and amended those and other statutes relating to the approval of subdivision plats.

Acts 1983. 68tt, Leg., ch. 327. at 1717. both amended article 6626a. V.T.C.S., an3 enacted article 6626aa, V.T.C.S.. as a new

p. 1672. ,

Eouorable S. Dorbandt Carroll - Page.2 (~~-365) /

statute. As amendedby &apter 327. article 6626a applied to all counties with an exception that is not applicable to Anderson County andauthorized accmmissionc!rs court to refuse approval of aplat of a subdivision for any tract ‘of land situated without the corporate limits of any city if the plat does not meet the requirements authorized by that act. V.T.C.S. art. 6626a. Ill, 3, 4. As enacted by chapter 327. article 662t~a.aprovides in part. that

[i]n areas under Bcity’s extraterritorial jurisdiction as defineed by [article 970a], **no** plat shall be flied with **the** county clerk without the authorization of both the citv and the county. Inside said extratsrritorial jurisdiction the city shall have indeplendent authority to regulate subdivisions under [article 970a], and [974a], and other statutes applicable to cities; and the county shall have independent authority to regulate subdivisil>ns under [article 6626a], and other statutes applicable to counties. Inside said extraterritorial jurisdiction whenever such city regulations t&flict with **such** county regula

### tiohs

, -the more stringent provisions of such regulations shall govern; and in unincorporated

areas outside said extraterritorial jurisdiction s city shall har%o authority to regulate subdivisions or to authorize the filing of plats, except as provided by The Interlocal Cooperation Act [article 4413 (32c)]. (Emphasis added).

Acts 1983. 68th Leg., ch. 3:!i’

. $2, at 1720-21.
Attorney General 0pin:Lon JM-121. issued in December 1983, concluded that, notwithstand%ng **that** articles 974a and6626, V.T.C.S., provided for city approval elfsubdivision plats within five miles of the corporate limits of ,r city, the amendment and enactment of articles 6626a and 6626aa, respectively. by chapter 327 impliedly repealed the five-mile rsnge andprovided instead that a city maynot exercise plat approval authority outside the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction as **that** area :Lsdetermined by article 970a. It is our opinion that “said extraterritorial jurisdiction” within the meaning of article 6626aa is a city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction as datermined by article 970a. Article 6626aa expressly states that in
areas under a city’s ext:aterrltorlal jurisdiction as defined by article 970a. a plat mayuot be filed **without** the authorization of both the city and the courty. Article 970a establishes extraterritorlal jurisdiction of one nile for s city with Palestine’s populaMon. V.T.C.S. art. 970a. 03(A)(2). Article 6626aa expressly provides that inside.“sald extraterritorial jurisdiction” (one mile in the case of Palestine). the city and the county nay Independently

p. 1673Bonorable S. Dorbandt Carroll - Page'3 (JM-365) /

regulate subdivisions. Th*!city may exercise its authority under articles 97Oa and 974s and **other** applicable statutes to extend by ordinance the city's rUlC,S and regulations governing plats and subdivisions of land and to 'apbrove or disapprove mapsandplats of subdivisions not conforming to the city's standards. The county may exercise its authority to r'egulate subdivisions under article 6626a (now article 6702-1, 92.401) and other applicable statutes. Either the city or the county mayenforce its regulations. However, article 6626aa expressly provides that when the city's and the county's regulations conflict "inside said extraterritorfal jurisdiction" (one mile In the case of Palestk~e), the more stringent regulations shall govern. SeeAttorney Generlll Opinion JM-121 (1983).

- Prior to the enactment of chapter 327. the Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Legislature enrwted the Property Codeas arecodification of existing law without c.ny substantive change in the law. The recodification of former article 6626 as section 12.002 of the Property Codeprovided that the commissioners court of a county must authorize the mapor plat of a subdivision if the property is located five miles or moreoutside !:hecorporate limits of acity andthat the governing body or planning commission of the city must authorize a subdivision plat if the prc,perty is located vithln five miles of the corporate limits of the city. Theenactment of chapter 327 lmpliedly repealed the provisions of section 12.002 of the Property Codeto the extent that they conflicted with chapter 327.

Also prior to the enactment of chapter 327. the Regular Session of the Sixty-eighth Legislature placed the former version of article 6626a Inthe CountyRoadanSBridge **Act** without amendment. Acts 1983, 68th Leg.. ch. 288. 12.W2, at 1459 (codified as art. 6702-1, V.T.C.S.). In addition to the fact that chapter 327 was a later enactment by the samesess:lon. subsequently in July 1984, the County RoadandBridge Act was rcrised and reenacted to incorporate in that act the sameprovisions which had been enacted as article 6626a by chapter 327andto expressly repeal article 6626a. SeeV.T.C.S. art. 6702-l. $2.401, as amendedbyActs 1984, 68th Leg.. 2d.S.. **ch.** 8. at 44. See also Attorney General Opinion JM-121at 510.

In Attorney General Cpinion .JM-121. this office concluded that the five-mile range for city approval of subdivision plats contained in both article 6626 andarticle 974a were impliedly repealed in 1983 by the enactment of articld! 6626aa in chapter 327. Subsequently, the Sixty-ninth Legislature anended section 1 of article 974a for the limited purpose of authorizing use of acorner of the survey or tract tobe subdivided as areference point for the plat. in addition to the

use of the original corner of the original survey. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 346. at 2601. III so doing, the legislature reenacted the original language in section 1 of article 974a which states that **the**
owner of a tract of land situated vithin the corporate limits, or

p. 1674Eonorable S. Dorbandt Carroll - Page-4 **(JM-365)**

within five miles of the corporate limits, of a city shall cause a plat to be madewhich describes the subdivision by metes andbounds and locates it with respecl: to a corner of the survey. Wedo not believe that the act of **the** Sixty-ninth Legislature reinstated **the** five-mile range for city approval of subdivision plats.

The orlglnal act relal:ing to the platting of subdivisions was passed in 1927. giving cltj.es authority over the filing of plats of subdivisions within five miles of the city limits. IO 1944, the Texas SupremeCourt held that an amendmentto article 6626 in 1931, giving counties manand olat annrowal authority. reuealed the article 974a

“extraterritorial” *plat-approval jurisdictfon of the cities. See Travalter v. Schaefer, 179 S.W.2d 765 (Tex. 1944); Attorney Gene= **opinion JM-20**  (1983). A1949act of the legislature amendedsection 1 of article 974a by making the requirements more detailed for mapsor plats of land lying within jncorporated cities **or** within five miles of

a city. In 1951, aTexas court of civil appeals held that the 1949 act amending section 1of s.rticle 974a did not restore to the cities the subdiv.vision plat **authodty** which had been vested in the cities prior to the 1931amendmentcsfarticle 6626. Thecourt stated that If the legislature desired to reinvest the cities with authority over maps and plats of subdivtded laud outside the city limits, the legislature must use language Indicating a clear intention to modify the provisions of the 1931 amendmentto article 6626. See City of Corpus Christi v. Gouger, 2IitS.W.2d 870 (Tex. Civ. App. -% Antonio 1951, writ ref

’d). It IS our opinion that a court also vould determine that the 1985 amendmentof section 1 of article 974a, which relate8 only to survey in?ormation required for subdivision plats, does not impliedly repeal the provisions of article 6626aa andarticle 6702-l. section 2.401, just as the court of civil appeals determined that the 1949amendmentof section 1of article 974a. which related to detailed requirements of srlbdlvlsion plats, did not implledly repeal the provisions of article 5626which earlier had deprived cities of the authority to disapprove subdivision plats outside the city limlts.

Eence, we conclude that the basic statutory provisions that determine the power and duty of Palestine and Anderson County to approve mapsand plats of subdivtsions located outside the city are section 2.401 of the County Road and Bridge Act, article 6702-1, V.T.C.S., and section 1 oE article 6626aa. V.T.C.S. Additionally. articles 970a and 974a. V.T.C.S., determine the area of the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and the city’s regulatory authority in **that area.** 

SUMMARY

**A**mapor plat of a subdivislon located within **the** city of Palestine’s one-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction shall not be filed with the county

p. 1675,

Honorable S. Dorbandt CarrolL - Page 5 (JM-365)

clerk without the authorization of both the city of Palestine and ,4nderson County. Both the city and **the** county my independently regulate subdivisions vithin the area of the one-mile extraterritorial jurlsd!lction except that, when the regulations of the city and the county are in conflict, the mom stringent provisions prevail. Only the county 1s authorized to approve or disapprove plats of subdivisions located in unincorporated arms outside the city's one-mile extraterritorial jucisdiction.



# -JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas

TOM GRF+EN First Assistant Attorney General

DAVIDR. RICBARDS Executive Assistant **Attorney** General

ROBERT

GRAY Special Assistant **Attorney** General

RICXGILPIN Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by,NancySutton Assistant **Attorney** General

APPROVED: OPINIONCOMMITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman Colin Carl SusanGarrison TonyGulllory JimNoellinger Jennifer Riggs NancySutton SarahWoelk

p. 1676