t 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court BulldIng 

P. 0. Box 1254S 

*ustIn. TX. 7571% 2540 

512l4752501 

Taisx 9101874-1367 

Teleco~ler 512/475028S 

714 JAckson. Suite 700 

Dallas. TX. 75202.4506 

214l742-SS44 

4S24 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 789052793 

915l5333S4 

,r ems. Suite 700 

HG-van, TX. 770023111 

713l2235SS5 

SO6 Broadway. Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 794013679 

SOW’47-5238 

4309 N. Tsnlh. Suite 6 

McAllen. TX. 78501-1685 

512mS2.4547 

2w Maln PIUS. suite 400 

San Antonlo. TX. 782052797 

512Q25.4191 

An Equal OpportunItyI 

Altlrmallve Actlon Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

October 22, 1985 

Honorable S. Dorbandi: Carroll 

Anderson County Attorney 

P. 0. Box 707 

Palestine. Taxas 75801 

Opinion No. JM-365 

ue: Clarification of statute6 

relating to approval of subdivision plats 

Dear Hr. Carroll: 

You have 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 maps and 

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 and Anderson County. 

Both the city and th'z county 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 

In March of 198Z1, this office issued an oplnlon on the authority 

of the city of Pales,c:ine at that time to approve subdivision maps and 

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, and 6626a. V.T.C.S.. as well 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 ~11 maps and plats 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 amended by &apter 327. article 6626a applied to all 

counties with an exception that is not applicable to Anderson County 

and authorized a ccmmissionc!rs court to refuse approval of a plat 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.a provides in part. that 

[i]n areas under B city’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 regulatiohs , -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 and 6626, V.T.C.S., 

provided for city approval elf subdivision 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 and provided instead that a city may not 

exercise plat approval authority outside the city’s extraterritorial 

jurisdiction as that area :Ls determined 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 may uot 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. 1673 
Bonorable 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 maps and plats 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 may enforce 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. See Attorney Generlll Opinion JM-121 (1983). 

- 

Prior to the enactment of chapter 327. the Regular Session of the 

Sixty-eighth Legislature enrwted the Property Code as a recodification 

of existing law without c.ny substantive change in the law. The 

recodification of former article 6626 as section 12.002 of the 

Property Code provided that the commissioners court of a county must 

authorize the map or plat of a subdivision if the property is located 

five miles or more outside !:he corporate limits of a city and that 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. The enactment of chapter 327 lmpliedly 

repealed the provisions of section 12.002 of the Property Code to 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 In the County Road anS Bridge 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 same sess:lon. subsequently in July 1984, the County 

Road and Bridge Act was rcrised and reenacted to incorporate in that 

act the same provisions which had been enacted as article 6626a by 

chapter 327 and to expressly repeal article 6626a. See V.T.C.S. art. 

6702-l. $2.401, as amended by Acts 1984, 68th Leg.. 2d.S.. ch. 8. at 

44. See also Attorney General Opinion JM-121 at 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 and article 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 a corner of the survey or tract 

to be subdivided as a reference 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. 1674 
Eonorable S. Dorbandt Carroll - Page-4 (JM-365) 

within five miles of the corporate limits, of a city shall cause a 

plat to be made which describes the subdivision by metes and bounds 

and locates it with respecl: to a corner of the survey. We do 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 

Supreme Court held that an amendment to article 6626 in 1931, giving 

counties man and 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). A 1949 act of the legislature amended section 1 

of article 974a by making the requirements more detailed for maps or 

plats of land lying within jncorporated cities or within five miles of 

a city. In 1951, a Texas court of civil appeals held that the 1949 

act amending section 1 of s.rticle 974a did not restore to the cities 

the subdiv.vision plat authodty which had been vested in the cities 

prior to the 1931 amendment csf article 6626. The court 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 amendment to article 6626. See City of 

Corpus Christi v. Gouger, 2Iit S.W.2d 870 (Tex. Civ. App. -% Antonio 

1951, writ ref’d). It IS our opinion that a court also vould determine that the 1985 amendment of 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 and article 

6702-l. section 2.401, just as the court of civil appeals determined 

that the 1949 amendment of section 1 of article 974a. which related to 

detailed requirements of srlbdlvlsion plats, did not implledly repeal 

the provisions of article 5626 which 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 maps and 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 map or 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 

DAVID R. RICBARDS 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICX GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by, Nancy Sutton 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Rick Gilpin, Chairman 

Colin Carl 

Susan Garrison 

Tony Gulllory 

Jim Noellinger 

Jennifer Riggs 

Nancy Sutton 

Sarah Woelk 

p. 1676