# The Attorney General of Texas March 29, 1978 JOHN L.HILL Attorney General
Honorable Chet Brooks Chairman, Senate Committee Opinion No. H-1146

onHuman Resources Senate Chamber Austin, Texas 767R Re: Approval of subdivision plats byacounty.
Dear Senator Brooks: You have requested our opinion concerning the authority of the Fort Bend County Commissioners Court to require developers to build sidewalks and to dedicate’s percentage ofresidential acreage to other public use prior to receiving plat approval. Youhave asked whether these requirements and others contained in the Fort Rend County “Policies for the Approval of Subdivision Plats” are inconflict with state statutes. Fort Bend County has a population of less than 190,000 and is thus governed by article 6626i, V.T.C.S. As we explained in Attorney General Opinion H-1057(1977),article 6626a was enacted in order to provide counties of less than 190,000 population authority to establish some substantive requirements for the approval of plats. Like article 2372k, V.T.C.S., which applies to larger counties, article 6626a wasaresponse to the court’s decision in Commissioners Court v. Frank Jester Development Co., 199S.W.2d 1004 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1947, writ ref’d n.r.e.1, in which it was held that counties had no authority to establish such substantive requirements. The holding ofthis case remains undisturbed except by articles 6626a and 2372k; thus, any substantive requirements for the approval of plats must be authorized bythose articles. Section 3 of article 6626a authorizes counties to require owners of a subdivision to provide for rights of way and street cuts. The only general authority provided is contained in subsections (e) and (f) which authorize
“reasonable specifications” for the construction of roads and streets and for the provision ofadequate drainage for suchroads, The requirements promulgated by Fort Bend County are valid only to the extent they are authorized by article 6626a. The commissioners court may adopt regulations requiring street cuts and rights of way in the

p. 4656.

Honorable Chet Brooks - Page 2 (H-1146)

dimensions authorized by article 6626a, section 3. They may promulgate drainage specifications as well asreasonable specifications for the construction of roads or streets, “considering the amount and kind of travel over said streets.” In our opinion, our courts would probably hold that the specifications for streets may rem&e the construction of sidewalks. where it can be shown that reouirement is reasonable in light of the amount andkind of travel over the streets. ‘Grapotte v. Adam -75 111

S.W.2d 690 (Tex. 1938);Parra v. P. W.Woolworth Co., Inc., 545S.W.2d 596 Tex. Civ. App. - RlPaso 1977,no writ); Jones v. City ofMineola, 203S.W.2d 1020(Tex. Civ. ADD.- Texarkana 1947.writ ref’d). Wetherefore believe that the authority to e&&h street specifications &I .include the authority to require sidewalks, within the limitations set out inarticle 66264 section 3(e). Wefiid no provision authorizing requirements for areas of other public use, and conclude that such regulations wouldnot bevalid. SUMMARY ~, Fort Bend County may provide requirements for the approval of subdivision plats only to the extent such requirements are authorixed byarticle 6626a Requirements concernfng sidewalks will probably be held valid as part of reasonable specifications for streets. Requirements ‘for other areas ofpublic useare not authorized by article 6626a and are invalid.

APPROVED:

DAMM. KENDALL, Pi$ Assistant

C. ROBERT HEA Opinion Committee jst

up. 4657