### No. 15 - 0106 

## In The Supreme Court **of the State of Texas** 

_________________________________________________ TOWN OF LAKEWOOD VILLAGE, Petitioners,
v. HARRY BIZIOS, Respondent.

_________________________________________________ On Petition for Review from the Second District Court of Appeals at Fort Worth, Texas No. 02

- 14

- 00143 -CV
HARRY BIZIOS ’ RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
WINSTEAD PC Arthur J. Anderson State Bar No. 01165957 500 Winstead Building 2728 N. Harwood Street Dall as, Texas 75201 (214) 745

- 5745 ( Phone ) (214) 745

- 5390 ( Fax) aanderson@winstead.com ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT HARRY BIZIOS FILED 15-0106 5/26/2015 12:53:23 PM tex-5413721 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

### - i



### TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
................................ ................................ .................... iii RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
................................ .............. v RESTATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
................................ ....................... vii RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S STATEMENT OF FACTS
................................ . 2 RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4 ARGUMENT
................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 6 I. Bizios agrees that Texas statutory and case law authorize the extension of subdivision requirement s to the ETJ, but this authority does not include the extension of building codes.
................................ ........... 6 A. General law town ordinance making authority is extremely limited
................................ ................................ ................... 6 B. No Texas statute expressly authorizes the Town to apply its building code to its ETJ
................................ ................................ .... 8 (i) §§ 212.002 and .003 do not expressly authorize Lakewood Village to extend its building code to the ETJ.
......... 9 (ii) § 214.212 does not expressly authorize Lakewood Village to extend its building code to the ETJ.
......................... 10 (iii) § 214.904(a) does not expressly authorize Lakewood Village to extend its building code to the ETJ.
......................... 11 (iv) § 233.153(c) does not expressly authorize Lakewood Village to extend its building code to the ETJ.
......................... 11 C. The c ourt of appeals did not infringe on a state

- wide ETJ policy.
................................ ................................ ................................ .. 13

### - ii



### D. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals Opin ion does not conflict with Lucas and Weslaco
................................ ......................... 15 E. Lakewood Village concedes that it illegally required Bizios to obtain a building permit and pay fees.
................................ . 17 F. Bizios will have no legal effect outs ide of this specific ETJ matter.
................................ ................................ .......................... 18 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
................................ ................................ ............. 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
................................ ................................ ................ 20 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
................................ ................................ ....... 20 APPENDIX
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 21

### - iii



### INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) C ASES 

### Bizios v Town of Lakewood Village, 453 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. App.

—Ft. Worth 2014, pet. filed)
................................ ................................ ............................ passim City of LaPorte v. Barfield , 898 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1995)
................................ ......... 8 City of Lucas v. North Texas Municipal Water District , 724 S.W.2d 8 11 (Tex. App.

—Dallas 1986, writ ref. n.r.e.)
................................ ............. vii , 1 4, 15 City of Round Rock v. Smith , 687 S.W.2d 310 (Tex. 1985)
................................ .... 17 City of Weslaco v. Carpenter , 644 S.W.2d 601 (Tex. App.

—Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
................................ ................................ ......................... 1 5 Corpus Christi v. Unitarian Church , 436 S.W.2d 923 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Corpus Christi 1968, writ ref’d n. r.e)
................................ ................................ . 1 6 Forewood v. City of Taylor , 214 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. 1948)
................................ ........ 7 Hartsell v. Town of Talty , 130 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. App.

—Dallas 2004, pet. den.)
................................ ................................ ................................ .................... vii L evy v. City of Plano , 2001 WL 1382520 (Tex. App.

—Dallas 2001, no pet.)
...... vii Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors , 966 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. 1998)
.......... 8 M. Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation , 996 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1999)
................ 8 Milestone Potranco Dev., Ltd. v. City of San Antonio, 298 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2009, pet. den.)
................................ ..................... vii , 16 , 17 Sunchase Capital Group, Inc. v. City of Crandall , 69 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. App.

—Tyler 2001, no pet.)
................................ ................................ ................ vii Weslaco v. Carpen ter , 694 S.W.2d 601 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
................................ ................................ ................................ . viii

### - iv



### S TATUTES 

### , RULES 

### , R EGULATIONS 

### , C ONSTITUTIONAL 

### P RO VISIONS 

### Chapter 212 , Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code
................................ ................................ .. passim Chapter 233, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ ...... 12 Chapter 24 5 , T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ . vii , 4 § 1.005, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ ................ 6 § 43.021, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ .............. 2 § 43.121, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### . C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ ........... 12 § 212.002, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### . C ODE 

### ................................ ........................... 7, 9, 10, 14 § 212.003, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................ 7 , 9, 10, 17, 18 , 14 § 212.007, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### . C ODE 

### ................................ ........................... vi , 4 , 9 , 1 7 § 212.043 , T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ ............ 9 § 214.212, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ .......... 10 § 214.904(a), T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ............................... 11 , 12 § 216.003 , T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ .......... 11 § 216.902 , T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ .......... 11 § 233.153(a), T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................... 11 , 12, 13, 14 § 372.003, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ ...... 7, 1 7 § 377.002, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ ...... 7, 1 7 § 382.109, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ ...... 7, 1 7 § 395.001, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### ................................ ................................ ...... 7, 1 7 O THER 

### A UTHORITIES 

### Tex. AG Op. JM 169
................................ ................................ ................................ .. 7 D AVID 

### B ROOKS 

### , M UNICIPAL 

### L AW 

### A ND 

### P RACTICE 

### , T EXAS 

### P RACTICE 

### , vol. 22
........... 7

### - v 

### RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF JURISDI CTION Petitioner acknowledges that the Supreme Court ’s jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction is limited by statute to cases in which the justices of the court of appeals disagree or in which the court of appeals’ opinion materially conflicts with a prior decision of this c ourt or of another Texas court of appeals. §§ 22.001(a)(1)

- (2), 22.225 (c), T EX 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### . In this case, no dissenting opinion was filed in the court of appeals , and Petitioner’s jurisdictional claim is based solely on a material appellate conflict. Because the Town has not appealed the court of appeals’ holding that the Town is prohibited from extending its subdivision ordinance and building code to Bizios’ previously platted lot under § 212.007, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### . C ODE 

### , the trial court’s injunction order has effectively been reversed . Upon remand to the trial court, Petitioner will therefore be prohibited from applying its building code to Bizios and his property. On pages x and xi of the City ’ s Petition for Review, Petitioner lists six opinions which it claims conflict with Bizio s v Town of Lakewood Village, 453 S
. W
. 3d 598 (Tex. App.

—Ft. Worth 2014, pet. filed) . For the reasons stated below, the facts and/or legal analysis in the cited cases are not materially different from Bizios and conflicts jurisdiction therefore does not apply:

### - vi

- • 

### The applicability of Chapter 245 of the Local Government Code to a platted subdivisio n in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”) was addressed in Hartsell v. Town of Talty , 130 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. App.

—Dallas 2004, pet. den.). Because Hartsell prevailed on his Chapter 245 claim, the Dallas Court of Appeals expressly ruled that it would not address whether “ as a general law town, the Town had no authority to ex tend the Ordinance into its extraterritorial jurisdiction. ” Id. at 327, 329. Because the Dallas Court of Appeals did not address the issue of Talty ’ s authority to extend its b uilding c ode in to the E TJ , Bizios and Hartsell do not conflict.

• 

### Chapter 245 interpretation was also at issue in Levy v. City of Plano , 2001 WL 1382520 (Tex. App.

—Dallas 2001, no pet.). While the City correctly recites language from the opinion and Chapter 212 of the Local Government Code that city subdivision regulations may be extended to the ETJ, there is no discussion in Levy regarding the extension of Plano’s building code to the ETJ. Levy and Bizios are not in conflict.

• 

### A building code was extended into the ETJ pursuant to super s eded langua ge in Chapter 212 i n City of Lucas v. North Texas Municipal Water District , 724 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. App.

—Dallas 1986, writ ref. n.r.e.). The Fort Worth Court of Appeals points out in Bizios that Subchapter B of Chapter 212 was added after the Lucas decision
. 453 S.W.3d at 602

- 3 . Subchapter B distinguishes “ development ” from “ subdivision and plats ” and pro hibits cities from requiring building permits in the ETJ
. Because Lucas was decided under a prior version of Chapter 212, Lucas does not conflict with Bizios
.

• 

### A tree ordinance regulating the removal of trees during the subdivision development process was addressed in Milestone Potranco Dev., Ltd. v. City of San Antonio, 298 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2009, pet. den.). The city’s tree ordinance was “intend ed to, and does, govern only plats and subdivisions of land.” Id. at 246. Because Bizios ’ property was platted several years ago and Lakewood Village is not applying its building code as part of the subdivisi on approval process , Bizios does not conflict with Milestone
.

• 

### Standing of a landowner to challenge an annexation ordinance was at issue in Sunchase Capital Group, Inc. v. City of Crandall , 69 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. App.

—Tyler 2001, no pet.). Th is is not a situation invol ving platting, building permits or the extension of municipal regulations to the ETJ. Bizios does not conflict with Sunchase
.

### - vii

- • 

### Whether the platting statute should be applied to a mobile home park with long

- term leased spaces was the issue in Weslaco v. Carpenter , 694 S.W.2d 601 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref ’ d n.r.e.). Bizios ’ property is a legally recognized platted lot, so Weslaco is inapplicable. Contrary to the City ’ s statement on page xi in its P etition, the court of appeals did not affirm
“ the city ’ s application of its building codes to the extraterritorial jurisdiction. ” Instead, the court of appeals noted that this type of development could constitute a “subdivision” under Chapter 212 and the city’s land development regulations could be extended to the ETJ. 694 S.W.2d at 602

- 3. There is no exten sive factual disc ussion or holding that the city’s building code ( particularly as it relates to the construction of traditional single

- family homes) could be extended to the ETJ. As a result, there is no conflict between Weslaco and Bizios
. While Petitioner has tried to fit the facts and law of these six square peg opinions into the round conflicts hole, ther e are no material legal issues justifying this Court granting the Petition for Review
. RESTATEMENT OF ISSUE S PRESENTED 1. Whether a general law town like Lakewood Village has the statutory authority to extend its building code to the ETJ.

### - 1

- 

### No. 15 - 0106 

## In The Supreme Court **of the State of Texas** 

_________________________________________________ TOWN OF LAKEWOOD VILLAGE, Petit ioners,
v. HARRY BIZIOS, Respondent.

_________________________________________________ On Petition for Review from the Second District Court of Appeals at Fort Worth, Texas No. 02

- 14

- 00143

- CV
HARRY BIZIOS ’ RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT: Respondent Harry Bizios ( “ Bizios ” ) respectfully submit s this Response to the Town’s Petition for Review. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals’ opinion holding that a general law town may not extend its building code t o its ETJ does not conflict with other courts of appeals’ decisions or Texas statute. Respondent therefore ask s this Honorable Court to deny the Petition for Review.

### - 2

- 

### RESPONSE TO PETITION ER’ S STATEMENT OF FACTS Lakewood Village is a small, general law town located in Denton County, Texas ( CR 18). Appellant Harry Bizios ( “ Bizios ” ) is trying to build a house on a lot he owns ( “ Lot ” ) in the Sunrise Bay at Lake Lewisville Addition ( “ Subdivision ” ) located in the Town ’ s ETJ ( CR 5). The final plat for the Subdivision was approved by the Town of Little Elm and Denton County in 1995 ( CR 109). Houses have been built on virtually all of the lots in the Subdivision (3 RR 26). Little Elm serves the Subdivision and the Lot which is within its certificate of convenience and necessity ( “ CCN ” ) boundaries with water, and there is n o sanitary sewer provider because the houses are on septic systems (3 RR 14). It would cost millions of dollars for Lakewood Village to extend sanitary sewer to the Subdivision (3 RR 14). Denton County maintains all of the roads in the Subdivision (2 RR 89). The Town provides no municipal services to the Subdivision (2 RR 86). The Town has a current population of approximately 620 and acknowledges that its maximum population will be 2,500 (2 RR 54). T he Town will never meet the 5,000 population threshol d to become a home rule city with the power to annex land unilaterally which requires a minimum population of 5,000 under § 43.021, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### C ODE 

### . As a result, the Lot will never be located within the corporate limits of Lakewood Village, and Mr. Bizios will never be a Town resident and entitled to participate in Town affairs. Bizios began construction of a 7,000 square foot house on the Lot on or about March 10, 2014 ( CR 109). The proposed house is an energy efficient, insulated concrete

### - 3

- form with a construction cost of approximately $1,200,000.00 (3 RR 8

- 9). It is undisputed that Bizios will construct the house to the regulatory standards of the International Residential Code (3 RR 24). Prior to commencing construction, Bizios obtained all legitimate and necessary development approvals. First, the architectural review committee for the Subdivision approved the de sign and construction standards for the house (3 RR 12

- 14). Second, all necessary applications to build the house foundation and retaining wall were approved by FEMA (3 RR 15, 16; 4 RR Exs. 36, 37). Third, Bizios obtained all necessary permits from Dento n County (4 RR 35). Regular inspections were conducted of Bizios ’ house in accordance with Denton County regulations (3 CR 25). In order to obtain a building permit, Bizios was required to pay a permit fee of $14,646.00 to the Town and subcontractor fees in the amount of $1,200.00 (2 RR 92

- 3). But the Town ’ s plan review and inspection fees totaled only $1,200.00, leaving the Town a net profit of $14,646.00 (2 RR 144). In addition, the Tow n ’ s building inspector moonlights from his regular job which means that he can only perform inspections on weeknights (2 RR 143). When Bizios learned that the Town ’ s extension of the building code to its ETJ was not authorized, he decided to fight the Tow n ’ s illegal action: “ It ’ s a matter of principle and I wanted to take a stand on this. ” (3 RR 56). While the Town claims that it has “furthered its governmental interests and responsibility to the public” by extending its building code to the ETJ, there is no evidence in the record that Bizios ’ house fails to meet the requirements of the International Residential Code ( 3 RR 24 ). The Town ’ s part
- time building inspector made

### - 4

- advisory comments on Bizios ’ building plans (2 RR 127, 4 RR , p. 1, Ex. 8). Except for a difference of opinion as to one type of air vent construction, both Bizios ’ contractor and the Town ’ s building inspector agree as to the appropriate construction st andards for the house (3 RR 28

- 31). The vent desired by Bizios ’ contractor is authorized by most DFW cities and the International Residential Code (3 RR 31). After construction of the house started, the Town filed its petition requesting the trial court t o order Bizios to obtain building permits for his Lot from the Town and pay the associated fees ( CR 4

- 15). Following a temporary injunction hearing, the trial court entered a temporary inj unction order requiring Bizios to obtain building permits from the Town ( CR 651

- 3). Bizios filed an appeal with three issues: (1) Did Lakewood Village properl y extend its building code to the ETJ as a general law town ; (2) If so, did it have the legal authority to extend its building code to a platted lot previously approved by a different city?; and (3) Does Bizios have Chapter 245 rights? The court of appeals ruled in favor of Bizios on his first two issues and did not reach his third issue. 

### RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S SUMMARY OF THE ARGUM ENT Because the Town has not appealed the court of appeals’ holding that the Town is prohibited from ext ending its subdivision ordinance and building code to a previously platted lot under § 212.007, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### . C ODE 

### , Petitioner will be ordered by the trial court following remand to allow Bizios to proceed w ith his construction without complying with town ordinances.

### - 5

- 

### In the first paragraph of its Summary of the Argument, the Town mischaracterizes the Bizios opinion in two ways ( Pet
. , p. 5). First, it states that the opinion “ divests ” general law t owns of authority when in fact the L egislature never gave these small towns the right to require permits in their ETJ in the first place
. Second, this case does not involve the extension of subdivision rules for infrastructure development to the ETJ. Respondent acknowledges that home rule and general law municipalities are expressly authorized by Chapter 21 2 to exten d to the ETJ their platting ordinances . However, there is no statute which explicitly authorizes general law towns to extend their building codes to the ETJ (Pet
. , p. 5). T he only court of appeals opinion which has even touched this issue is Lucas which was properly distinguished by the Fort Worth Court of Appeals. Further, the Town ’ s stated policy reasons for allowing small towns to require expens ive buil ding permits in the ETJ are specious ( Pet
. , p. 6). While cities generally are supposed to protect health and safety, there is no evidence in the record that supports th e goal i n this case. Bizios is already building a house that meets the International Residential Code and has been inspected regularly ( 3 CR 25 ). The Town’s true intent and purpose, instead, is to obtain more than a $14,000.00 profit through its collection of exorbitant building permit fees ( 2 RR 144 ).

### - 6

- 

### The second stated policy which is to have uniform construction standards for Bizios’ house after it is annexed into the corporate limits has no applicability b ecause the Lot will never be within the Town limits (Pet
. , p. 6). Lakewood Village can never legally annex Bizios’ Lot or provide it with services ( 2 RR 54 ). The Town’s stated policy reasons for exten ding its building code do not apply. ARGUMENT I. Bizios agrees that Texas statutory and case law authorize the extension of subdivision requirements to the ETJ , but this authority does not include the extension of building codes . There is no dispute as to the Town’s first argument that cities have the authority to extend their subdivision regulations to the ETJ under chapter 212, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### . T he Town’s argument breaks down, however, in claiming that this authority necessarily entails regulating the construction of houses in the ETJ (P et
. , p. 6). A. General l aw t own o rdinance m aking a uthority i s extremely l imited Contrary to the Town’s claims, there are no state statutes which expressly authorize cities to extend their building codes to the ETJ. This can be contrasted with the express authority that the Legislature has given all types of municip alities to extend their subdivision regulations to the ETJ. See § 212.003, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### . While Petitioner correctly cities to § 1.005(3) for the proposition that a “municipality” can refer to both home rule and general law cities, that does not

### - 7

- 

### mean that the Texas Legislature has expressly authorized general law towns to extend their building co des to the ETJ. As a general law town, the Town (like a county) can only exercise those governmental powers expressly delegated to it by the Texas Legislature. See D AVID 

### B ROOKS 

### , M UNICIPAL 

### L AW 

### A ND 

### P RACTICE 

### , T EXAS 

### P RACTICE 

### , Vol. 22, p. 89. Home rule cities have significantly broader governmental powers than general law towns. See Forewood v. City of Taylor , 214 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. 1948). The Town, on the other hand, derives its power from the Legislature and is restricted by the express language of state statute. See Tex. AG Op. JM 169. Petitioner misstates the Fort Worth court of appeal s distinction between home rule and general law municipalities (Pet., pp. 6

- 7). Primarily, the court of appeals focuses on the lack of express language to extend building codes into the ETJ and the more specific, direct language in statutes such as §§ 216.902, 372.003, and 377.002 of the Local Government Code which clearly provide this authority. 453 S.W.3d at 604. This lack of express statutory l anguage does not necessarily mean that home rule cities have the power to require building permits in the ETJ

– it simply means that general law towns clearly do not have this power due to lack of specific legislative authority. Id. at 604

- 5.

### - 8

- 

### B. No Texas s tatute expressly a uthorizes the Town t o a pply i ts b uilding c ode to i ts ETJ The Town claims that its authority to require building permits in the ETJ is implied under the state platting statute, Chapter 212 of the Texas Local Government Code , and applies to all municipalities
. Under Subchapter A of Chapter 212, a plat is only required to be submitted and approved under section 212.004 when a tract of land is subdivided. There is no indication that the Legislature intended to address building permits in Subchapter A of the platting statute and there is no express authority stated in the statute
. “Legislative intent remains the polestar of statutory construction.” City of LaPorte v. Barfield , 898 S.W.2d 288, 292 (Tex. 1995). It is cardinal law in Texas that a court construes a statute, “first, by looking to the plain and common meaning of the statute’s words.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garrison Contractors , 966 S.W.2d 482, 484 (Tex. 1998). The only way that the trial court’s injunction can be sustained is by adding terms to the statute to clearly authorize the e xtension of the building code to the ETJ
. A dding verbiage to statutes by implication was expressly forbidden by the Texas Supreme Court in M. Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation , 996 S.W.2d 865, 867 (Tex. 1999).

### - 9

- 

### (i) §§ 2 12 .002 and .003 d o n ot e xpressly a uthorize Lakewood Village to e xtend i ts b uilding c ode to the ETJ. T he Town cites Local Government Code sections 212.002 and 212.003 as extension authority ( Pet
. , p p . 9

- 10)
. Petitioner, however, is not applying its building code to Bizios pursuant to the platting process. These statutes are directed at the regulation of plats and subdivisions, not building of structures. In fact, Subchapter A of Chapter 212 is entitled “Regulation of Subdivisions.” This subchapter says nothing about building structures in general or permits in specific. Petitioner has acknowledged, by not appealing the Court of Appeals ’ hold ing on Bizios’ second i ssue, that it does not have the power to apply its building code to Bizios’ previously platted lot under § 212.007, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### . C ODE 

### . Subchapter B, in contrast, is titled “Regulati on of Property Development,” with “development” defined as “the new construction or the enlargement of any exterior dimension of any building, structure, or improvement.” § 212.043(1) , T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### . CODE 

### . This subchapter, moreover, expressly provides that “[t]his subchapter does not authorize the municipality to require municipal building permits or otherwise enforce the municipality’s building code in its extraterrito rial jurisdiction.” Id . at § 212.049.

### - 10

- 

### (ii) § 214.212 d oes n ot expressly a uthorize Lakewood Village to e xtend its b uilding c ode to the ETJ. Contrary to th e Town’s claim, § 214.212, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### actually limits the applicability of the International Residential Code to a city’s corporate limits (Pet
. , pp 9

- 10). It is important to note that it is undisputed that Bizios’ construction meets IRC standards. Significantly, section 214.212 requires municipalities to adopt the IRC. It imposes a mandatory uniform residential building code, as opposed to merely providing an optional code that cities may, but are not required to, adopt. The statute expressly authorizes a municipality such as the Town to apply its bu ilding code to construction only “in a municipality,” e.g., within its corporate boundaries. To imply that the Legislature intended to allow cities to also apply their building codes in the ETJ would violate the holding in M. Fitzgerald
. Another indicia of legislative intent was the introduction, but lack of passage, of HB 609 (Smith) in 2007. See Appendix, Tab 2 . This bill would have expressly authorized cities to extend by ordinance their building codes to the ETJ. If the Legislature’s interpretation of state statutes was that cities already had the power to require building permits in the ETJ, then the introduction of HB 609 would have been unnecessary. If the Legislature intended to allow general law town s to apply the IRC in a municipality ’s ETJ, it could have expressly done so. Because extending the

### - 11

- 

### building code to the ETJ is not expressly addressed by the Legislature, it is clear that the Legislature did not intend for general law towns to extend thei r building codes to the ETJ. (iii) § 214.904(a) d oes n ot e xpressly a uthorize Lakewood Village to extend its b uilding c ode to the ETJ. On pages 9 and 1 0 of its Petition, the Town argue s that section 214.904(a) of the Texas Local Government Code authorizes the Town to extend its building code to its ETJ because it refers to the issuance of building permits “in the municipal ity or its extraterritorial jurisdiction.” But this statutory provision provides neither express nor implied authority for a city to extend its building codes to its ETJ similar to sections 216.003 and 216.902 of the Texas Local Government Code
. As the HB 265 bill analysis indicates, the bill was simply intended to force cities to act on development permits instead of delaying them indefinitely. Se e Appendix, Tab 3 . There is no statutory language or legislative history indicating legislative intent for Section 214.904(a) to expand a general law town’s authority to allow it to extend its building code to its ETJ. (iv) § 233.153(c) d oes n ot e xpressly a uthorize Lakewood Village to extend its b uilding c ode to the ETJ. The Town also cites section 233.153(a) of the Texas Local Government Code which requires new ho use s in unincorporated areas of a county to meet International Residential Code requirements ( Pet
. , pp 10

- 11 ). This provision states

### - 1 2

- 

### that if a city has adopted a building code in the ETJ, then the county’s jurisdiction does not apply. Again, the statute does not expressly authorize general law towns to extend their buildin g codes to the ETJ. Subchapter F, Chapter 233, Local Government Code, concerns the authority of counties to mandate that houses be built to IRC requirements
. Sec tion 233.153(c) is a limiting statute, not a power granting statute. As with § 214.904(a), there are various scenarios which the Legislature could have considered that di d not involve general law towns unilaterally enforcing their building codes in the ETJ. While the statute can be implied to mean that some municipalities within the State may be requiring a permit to improve a building or “other structure”, there are fact situations that might be applicable other than a general law town extending its building code to the ETJ :

• 

### Land in the ETJ subject to a development agreement under § 212.172, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### , which allows a city to require building permits.

• 

### Land in the ETJ subject to an industrial district agreement under § 42.044, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### which can require permitting.

• 

### Land in the ETJ subject to a planned unit district agreement under § 42.046, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### which can require permitting.

• 

### Land in the ETJ with a special district agreement under § 42.042, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### which can require permitting.

• 

### Land subject to limited purpose annexations under § 43.121, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### . C ODE 

### which can require permitting.

### - 13

- • 

### The Legislature could have assumed th at home rule cities with their constitutional police powers (as opposed to general law towns) might require building permits in the ETJ.

• 

### “Other structures” could refer to billboards. General law towns and home rule cities are given express authority to re quire building permits for signs in the ETJ. § 216.902, TEX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### .

• 

### The Legislature may have acknowledged that cities were extending bui lding codes to the ETJ pursuant to Lucas and were awaiting future court decisions to clarify the authority issue. In addition, Denton County cannot bestow this power. The Town’s comments on page 11 of its Petition about Denton County regulations does not affect the legal analysis as to whether or not Lakewood Village has sufficient statutory authority to extend its building code to the ETJ. According to the Town Secretary, Denton County officials have refused to support the Town’s authority to require building permits in the ETJ (App., Tab 5 ). Sections 214.904(a) and 233.153(c) do not bestow statutory authority as suggested by the Town. C. T he c ourt of a ppeals did not infringe on a state - wide ETJ policy . Petitioner makes broad, unsupported allegations that the Fort Worth court of appeals has somehow violate d a “state mandated policy for the ET J ”
. (Pet
. , p. 1 1 ). According to the Town’s logic, any and every municipality should be able to extend all of their ordinances to residents and pr operty owners in the ETJ (Pet. pp. 11

- 12). This would lead to the absurd result of heavy municipal regulation of

### - 14

- 

### C ounty residents like Mr. Bizios who receive no municipal services and cannot vote in municipal elections. Chapter 212 of the Local Government Code deals with the horizontal development of subdivisions and public infrastructure. Vertical improvements like buildings are not ad dressed in Chapter 212 other than to tell cities not to interfere with certain building uses and standards. See § 212.003, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### . T he Town states that its version of a stated public policy addresses “an exposure of persons to unsafe structures in the ETJ”
. (Pet
. , p . 1 3). But in this case, it is undisputed that Bizios’ $1,200,000.00 house is a safe structure constructed to the requirements of the IRC ( 3 RR 24, 35 ). Furthermore, as pointed out by the Town, all houses in unincorporated areas are now required by the Legislature to be saf ely constructed in accordance with the IRC. § 2 33 .153, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### . So if Bizios’ and all other houses being constructed in the ETJ meet the IRC standards , the Town’s stat ed statutory purpose has no applicability. Simi larly, the Town’s public/private interest has no applicability (Pet
. , p. 13). No one who lives in Sunrise Bay will be threatened or put in danger by the construction of Mr. Bizios’ extraordinarily well

- designed and constructed house. If the Town could attain home rule status and involuntarily annex the Lot, at least it could argue that the Town wants to protect its future housing stock. In this case, however, the Town can n ever gain the necessary legal status to effectuate a

### - 15

- 

### unilateral annexation and obtain corporate jurisdiction over the Lot. City representatives admit that the Town cannot unilaterally annex the Addi tion (2 RR 82). D. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals Opinion d oes n ot c onflict w ith Lucas and Weslaco On pages 14

- 17 of its Petition, the Town argues that Bizios conflicts with prior appellate precedence . As discussed in the Response to Petitioner’s Statement of Jurisdiction, the Town is incorrect
. Lucas is the only appellate opinion which states that a general law town can extend building codes through Chapter 212 (Pet, pp. 14

- 15)
. The Fort Worth C ourt of Appeals c learly articulated the reasons that the Lucas holding no longer applies. 453 S.W.3d at 604
. Section 212.049 was added with Subchapter B of Chapter 212 of the Local Government Code after Lucas . Subchapter B of Chapter 212, Local Government Code, relates to development plats and development is defined as “the new construction or the enlargement of an exterior dimension of any building . . .” Subchapter A, on the other hand, is related solely to the regulation of subdivisions as the courts commonly define subdivisions. Unlike Subchapter A of Chapter 212, § 212.049 expressly states the Legislature’s intent on the issue: “This subchap ter does not authorize the municipality to require municipal building permits . . . in its extraterritorial jurisdiction”. Because Subchapter A does not expressly address building permits like Subchapter B, the power to extend building codes by

### - 16

- 

### subdivisio n to the ETJ should not be implied by the court. In addition, the Dallas Court of Appeals appears to have overruled its dicta in Lucas when it held in the 2001 Levy opinion that § 212.003(a) does not authorize the extension of “land use and construction” ordinances to the ETJ. 2001 WL 138250 at 3. The Lucas court erroneously based its holding on City of Weslaco v. Carpenter , 644 S.W.2d 601, 603 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Weslaco involved the partitioning of land into 128 mobile home rental spaces. The developer was attempting to avoid the applicability of the subdivision statute by renting, rather than selling, spaces. The Lucas court cites Weslaco’s holding on subdivisions that the “use of the term is not restricted to the division itself but also encompasses development of the divided tracts.” 724 S.W.2d at 823. The development of the tracts in Weslaco referred to subdivision development only because there would be no “ construction ” of mobile homes as there would be with site

- built housing. While the Corpus court held that the City’s subdivision rules and regulations must be followed, there was no discussion in Weslaco that the city would be authorized to extend its building codes into its ETJ. In Milestone Potranco Dev. Ltd. v. City of San Antonio , 298 S.W.3d 242 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2009, pet. den.), the court determined that San Antonio’s tree ordinance was a rule governing plats and subdivisions. Id . at 244

- 5. The court went on to validate the tree ordinance as a rule governing plats and subdivisions in

### - 17

- 

### the ETJ because its enforcement was limited solely to situations involving the subdivision and platting of land. See id . “[W]e conclude the Tree Ordinance was intended to, and does, govern only plats and subdivisions of land.” Id . at 247. However, in this case, the Town’s application of its building code is not commensurate with the subdivision development of Bizios’ property which was platted by Little Elm many years ago . As a result, the trial court erred in holding that Bizios could be required to obtain building permits from the Town under Chapter 212. Bizios does not conflict with the holdings of other courts of appeal. Similarly, neither a building permit nor the ETJ were at issue in Corpus Christi v. Unitarian Church , 436 S.W.2d 923 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Corpus Christi 1968, writ ref’d n.r.e). The othe r opinion cited by the Town concerns solely plat approval and its attendant construction of public infrastructure and not building permits and building codes. City of Round Rock v. Smith , 687 S.W.2d 310 (Tex. 1985). E. Lakewood Village concedes that it illegally required Bizios to obtain a building permit and pay fees . Lakewood Village’s arguments, pleadings and ordinances have been based solely upon its presumed authority under Chapter 212 to extend its building code to the ETJ. According to the Town’s ordinance, it “is authorized an d empowered to apply the Town’s regulations for . . . property development to its ETJ pursuant to § 212.003 of the Texas Local Government Code ” (emphasis added) (CR 23). At no

### - 18

- 

### point has the Town enacted an ordinance extending its building code to its ETJ other than pursuant to its implied authority under Chapter 212, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OVT 

### . C ODE 

### . Because the Town has not appealed the court of appeals’ holding that the Town is prohibited from extending its subdivision ordinance and building code to a previously platted lot such as Bizios’ under § 212.007, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### . C ODE 

### . Petitioner admits that it lacks legitimate legislative authority to apply its building code to Bizios
. F. Bizios will have no legal effect outside of th is specific ETJ matter. The Town cries crocodile tears in claiming Bizios will “strip general law cities of many long recognized powers” (Pet
. , p. 1 9). T he very statutes that Petitioner claims would be put into doubt ( §§ 216 .902, 372.003, 377.002, 382.109 and 395.011, T EX 

### . L OC 

### . G OV 

### ’ T 

### . C ODE 

### ) by the court of appeals opinion are expressly acknowledged in Bizios as granting authority to both home rule and general law municipalities
. 453 S.W.3d at 604. CONCLUSION AND PRAYE R The Fort Worth Court of Appeals opinion was properly decided and does not invoke conflicts jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons , the Town ’ s Petition for Rev iew should be denied. Respondent pray s that this Honorable Court deny the Petition for Review and remand this case to the trial court. Bizios further prays

### - 19

- 

### that it recover its costs incurred in this appeal and that this Court grant to Bizios all other re lief at law or in equity to which Bizios may show itself justly entitled. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Respondent request s that this Court deny the Petitioner ’ s Petition for Review. Respectfully submitted, WINSTEAD PC 500 Winstead Building 2728 N. Harw ood Street Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 745

- 5745 ( Phone ) (214) 745

- 5390 ( Facsimile ) aanderson@winstead.com By: /s/ Arthur J. Anderson Arthur J. Anderson State Bar No. 01165957 ATTORNEYS FOR HARRY BIZIOS

### - 20

- 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVI CE I hereby certify that on the 26 th 

### day of May , 2015 , a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served, in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure through an electronic filing service provider (EFSP) , upon each person below who has consented to e

- service by registering for the e

- service option with an EFSP or by setting up a complimentary account with www.texas.gov/efiling , or by first

- class mail and e

- mail upon each person below who has not so consented: William Andrew Messer Messer, Rockefeller & Fort, P.L.L.C. 6351 Preston Road Suite 350 Frisco, TX 75034
/s/ Arthur J. Anderson ONE OF COUNSEL CERTIFICATE OF COMPL IANCE P ursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 9.4(i)(4), I hereby certify that the above

- styled document contains 4 ,2 7 8 words, excluding the caption, identity of parties and counsel, statement of jurisdiction , table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of compliance, and appendix. Counsel is relying on a word count computer program used to prepare the document. This brief complies with the typeface requirements and the type style requir ements of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Office Word 2010 in 14

- point Times New Roman. /s/ Arthur J. Anderson Arthur J. Anderson

### - 21

- 

### APPENDIX TAB 1: Aerial of Area TAB 2: Introduce d (but not enacted) HB 609 by Smith in 2007 Regular Session TAB 3: House Research Organization Bill Analysis of HB 265 by Smith dated March 22, 2005 TAB 4 : Amicus Brief filed by Texas Association of Builders in Court of Appeals TAB 5 : Amicus Brief filed by Property Owners’ Association of Sunrise Bay in Court of Appeals

DALLAS_1/6514284v.3 56756

- 1 05/26/2015

### 1 2 3 4­ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 13 1 4 15 1 6 17 1 8 19 20 By: Smith of Tarr ant H.B. No. 60 9

A BILL TO BE ENTI TLED

AN ACT rela ting to the appl icat ion and enfor cemen t of muni cip al const ruct ion codes. BE IT ENACT ED BY THE LEGISLATU RE OF THE STATE OF TEXA S: SECTIO N 1. Sec tio n 214. 212( b), Loc al Gover nment Code , is amend ed to read as fol low s:

(b ) The Int ern ati ona l Resi dent ial Code appli es to all
cons truc tion , alt era tio n, re mode ling , en larg emen t, and rep air of resi dent ial struct ures in a munic ipali ty. Notw iths tand ing Section 242. 001, the gove rni ng body of a muni cipa lity by ordinan ce may exten d to the extr ater rito rial jurisdic tion of the municip alit y the appl icat ion of the Inter nati onal Resi dent ial Code and any amendment s adopte d as prov ided by this section . SECTI ON 2. Sec tio n 212. 049, Loc al Gove rnme nt Cod e, is repe aled . SECT ION 3 . Thi s Act takes effect imm edia tely if it rece ives
a vote of two -thi rds of all the m ember s ele cted t o each hous e, as prov ided by Sect ion 3 9, Art icle II I, Texa s Const itut ion. If this Act do es not receive th e vote neces

sary for im

medi ate effect, this Act takes effect Sept ember 1, 2007.

80R 942 PAM-F 

### 1

# T A B 3HO US E

RE SE AR CH ORG ANI ZAT ION bill analy sis 3/22 /200 5 HB 2 65 W. Smith SUB JEC T: Dead lines f or c ities to act o n per

mit applications COMMITTEE : Land and R esource M anag eme nt — fa vorable, without amendme nt VOTE: 6 ay es — Mow ery, B lake , R. Cook, Lei bow itz, M iller, O rr 0 nays 3 ab sent — Harp er-B rown , Escob ar, Pickett WITN ESSE S: For — David M intz, T exa s Apa rtment Ass ociation ; Scott N orm an, T exas Assoc iation of Bui lders ; {Regi stere d but did n ot tes tify: Da nie l G onzalez , Tex as As sociati on of R

ealto rs) Aga inst — None BACKGROUND: A mong other provisions , Loc al G overnment Cod e, Title 7 , authori zes

local government en

titie s to i ssu e buil ding p erm its. P ermit application s and review proce sses v ary amon g citie s to ens ure that c onstr

uctio n and impro veme nt plan s comply with local p olicie s and standards. DIGEST: HB 2 65 would set deadl ines fo r mu nicip alitie s to a ct on pe rmit s for constructin g or im

prov ing b uilding s or other struct ures with in their jurisd iction s. Upo n rec eipt o f a build ing permit a pplic ation , a mun icipa lity wou ld hav e to:

• grant or deny the perm it to the app licant within 45 da ys; • provid e writte

n notice to the app licant expl aining why the municipality had n ot ac ted on t he a ppli cati on, which wo uld a dd 3 0 days fro m th e dat

e no tice was recei ved to th e mu nicipali ty's deadlin e for reachi ng a d ecis ion; or • reach a writte n agre eme nt wi th the ap plic ant establis hing a dead line for reac hing a deci sion

. If the municipality f

aile d to a ct w ithin t

hes e dead

lines a nd/o r agr eeme nts, the m unicipality could n

ot c ollec t any a

pplic ation fees and would hav e to refun d to th e app licant a ny fe es co llected.HB 265 House Resear ch Organization

page 2 The bill wo uld take effect Sep temb er 1 , 2005 , and would app ly on ly to perm it applic ations subm itted a fter t hat da te. SU PP OR TE RS HB 2 65 wou ld ass ist dev elop ers in efficie ntly m anag ing th eir p roje cts by SAY : estab lishin g clear uniform deadlin es for granting or denying permit

appli catio ns. It wo

uld de velo p noti ficat ion s tandards that are respons ive and p redict able an d crea te a c lear and tr ansp arent perm it pro cess th rough whic h a mu

nicipal ity and a pro

ject m anag er could co mmunicat e effec tively

. The perm it proc edure se t forth in H B 2 65 w ould allo w for th e tim ely ident ificat ion and recti ficat ion of a pplic ation error s. Rat

her than letting projec ts sta ll over i

ncohe rent d eadl ines or flaws d etected late in the p erm it proces s, as under th e current s yste m, the bill woul d hel p mu nicip alitie s quick ly identify a sound proje ct an d reso lve application flaws to spe ed the comm encem ent of c onstructi on or improvem ents. B y all owin g for a mor e time ly proj ect initiatio n date , HB 265 also would assist a mun icip ality in incor porat ing new property value into its tax rol l. Vari ation amon g mu

nicip aliti es' parti cular perm it req uirem ents w ould not be aff ected by the bill. Wr itten agre eme nts b etwe en a munic ipality and a devel oper could cov er any step s required to ob tain a permi t wh ile cle arly delin eatin g the res

pons ibilit ies of both p arties

. HB 265 w ould take awa y loc al contro l from regu latory per mit p roces ses. Muni cipali ties, la

rge an d sm all, c an b etter dete rmin e appl ication dead line s than the s

tate. By requi ring w

ritte n agreem ents betwe en mu nicip alitie s and build ing p ermit applicants in orde r to avoid infle xibl e proce ssing dead lines and reso lve application fl aws , this bill would s low th e per mit proce ss, no t expedite it. M unic ipali ties to day mana ge to en sure effic ient regu latory proce sses by communicating v erba lly with applicant s, and addit ional paperwo rk req uire ments wo uld d o nothin g to impr ove this syste m. B y mandating a ddit iona l administrativ e duti es, the bill c ould requi re som e muni cipal ities to incre ase p erm it fee s to cover the increas ed proce ssing costs of written agree ment s, in clud ing t he possib le need for addi tiona l personne l. HB 265 wo uld create unrealis tic d eadl ines fo r th e pro cessi ng of appli cation s. All a

pplications a

re re view ed for tec hnica l revisio ns inclu ding enginee ring, b uildi ng co de, a nd p ublic safety com

plian ce. OPP ONENTS SAY:HB 26 5 House Research O rganizat ion

page 3 Rushi ng the revie w proc ess to m eet a state- speci fied d eadl ine c ould jeopard ize technic al accu racy. The bi ll would no t place a ny req uire ments on applic ants. App licants w ho submitted i ncomplete a

pplic ation s or d id no t resp ond to r equ ests f rom th e mun icipa lity w ould not be h eld a ccountab le for slow ing the applicati on proces s. Mun

icipa lities shoul d no t have to ad here to ap plic atio n proces s deadli nes if applic ants a

re no t responsiv e. On February 28, t

he Ho use pa ssed a re lated bill, HB 266 by W. Sm ith, whic h wou

ld set d eadli nes for countie s to re spond to perm it app licatio ns. The Senate h as no t yet ref erred this bill to com

mitte e.

# T A B 4AC CE PT ED 02 -1 4- 00 14 3- CV SE CO N D CO URT O F AP PE AL S

FO RT WO RT H, TE XA S 9/ 26 /2 01 4 2: 30 .0 2 PM DE BR A SP ISA K CL ERK 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
No. 02-14-00143-CV
HARRY BIZIOS, Appellant/Cross Appellee,

v. 

### TOWN OF LAKEWOOD VILLAGE, TEXAS,

Appellee/Cross Appellant.
On Appeal from the 431 s t 

### Judicial District Court Trial Court Cause No. 14-01991-431

BR IE F AMICUS CURIAE TEX AS ASS OC IATION OF BU ILD ERS IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT HAR RY BIZIOS

Manuel Munoz, Jr. SB No. 24053379 Texas Association of Builders 313 E. 12th Street, Suite 210 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 47 6- 63 46 -P ho ne (512) 476-6427 - Fax ned@texasbuilders.org At torneys f or Amicus Cu riae Tex as As sociat ion of Build ers

### TA BL E OF CONTENTS TABL E OF C ON TENT S i STA TEM EN T OF INT ERES T O F AM ICU S 1 SUM MA RY OF AR GU MENT 2 AR GU MENT AN D AU TH ORITI ES 4 A. The Town's Tru e Mo tivation is to Gen erate Rev enu e 4 B. The Town l ack s statuto ry auth ori ty 4 CONC LU SION AN D PRAYE R 6 CE RT IFI CA TE OF SER

VIC E 7 CE RT IFIC AT E OF CO MP LIANC E WITH RU LE 9.4 8 APP EN DIX 9

### TA BLE O F AUTHOR

ITIE S Page (s) STAT UTE S Chapter 21 2, Tex. Loc. Gov 't Code 4, 5 Chapter 2 33, Tex. Loc. Gov 't Code 3 § 214.904, Tex. Loc. Go

v't Code 3 ,5 § 233.151 , Tex. Loc. Go

v't Code 3, 5, 6 O TH ER A UTHOR ITIE S Tex. Const., Article VIII, Section 1(f) 4

-il

### IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
No. 02-14-00143-CV
HARRY BIZIOS, Appellant/Cross Appellee,

v. TOWN OF L

AKEWOOD VILLAGE, TEXAS, Appellee/Cross Appellant.
On Appeal from the 431 s t 

### Judicial District Court Trial Court Cause No. 14-01991-431

BR IEF AMICUS CURIAE TEX AS ASS OCI

ATI ON OF BU

ILDERS IN SUPPOR

T OF APPELLANT HA RR Y BIZI OS
TO TH E HONORABLE SEC OND COU RT OF APPEA

LS OF T EX

AS : Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Texas Association of Builders ("TAB") submits this Brief as Amicus Curiae in sup port of Appellant Harry Bizios.

STATEM

ENT OF INTER

EST OF AM

ICU S TAB is a non-profit trade association that was founded in 1946 to help promote the dream of home ownership and to serve the comm on interests of those

### involved in the residential construction industry in the State of Texas. TAB's

membership b ase of nearly 10,000 members across Texa s is primarily made up of home builders , remodelers, developers, and other com panies and individuals who have an inte rest and a s take i n a healthy and vibra nt homebuilding industry in the State of T exas. TAB is affiliated with the National Association of. Home Builders and over 28 local associations that are located throughout the State of Texas. TAB's membership represents approximatel y 702,500 jobs and $31.1 billion annually of the Texas economy. - TAB, a s amicus, has an interest in this case in that TAB and its members are extremely concerned about the requirement that its members obtain municipal building permits and pay fees for construction i n the extraterritorial jurisdiction ("ETJ" ). More specifically, TAB and it s members have a n interest i n seeing that the Court grant the Appellant's appeal and reverse the trial court's decision granting temporary injunction. That being said, TAB is not a party to this action and h as no direct financial interest in its outcome. TAB's counsel was not paid a fee by TAB for the preparation of this brief. SUM MAR Y OF ARG

UMENT TA B' s membership is dedicated to the construction of quality, safe housing. Under existing statutes, all one and two family homes built in the stat e's

### municipalities must meet the standards of the International Residential Code

("IRC"), while every county in Texas, other than Loving County, has th e authority to mandate that a ll one and two family homes be built to the standards of the IRC. Furthermore, Denton County has exercised its authority under Subchapter F, Chapter 23 3 of the Tex as Local Government Code to require that all one and two family ho mes built in t he unincorporated areas o f Den ton County conform to the IRC. TAB supports this standard, and Bizios ' and other homes in Lakewood Villa ge's ETJ will be constructed in accordance with the IRC without the Town's interference or oversight. TAB strongly disagrees with the Town's argument that §§ 214.904 or 233.151, Tex. Loc. G

ov't Code, provide statutory authority for the Town to extend its bu ilding code t o the ETJ. The legislative history of both bills shows th at they did not bestow or endow such authority on general law towns like Lakewood Village. TAB has reviewed the Appe llant's briefs in this case. TAB agrees with both the content and the arguments that are set forth in the Appel lant's briefs. TAB would like to take this opportunity to inco rporate the arguments that are set forth in the Appe llant' s briefs and to adopt them as if they were TAB 's own.

### ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Th e Town' s True Motivation is to Gener ate Re venu e. TAB does not oppose legitimate building permit fees which cover true administrative costs in reviewing plans and making inspections. However, the To wn 's fees, which we understand to represent a profit to the Town of around $15,000 for Ap pellant's house, constitute an illegal occupation tax, in violatio n of Article VIII, Section 1(f) of the Texas Constitution. (2 RR 144). This fee is merely a means for the Town to raise revenue as no services are being provided by the Town. Water is provided by the Town of Little Elm and the roads are maintained by Den ton County. (2 RR 89; 3 RR 14). This property c an neve r b e annexed by Lakewood Village for lega l, political and engin eering reasons. (2 RR 54). Furthermore, the Town's building official is a moonlighter who, due to fulltime employment elsewhere, will not perform services during regular business hours. (2 RR 143). Bizios obtained approved permits from Denton County and the Corps of Enginee rs for his project and has employed a professional third-party firm to perform code inspections. TAB opposes the extension of municipal building codes to the ETJ by general law towns. B. The Town lack

s s tatuto ry autho rit

y. The Town also has no legal right to enforce its building standards in i ts ETJ, including fees, inspection requirements and contractor registration regulations. The Town's reliance on Subchapter A, Chapter 212 of the Texas Local

. -4-

### Government Code is misplaced because Subchapter A relates to a city 's

subdivision and platting powers. The property in question was platted in Denton County long bef

ore it came into th e Tow n's ETJ. Consequently, Subchapter B of Chapter 212 applies because it defines development as "ne w construction." Subchapter B does not authorize a city to requi re its building standard s in the ETJ. In fact, § 212.049, Te x. L oc. G ov 't Code, specifically states that the subchapter does not authorize municipalities to require building p ermits or enforce building codes in the ETJ. General law cities, such as Lakewood Village, only have the powers expressly given to them by Texas statute or the Texas Constitution. TAB was involved in the legislative process for enacting §§ 214.904 and 233.151, Tex. Loc. Go v't Code. Contrary to the Town's argument, there was
never any discussion o r statement made at a committee hearing or o n the floor of either house that these bills would authorize general law towns to extend their building codes to the ETJ. For example, HB 265 was passed in 2005 to create § 214.904. The House Resear ch Organization bill analysis is attached as Tab A in the Appendix as shown in Exhibit A. Scott Norman of TAB testified in support of the bill which was intende d to prevent cities from arb itrarily delaying taldng action on building permit applications. There is no legislative history indicating that § 214.904 was intended to grant general law towns the authority to extend their building codes to the ETJ.

### TAB was also involved with the 2009 legislative process in enacting HB

2833 (§ 233.151, Tex. Loc. Gov't Code, et seq.). As originally drafted, and shown in Tab C in t

he Appendix, th e legislative intent was to address the proliferation of "colon ias" al ong the border by authorizing commissioners courts along the border the authority to , among other things, adopt building codes. During the session, the scope of the covered counties was expanded to include virtually every Texas county and all ow those counties to require that all one and two family homes built in the unincorporated areas of th e county me et IRC standards. At no point was there any discussion or considerati on to give general law towns the authority to require building permits in the ETJ.

CON CLU SION AND PRAY ER Amicus Curiae TAB respectfully requests that this Court grant Appellant's appeal, reverse the trial court's temporary injunction or

der, and grant any add

itional relief to which the Appellant is ent itled.

### Respectfully submitted, TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUILDERS 313 E. 12th Street, Suite 210 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 476 -6 34 6- Ph on e (512) 47 6- 64 27 -F ax ned@texasbuilders .org
Bv: /s/ Manuel Munoz. Jr

. Manuel Munoz, Jr., SB 24053379 ATTORNEYS FOR THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUILDERS, AMICUS CURIAE
CE RT IFI CA TE OF S

ER VIC E Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, I hereby certify that on the 26 th 

### day of September, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon the following counsel of record vie electron ic filing service: William Andrew Messer Messer, Rockefeller & Fort, P.L.L.C. 6351 Preston Road Suite 350 Frisco, TX 75034 Arthur J. Anderson Winstead PC 500 Winstead Building 2728 N. Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 /s/M anu el Munoz. Jr. Manuel Munoz, Jr.

### CER TIFICATE OF C OMPLIA NCE WITH RULE 9.4 Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9 .4 ,1 hereby certify th at the above styled document complies with the type-volume limitations and contains 1,147 words, excluding the caption, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, inde x of authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented, signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of compliance, and appendix. Counsel is relying on a word count computer program used to pr epare the document.

/s/ Manuel Munoz. Jr

. Manuel Munoz, Jr.

### APPEND IX

TAB A: March 22, 2005 House Research Organization Bill Analysis for

HB 265 by Smith TA B B: 2009 Senate Intergov ernmental Relations Committee Witness Lis t for HB 2833 TA B C : 2009 Bill Analysis for C.S.H.B. 2833 (Marquez)

-9-

# T AB AHOU SE

RES EAR CH ORGANIZATION bill analysis 3/22/2005 H O B 265 W.S mith Deadlines for cities to act on permit applications Land and Resource Management — favorable, without amendmen t 6 ayes — Mowery, Blake, R. Cook, Leibowitz, Miller, Orr 0 nays 3 absent — Harper-Brown, Escobar, Pickett For — David Mintz, Texas Apartment Associati on; Scott Norman, Texas Association of Builders; ( Reg ist ere d b ut did n ot tes tify : Daniel Gonzalez, Texas Associatio

n of Rea ltors) Ag ains t—N one BA CK GR OU

ND : Among other provisions, Local Government Code, Title 7, authorizes local government entities to issue building perm its. Permit a

pplications and review pro

cesses vary among cities to ensure that construction and improvement plans compl y with local policies and standards. DIG EST: HB 265 would set deadlines for municipalities to act on permits for

constructing or improving buildings or other structures within their jurisdictions

. Upon rece

ipt of a building permit application, a municipality would have to:
• grant or deny the permit to the applicant within 45 days; • provide written notice to the applicant explaining why the municipality had not acted on the application, which would add 30 days from the date notic

e was received to the municipality's deadline for rea

ching a decision; or • reach a written agreement with the applicant establishing a deadline for reaching a deci

sion. If the municipality failed to act within these deadlines and/or agreements, the municipality cou

ld not col lect any application fees and would have to refund to the applicant any fees collected. SUBJECT: CO MM ITT EE: VO TE:

WITNESSES:HB 265 Hous e Resea

rch Organization page 2 The bill would take effect September 1,2 00 5, and would apply only to permit applications submitted after that date. SUPPO RTERS HB 265 would assist developers in efficiently managing their projects by SAY : establishing clear uniform deadlines for granting or denying permit

applications. It would develop notifica tion standards that are responsive and predictable and create a clear and transparent permit process through which a municipality and a project manager could communicate effectively. The permit procedure set forth in HB 265 would allow for the timely identification and rectification of application errors. Rather than letting projects stall over incohe

rent deadlines or flaws detected late in the permit process, as under the current syste m, the bill would help municipalities quickly identify a sound p roject a nd resolve application flaws to speed the commencement of construction or improvements. By allowing for a more timely project initiation dat e, HB 265 also would assist a municipality in incorporating new property value into its tax roll. Variation among municipalities' particular permit requirements would not be affected by the bill.

"Written agreements between a municipality and a developer could cover any steps req uired to obtain a permit while clearly delineating the respon

sibilities of both parties. OPPONENTS HB 265 would take away local cont rol from regulatory permit processes. SAY : Municipalities, large and small, can better determine application deadlines

than the state. By requi

ring written agreements between municip alities and building permit applicant s in ord er to avoid inflexible proce ssing deadlines and resolve application flaws, this bill would slow the permit process, not expedite it. Municip alities today manage to ensure efficient regulatory processes by commun icating verbally with applicants, and additional paperwork r

equirements would do nothing to improve this system. By mandating additional administrative duties, the bill could require some munic

ipalities to inc

rease permit fees to cover the increased processing costs of written agreements, including the possible need for additional personnel. HB 265 would create u

nrealistic de adlines for the processing of applications. All ap

plications are reviewed for technical revisions including engineering, building code, and public safety compliance.HB 265 House Res earch Organizatio n

page 3 Rushing the review process to meet a state-specified deadline could jeopardize technical accuracy. The bill would not place any requirements on applicants. Applicants who submitted incomplete applications or did not respond to requests from the municipality would not be held accountabl e for slowing the application process. Municipalities should not have to adhereto application process deadlines if applicants are not responsive. NOTE S: On February 28, the House passed a relatedbill, HB 266 by W. Smith,

which would set deadlines for counties to respond to permit applications. The Senate has not ye

t referred this bill to committee.

# T AB B81(R) HB 2833 - Senate Comm ittee R epo rt v ersion - Witness List Page 1 of 1

WITNESS LIST HB 2833 Senate Committee Report Intergovernm ental Relations May 20 ,2 00 9 -7 :3 0 AM • FOR: Bresnen, Steve (El Paso County), Austin, TX Registering, but not testifying: For: Allison , Jim (County Ju dges & Commissioners Association of Texas), Austin, TX

Lee, Donald (Texas Conference of Urban Counties), Austin, TX • Munoz, Ned (Texas Associatio n of Builders), Austin, TX York, Van County Ju dge (Borden Co unty), Gail, TX

http://www.cap itol.stat e.tx.us/t lodocs/ 81Ryw itlistbil l/html/H B02833 S.htm 9/3/201 4

# TAB CBILL ANA LYS IS

C.S.H.B. 28 33 By: Marquez County Affairs Committee Report (Substituted)

BAC KGR OUN D A ND PURP OSE Under curre nt l aw, certain counties do not have the author ity to adopt building codes in the unincorpor ated areas o f the county. This lack of county regulatory powe r contributes to the growth of substandard housing in colonias throughout the Texas-Mex ico border region. C.S.H.B. 2833 authorizes certain counties along the Texas-M exico border to adopt a building code applicable to new residential construction that b egins after September 1, 2009 , in the unincorp orated area o f the county. The bill authorizes t he building codes adopted under the provisions of the bill to contain only the same requirements a s the statutory warra nty and building and performance stand ards that apply to residential construction and any rules governing those standar ds adopted by the Texas Residential Construction Commission. C.S.H.B . 2833 requires a building code adopted by a commissioners court under the bill's provisions to require a person who builds new residential construction to meet specifi ed requirements, inclu ding providing notice to the county, arrangi ng for a third party inspection, and reporting the results o f the inspection to the county and other parties. The bill provides for enforcement of such a building code, including referr al of violations to the commis sion and injunctive relief. The bill makes it a Class C misdemeanor t o violate its provisions. The bill prohibits a county from charging a fee to a person regulated by the cod e. TTi e bill cla rifies that the new authority granted does not affect exi sting county authority to adopt orders or ordinances under oth er law. RUL EM AKI NG AUT HORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bil l does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department , agency, or institution. ANA LYS IS C.S.H.B . 2 833 amends the Local Government Code to authorize the commissione rs court in a county that in cludes territ ory within 50 miles of an internat ional border, has a population o f 700, 000 or more, contains a municipality with a population of 550,0 00 or more, and contains one or more colon ias or other developments compose d of substan dard hous ing, and in a county whos e commis sioners court adopts a resolution stating that the county expects population expansion as a result of the recommendations of the federal Defe nse Base Closure and Realignment Com mission, t o adopt a building code applicable to new residential construction in the unincorporated area of the county that begin s after September 1, 2009 . The bill provides that if a m unicipality located within such a coun ty has adopted a building co de in the municipality's extrate rritoria l jurisdiction, the b uilding code adopted by the municipality controls and a building code adopted by the county has no effect in the municipality's extrate rritori al jurisdiction. The bill prohibits these provisions from being construed to require prior approval b y the county before beg inning ne

w residential construction, to authorize the co mmissioners court of a co unty to adopt or enforce zoning regulations, or to affect the application of provisions related to the subdivisio n platting requirements in a county near an international border to land developme nt.

81R 2 3829 9.99 .109 Substitute D ocumen t Numbe r: 81R 1988 5The bill provides that in th e even t of a conflict between its prov isions and provisions related to the su bdivision platting requirements in a county near an internatio nal border , provisi ons related to the subdivisio

n platting req

uirements in a county near an internation al border control. C.S.H.B . 2S33 authorizes an adopted building code to contain onl y the same requirements as the statutory warranty and building performanc e standard s that apply to residential construction under the Texa s Residential Constructio n Commission Act, and any rules governing those standar ds adopted by the Texas Residential Construction Com mission. The bill requires the adopted building code to require a person who builds n ew residential construction to h ave the new residential construction inspected by a third-p arty inspector approved by the co mmissio n at the time and in the manner prescribed by rules adopted by the commissi on; before commenci ng new residential construction, to provide notice to the county o f the location of the ne

w residential construction on a form prescribed by the county, the date by which the new residential construction wil l be commenced , and the name of the third-party inspector who will inspect the new residential construction; and to submit not later than the 10th day after the date of each inspection a written repor t prepar ed by the thi

rd-party inspector of the inspection and describing the results of the inspection to the county employe e or department or agency of the county designated by the commissio ners court of the county and the pe rson who purchased the new residential construction from the builder, if applicable. C.S.H. B. 2833 authorizes the county, in order to enforce compliance with a building code adopted under the bill's provisions, to seek injunctive reli ef and impose certain penalties; to refer a builder registered under the T exas Residential Construction Commission Act who violates a provision of that act, or any rule adopted under that act, to the commi ssion for disciplinary action; and to refer a third -party inspector approved by the commissi on under the Texas Residential Construction Commission Act who violat es a provision of that act, or any rule adopted under that act, to that commissi on for disciplinary action. The bill authorizes the commi ssion to take any action with regard to a builder or third- party inspector that it is authorized to take by any other law with regard to new residential construction in a county that has adopted a building c ode authorized under these prov isions. The bill prohibits a county from charging a fee to a person regulated by a building code adopted under provision s of the bil l to defray the costs of en

forcing the code. C.S.HJB . 2833 provides that the author ity granted by these provisions does not affect the authority o f a commission ers court to adopt an order under other law. The bill entitles the county, in a s uit brought by the appro priat e attorne y representing the county in the district court, to appropriat e injunctive relief to prevent the violation or threatened violation of a building code from continuing or occurring. The bill makes it a Class C misdemeanor to vio late a restriction or prohibition imposed by a building code adopted under these provisions. C.S.H.B . 283 3 defin es "new resident ial constructio n." EFF ECT IVE D

ATE On passage, or, if t he ac t does not receive the necessary vote , the a ct takes e ffect September 1, 200 9. COM PARISO N OF ORI GIN AL AND SUB STIT UTE C.S.H.B. 2833 differs from the original by placing its provisions under law related to county regulation o f housi ng and other struct ures, whereas the original place s its provisions under law related to the authority of a municipality and a county to regu late subdivis ions in and outside of the municipality's extrate rritoria l jurisdiction. The substitute adds a definition for "new residential construction" that is not inthe original.

81R 2 3829 9.99. 109 Substitute Docum ent Num ber 8 1R 198 85C.S.H. B. 2833 differs from the original by applying its provisions to a county that has a population o f 7 00,00 0 or more, contains a municipality w ith a population of 550 ,000 or more, and contains one or more colonias or other developments compos ed of substandard housing, and by app lying its provisions to a county whose commissione rs court adopts a resolution stating that the county expects population expansion as a result of the recommendations of the federal Defe nse B ase Closure and Realignment Comm ission, whereas th e original a pplies its provisions to a municipa

lity in a county if that county doe s not exercise in the municipality's extraterrit orial jurisdiction the authori ty described by the bill and the county by resolution authorizes the municipality to e

xercise that authority in the municipality's extr aterrit orial jurisdiction. C.S.H.B . 2833 adds a provision not in the original t o authorize the commissio ners court in a county to adopt a building co de applicable to new residential construction in the unincorporated area of th e county and to se t forth building code requireme nts. The substitute adds a p rovision not in the original setting forth provisions for the enforcement of buildin g codes. C.S.H.B . 28 33 rem oves a provisio n from the original that authorizes the com missioners court of a county to regulate residential land devel opment in the unincorporated areas of t he county and that authorizes the gover ning body o f a municipality to regulate residential land dev elopment in the municipality's extrat erritor ial jurisdiction so that the municipalit y or county m ay prevent the proliferation of colon

ias by adopting certain

types of regulations. C.S.H. B. 2 833 removes a provision from the original that requires the county or municip ality to issue a bu ilding permit if the p erson submitting the application for th e permit satisfie s certain requirements. C .S .H 3. 283 3 removes a provision from the original providing that a municipal ordinance prevails within the municipality's jurisdictio n to the extent of a conflic t i f an order adopted b y the county con flicts with the municipality's ordinance. C.S.H.B . 2833 differs from the original b y making it an o ffense to violate the building code, rather than an order or ordinance, as in the original and by omitting an ex ception to the penalty in the original.

81 R2 38 29 Substitute Document Number: 81R 198 85 3 9.99 .109ACCE PTED 02-1 4-00 143- CV SEC OND COURT O F APPEALS FORT WORTH, TE

XAS 9/26 /201 4 11: 49: 55 AM DEBRA SPISA

K CLERK 

# N O . 02-14-00143 -CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS SE CO ND DIST RICT

OF TEXAS, FORT WOR TH

HARRY B IZIOS , APP EL LA NT

, 

### V. 

## TO WN OF LAKEW OOD VILLAGE, TEXAS,

APPELL EE.



## BRI EF OF AMICU S CURIAE PROPERTY OWN ERS ' ASS OC IAT ION OF SU NRISE BAY

WHITEHURST & CAWLEY, L.L.P. FRANK G. CAWLEY State Bar No . 24006 978 4560 Belt L ine Ro ad, Suite 200 Ad dis on , Texas 75

001 972 /50 3-5 455 Tel eph one 972 /50 3-6 155 Facsi mile Co un se l for Pro perty O wn ers ' A sso cia tio n Of Su nri se B ay

### IDEN TITY OF PARTIES AN D C OU NSE L

A m ic us C uria e P ro pe rty O wne rs ' As so ciatio n of S unri se Bay su p p le m e nts th e p arti es ' id entif ic at io n of part ie s an d co un se l w ith th e fo ll ow in g i

nf orm at io n: 1
. Am ic us C ur ia e i s P ro pe rty O wne rs ' A ss oc iat ion of Su nr is e Bay. 2. C ouns el for Am icu s C ur ia e is Fr ank G. C aw le y, W hi te hurs t & C aw le y, L.L.P. 4560 Belt line Rd ., Su ite 200, A dd is on , Te xas 75001

ii

### INTERE ST OF AMIC US CURIAE

P urs u ant to Te xas Ru le of App el late Pr oc ed ur e 11 , A m ic us C ur ia e, P ro p erty O wne rs ' As so ciatio n of Sunr is e Bay (" th e As so ciatio n" ), su bm its th is brie f in sup p o rt of App el lant , H arry Bizio s be caus e th e di sp os it io n of th e is su es ra is ed in th is ca se w ill sig ni fic antly aff ect th e As so ciatio n an d its

co ns ti tu ent p ro pe rty owne rs . Th e As so ciatio n is a d u ly or gani ze d Te xas no n- pr of it p ro pe rty
o wn er s as so ciatio n co m pr is ed of 1 74 pr op ertie s an d 17 1 pr o p erty owne rs . App ro xi m at el y 5 7 of th es e p ro pe rt ie s a re lo cate d w

ho ll y or parti al ly w ith in th e ex tr a- te rrito ri al juris di ct io n of th e Town of Lake w oo d Vil lag e. (CR 527). T he As so ciatio n an d its co ns ti tu ent pr op erty owne rs have a sig ni fic ant inte re st in th e su

bj ec t m atte r of th is ca se. Th e As so ciatio n is co mm itte d to

m ai nta in in g su st ai na bl e pr op erty va lu es , pr es ervi ng an d attr ac ti ng de si rabl e pr op erty owne rs , a n d m ai nt ai ni ng th e inte gr ity an d co ns tit ue nc y of th e As so ciatio n. If th is C ourt ho ld s th at th e T ow n of Lake w oo d Vi lla ge h as th e po w er to en fo rc e its or di nanc es , bu il di ng co de s, an d co nf isc ato ry b u il d in g pe rm it fee s in its ETJ, it w ill se rv e as a di sin ce nt iv e to pr op erty

o wn er sh ip an d trans fe r in th e su bje ct ETJ, re du ce th e po ol of attr ac tiv e

iii

### p urc h as er s, an d di sc oura ge th e impr ov em ent of pr op er ti es in th e L ak ew oo d Vi lla ge ETJ. Ea ch of the se w ill have a de le te ri ou s eff ec t o n p ro p er ty va lu es whi ch impa ct s a ll of th e 17 1 m

embe rs of th e A sso ciatio n. N o f ee s h av e b ee n p ai d fo r the fil in g of th is brie f.TABLE OF C ON TEN TS

IDENTITY OF PARTIE S AN D CO UNSEL INTEREST OF AM ICUS CURIAE TABLE OF CONTEN TS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ISSUES PRESENTED 

### Is su e 1: Whe th er a ge ne ra l law to wn h as th e p ow er to en fo rc e it s b u il d in g co de s a n d bu il di ng pe rm it fe

es in i ts extrate rr ito ri al juris di ct io n ab se nt e xp re ss s tatuto ry auth or ity. Is su e 2: Whe th er th e T

own e sta bl ish ed a pr ob ab le ri ght to th e relief so u g ht wh er e th e e

vi de nc e es

ta bl is he s t h at its b u il di ng p erm it fe es be ar no re as on ab le re latio ns hip to th e cost of re gu lati ng co ns tr uc tio n, a n d thu s con st itut e u

nl aw fu l ta

xes . SUMMA RY OF A RGUME NT 1 ,2 STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 ARGUM ENT AN D AUTHORITIES 3 

### Lake w oo d Vill ag e's Mot iv e in A tt empt in g to Re qu ire P erm it Fe es a n d to E nfo rce Bu ild ing Co de s is R ev enue G en er at io n, N ot H ea lth, S

afe ty a n d W elf are 3 As a G en er al Law T own, T he Po w er s of Lake w oo d Villa ge Ar e Li m ite d To Th

os e Ex pr ess ly Autho riz ed By Statute 7 There is No Statutory Authority Authorizing Lakew ood Village to Requir e Building Permits or to Enforce Building Codes in its ETJ 8 iii, iv v, v i .vii, viii, i

x 

### 1

### The Authority on Which Lakewood Village Relie s is Inapposite Becau se it is Based on a Different, Repealed S tatute and is no Longer Good La w 11 Lakewo od Vil lage's admission that it has not adopted Subc hapter B is fatal to its position 14 T he Tr ia l Court E

rr ed in Fi nd in g a Pr ob ab le Ri ght To Relief Be caus e Lak ew oo d V ill ag e's Bu ild in g Perm it Fee s C on st it ut e U nl aw fu l Tax

es 1 5 CO NC LU SI ON AN D PRAYER 1 8 CER TIFI CAT E O F SERVICE 1 9

vi

### INDE X OF A UTHO RITI ES

Ca se L aw Pag e(s) Bon Air Estates, In c. v. Village of Su ffern, 32 A.D .2d 92 1, 30 2 N. Y.S.2d 304 (1969) 16 Ci ty ofA us tin v . Jama

il, 662 S.W .2d 779, 782 (Tex. App . - Aus tin 19 83, w ri t dis m 'd) 7 Ci ty of Sweetwa ter v . Hamne r, 259 S.W
. 19 1, 19 5 (T ex. Civ. App . - Fo rt Worth 192 3, w ri t d is m 'd) 7 Ci ty of W es t Lak e Hills v . Westw ood Le

ga l Defen se Fund 598 S. W. 2d 681, 683, 684 (Tex. Ci v. App . - W ac o 1980, n o w ri t)

.. 7 Coloni al Oaks W

es t, Inc. v

. East B runswick, 296 A .2d 653, 660 (N.J. 1972 ) 1 6 Daniels v . Point Pleasant, 23 N.J. 35 7, 36 2, 12 9 A .2d 265 (N.J. 1957) 1 5 ,1 7 Ft. W or th v . GulfRefining Co., 12 5 Te x. 512 (Tex. 1935) 1 5 Health v. Ki

ng, 705 S.W .2d 812, 814 (Tex

. App . D all as 1986) 16 Hope v . Laguna Vist

a, 72 1 S.W. 2d 463, 463-464 (T ex. App . Co rp u s C hr is ti 1986) 7 Levy v . Ci

ty of Piano, 200 1 Tex

. App . LEXIS 7515 (Tex. A pp . D al las N ov . 8,2 0 0 1 ).

.. ll , 1 2 Lod ge of Ozarks , Inc. v. Branson, 796 S.W.2d 646 (Mo

. Ct
. A pp . 1990) 1 6 vii

### Lucas v. Nor th Texas Municipa l Wate r Dist., 724 S.W .2d 811, 824 (Tex. App . 1986) 1 1 ,1 2 Merrelli v. Ci

ty of St. Clair Shores, 355 M ich

. 575, 96 N.W .2d 14 4 (M ich. 1959) 1 5 Orange and Rockland Utiliti es v . Tow n of Clarkstown, 80 A .D .2d 846 ,4 44 N.Y.S. 2d 670 (1981) 1 5 ,1 6 Ra um v . Boar d of Su p' rs ofT red yjfr in T owns hip, 29 Pa
. C ommw . 9, 370 A .2d 777 (Pa

. C omw lth

. 1977) 16 Su n O il Co. v. Wh ita ker , 424 S.W .2d 216, 218 (Te x. 1968 ) 1 7 Te x. DOT v . Cit

y of S unse t Valle

y, 146 S .W .3d 637, 645 (Te x. 2004) 7 Townsh ip of Ridl ey v. Ridley Ar ms, Inc., 90 Pa
. C ommw . 14 3, 49 4 A .2d 870 (P a. C omw lth. 1985) 16 Tre vino & Gonzalez Co. v . R F

. Mulle r Co., 949 S.W.2d 39 ,4 0 (Tex. A pp . —Sa n A nt on io 199

7, n o w rit) 15 Van ce v. Pleasanton, 261 S.W. 4

57 ,4 59 (Tex. Civ. App . 1924) 16 St at ut es and Co de s Te x. Loc. G ovt. C od e §43.02 4 7 Te x. L oc. Govt. C od e §13.00 2 8 Te x. Loc. G ovt. C od e, C ha pt er 212 1 ,8 ,1 0 ,1 1 ,1 2 Te x. L oc. G ov t. C od e, §212 .002 8, 9 Te x. L oc. G ovt. C od e, §212. 003 8, 9 Te x. Loc. G ovt. C od e, §21 2.041 1 4 Te x. Loc. G ovt. C od e, §212.04 9 9 ,1 0 ,1 2 ,1 3 ,1 4

vii i

### Te x. Loc. G ov t. C od e, §212 .172 1 3

Te xa s Rev ise d C ivi l St at ut e 970a 1 1 Te xa s Rev is ed Ci vil S

tatute 970a , Ar

tic le 1, Se

cti on 4 1 2 Te xa s C on st itut io n 1 6

ix

### ISSU ES P RESENTE D Iss ue 1 Whe th er a ge ne ra l law to w n ha s th e po w er to en fo rc e its bu il di ng
co de s an d b u il d in g pe rm it fee s in its ex trate rr ito ria l juris di ct io n ab se nt

expr es s statuto ry auth or it y. Iss ue 2 Whe th er th e T own es tabl is he d a pr ob ab le ri g ht to th e relief so ug ht

whe re th e ev id en ce es ta bl is he s th at its b u il d in g pe rm it fe es be ar no
re as on ab le re lati on sh ip to th e co st of re gu latin g co ns tr uc tio n, an d thus
co ns ti tute unl aw fu l tax es . SUM MA RY OF AR GUM ENT G en er al law to wns su ch as th e To wn of Lake w oo d Vi lla ge po sse ss
on ly th e p ow er s expr es sly co nf erre d by th e le gi sl at ur e. C ontrary to Lake w oo d V ill ag e's ar gum ents , ne ith er su bc ha pt er A no r subc ha

pt er B of Te xas Lo cal G ov ernm ent C od e C hapt er 212 auth or iz e a ge ne ra l law to wn to re qui re b u il d in g pe rm its or en for ce bu il di ng co de s i n an ETJ. L ak ew oo d Vi lla ge can po int t o no othe r statute th at expr es sl y a utho ri ze s a ge ne ra l la

w to wn to re qu ir e bui ld in g pe rm its or en fo rce b u il d in g cod es in an ETJ. Thu s,

l

### ho m es co ns tr uc te d in th e Lake wo od Vil lag e ETJ. W ith th e ex ce pt io n of Biz ios ' ho m e, al l of th es e ho m es w er e bu il t be fo re 2011 wh en Lake w oo d Vi lla ge pa ss ed O rd in an ce 11- 11 whi ch p urp o rt s to re qu ir e pe rm it fe es an d to en fo rc e b ui ld in g cod es in th e ETJ. (CR 307-31 0). Th e A ss oc iat io n is on e of on ly tw o ho m eo wne rs or p ro pe rty owne rs
as so ci at io ns in Lake w oo d V ill ag e's ETJ. In 2013, th e Lake w oo d Vil lag e T own C ounc il pa ss ed O rd in an ce 13- 07 whi ch am en de d its Subd iv is io n O rd in an ce . (CR 345-367). Se cti on 36 of O rd in an ce 13- 07 p urp o rt s to pr oh ib it m an dato ry pr op erty ow ne rs as so ciatio ns an d ho m eo wne rs
as so ci at io ns th at ch ar ge m an dato ry fee s. (CR 366). Th e A ss oc iatio ns ' de ed

re stri ct io ns re qu ir e m embe rs hi p in th e re sp ec tiv e as so ci ati on s an d re qu ir e
m an d at o ry annu a l fees. (CR 454). T hu s, un d er O rd in an ce 1 3-0 7, L ak ew oo d Vi lla ge p urp o rt s to re stra in th e ri ghts of ne ar ly on e- th ir d of th e pr o p erty

owne rs in S unri se Bay fro m as so ci at in g an d co mpl yi ng w ith th ei r de ed

re stric tio ns . ARG UM ENT A N D AUTH ORIT IES A. L ak ew oo d V ill ag e' s M ot iv e in At tem pt ing to Re qu ire Per mit Fees an d to Enfo rce B ui ld in g C od es is Re ve nu e Ge ne rat ion , N ot He alt h, Sa fe ty and W

elfa re

3

### Th e co ntro lli ng iss ue in th is ca se is whe th er Lake wo od Vi lla ge can

re qu ir e pe rm it fee s an d en fo rce bu il di ng co de s in its ETJ ab se nt any st atuto ry auth or iz at io n pe rm itt in g it t o do so . H ow ev er , L ak ew oo d Vil lag e atte mp ts di sg ui se its tr u e m ot iv e thro u gh th e so ph is try of pr om ot in g he al th , sa fe ty , an d w el fare . Ac co rd in gl y, th e As so ciatio n w ill ad dre ss th is is su e a t t he outs et
. In it s Brie f, L ak ew oo d Vi lla ge ar gu es th at its tr u e inte nt in exte nd in g its b u il d in g co de s into its ETJ is so lel y to pr om ot e th e he al th , sa fe ty , an d

w el fare of it s cit ize ns an d th e re si de nt s of th e ETJ. H ow ev er , S unri se Bay ha s be en in ex ist en ce sin ce 199 5, an d 34 ho m es have be en co ns tr uc te d in Lake w oo d V ill ag e's ETJ pr io r to 2011 w h en it atte m p te d to exte nd its b u il d in g pe rm its an d co de s into th e ETJ. C on sp ic uo us ly ab se nt fr om L ak ew oo d V ill ag e's Brief is any m enti on of any ev id en ce of any he al th ,
sa fe ty , or w el fare iss ue s ar is in g o ut of th e co ns tr uc tio n of any of th es e 34 ho m es in th e inte rv en in g 16 ye ar s. C erta in ly if any ev id en ce ex ist ed to

s u p p o rt Lake w oo d Vi lla ge 's p urp o rt ed m ot iv e, it w o u ld be ci te d in it s Brief. Lake w oo d Vil lag e w ho lly fai ls to expl ai n why , afte r 16 ye ar s an d th e

4

### co ns tr

uc ti on of 34 ho m es , it su d d en ly be cam e co nc er ne d w ith th e he al th ,
sa fe ty , an

d w el fare of it s citiz en s a n d re si de nt s of th e ETJ. L ak ew oo d V ill ag e's tr u e m ot iv e fo r exte nd in g its bu ild in g pe rm it fee s
an d b u il d in g co de s int o th e ETJ is ev id en ce d by th e Apr il 12, 2012 m ee tin g
m inute s of th e Lake w oo d Vil lag e T own Co un ci l in whi ch th e m ay or ch ar ac te ri ze d S unri se Bay a s an unre al iz ed "a ss et " of th e to wn. (See Tab C atta ch ed to Bizi os Re ply Brief). Th is m ot iv e is als o ev id en ce d by th e
en o rm ou s pr of

it it rec eiv es by impo si ng its pe rm it fee s i n th e ETJ. Th e to ta l

co st to L ak ew oo d Vil lag e to have bu il di ng pl an s re vi ew ed an d in sp ec tio ns pe rf orm ed is $1200. (2 RR 144)

. Co in ci de nt al ly , th is is th e ex ac t am o unt L ak ew oo d V ill ag e ch ar ge d Bizi os in subc ontr ac to r fe es . (3 RR 19 ). O n to p of th at , L ak ew oo d Vil lag e ch ar ge d Bizio s $14,656.00 in bu il di ng pe rm it fe es . (2 RR 92-93 ). Th

us , Lak ew oo d Villa ge re al iz ed a $14,65 6.00 p ro fit fr om th e b u il d in g pe rm it f

ees f or th e con stru ct io n of o n e h om e. T he pr os pe ct of a si m ilar w in df

al l for co ns tru ct io n o n th e re m ai ni ng 20 or so lo ts in th e S unri se Bay po rt io n of Lake w oo d Vi lla ge 's ETJ ce rta in ly qu al ifi es as
re al iz in g an as se t. Lake wo od Vil lag e fai ls to expl ai n why it cann ot pr om ot e th e h ea lth , sa fe ty , an d w el fare thro ug h th e impo si tio n of its

5

### b u il d in g co de s w ith pe rm it f ee s th at h av e a m or e re as on ab le co nn ec tio n to th e co st of re gu latio n. Th is is be caus e Lake w oo d V ill ag e's m ot iv e is

re v enu e ge ne ratio n, an d th e pr om ot io n of he al th , sa fe ty , an d w el fare ju sti fic ati on i s a m er e pre te xt
. F urth er , th e fa ct th at Lake wo od Vi lla ge se ek s to pr oh ib it ho m eo wne rs
an d pr o p erty owne rs as so ciatio ns be lie s its su p p o se d inte re st in he al th ,
sa fe ty , an d w el fare . Th e Sunris e Bay PO A ha s an Arc hi te ctur al C ontro l C omm itt ee whi ch is ch ar ge d w ith ap p ro v in g co ns tr uc tio n pl an s fo r
co mpl ianc e w ith ac ce pta bl e co ns tr

uc tio n st an d ar d s. (CR 452-454). In ad d it io n , th e S unri se Bay De claratio ns of C ov en ants re qu ir e co ns tr uc tio n ap p ro v al by D ento n C ounty. (CR 452). Th e ab ol iti on of th e PO A w ou ld

re m ov e th es e ad di ti o n al lev els of co ns tr uc tio n ap p ro v al whi ch co ntri bute to th e h ea lth , sa fe ty an d w el fare of t he re si de nt s i n th e P OA
. L ak ew oo d Vi lla ge als o atte mpt s to jus tify its im po si tio n of b u il d in g
co de s an d bu il di n g pe rm its in th e ETJ by as se rt in g th at it m ig ht anne x it in th e future . H ow ev er , be caus e th e po pu lati on of Lake w oo d Vi lla ge is le ss th an 5 000, a

n d w ill al w ay s b e le ss th an 5000, it c an on ly ac hi ev e a nn ex at io n by a vo te of th e m aj or ity of th e qu al if ie d vo te rs in th e ETJ. T ex. Lo c.G ovt
.

6

### C od e §43.0 24. Th er e is ab so lute ly no po ss ib ili ty th at Lake w oo d Vi lla ge

co ul d garn er th e vo te s ne ce ssary fo r anne xatio n, an d Lake w oo d Vil lag e kn o w s it. (See Ta

b A atta ch ed to Bi zio s' Re ply Brief)

. On ce ag ai n, L ak ew oo d Vill ag e's st at ed m ot iv e is p ure subt er fu ge . B. As a Ge ner al Law To wn , Th e Po we rs of La ke wo od V ill ag e Are Li mi ted To Tho se Exp ress ly A ut ho riz ed By St atut e Genera l law cities possess only the powers and privileges expressly conferred on them by law. Tex

. DOT v. Ci ty of Sun set Va lley, 146 S.W .3d 637, 645 (Tex. 2004); Hope v . Laguna Vista, 721 S.W.2d 463, 463-464 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1986). A city cannot exercise its powers outside its limits without express statutory authority, unless the power is reasonably incident to those expressly granted. City of Austin v. Jamail , 6 62 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Tex. App. ~ Austin 1 983, w rit dism'd); C ity of Sweetwater v. Ha mner, 259 S.W. 191 , 195 (Tex. Civ. App. — Fort Worth 1923, writ dism'd). F urthermore, any f air, reasonable, or substanti al doubt about the existence of a power is resolv ed against a city. City of West La ke Hil ls v. Westwood Legal Defense Fun d, 598 S.W.2d 681, 683 (T ex. Civ. App. ~ Waco 1980, no writ). The court must examine the entire statute and construe it as a whole. Id. at 684. One provision will not be given a meaning inconsistent with or out of harmony with other provisions, though it might be susceptib le to such construction if standing alone. Id.

### Accordingl y, in order for Lakewood Vil lage to possess th e power to req uire

building permit s and building codes in the ETJ, there must be express statutory authority permitting it to do so. C. T here is No Statutory Authority Authorizing Lakewood Village to Requi re Building Permits or to Enforce Building Codes in it s ETJ Lakewood Village asserts that Texas Local Government Code Chapter 212, subchapte r A provides the statutory authority to extend the town's building permit and constructio n related ordinances into the areas constituting the tow n's extraterri torial jurisdiction (E TJ). It does not. Subchap ter A of Texas Local Government Code Chapter 212 governs muni cipal ities' regulation of subdivisions. Section 2 12.002 states: After a public hearing on the matter, the governing body of a municipalit

y may adopt rules governing plats and subdivisions of land within the municipality's jurisdiction to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the municipality and the safe, orderl y, and healthful development of the municipality. (empha sis adde d). Sectio n 212.003 allows for the extension of ordinances adopted under Section 21 2.002 int o the ETJ. Section 212.003 states as follow s: (a) Th e governi ng body of a municipality by ordinance may extend to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the municipality the application of municipal ordinances adopted u nder Section 212.002 and other municip al ordinances relating to access to public roads or the pumping, extraction, and use of groundwater by persons other th an retail public utilities, as defined by Section 13.002, Water Code,
8

### for t he purpose of preve nting the use or conta ct with groundwater that presents an actual or potential threat to human health. Taken together, Sections 212.002 - 212.003 only authorize a municipality to extend rules gov erning plats and subdivisions of land into its ETJ. Thus, the question b ecomes whethe r building codes and permit fees constitute "rules governing plat s and subdivisions of land." The answer to this question lies in the legislative sch eme contained in Chapter 212 wherein laws governing the regulation of subdivisio ns and laws governing the regulation of property development are codified in sep arate subchapters

. While Subch apter A of Texas Local Governme nt Code Chapter 212 governs the regulation of subdivisions, Subchapter B governs the regulation of property development. "Prop erty dev elopment" is defined as "th e new construction or the enlargement of any exterior dimension of any build ing, structure, or improve ment." Further, Section 212.049 provides "Th is subchapter [subchapter B ] does not autho rize the municipality to require municipal building permits or otherwise enf

orce the municipality's building code i n its extraterritorial jurisdic tion." There are several important conclusions to be drawn from this statutory scheme:

9

### 1. The separation of subchapters A and B establishes that there is a distinctio n between the regulation of subdivisions and the regulation of property deve lopment; 2. The legis latur e's inclusion o f Section 212 .049 in subcha pter B indicates that building permits and building codes fall within the realm of the regulatio n of property development rather than the regulation of subdivisi ons; 3. The express statutory authority of a municipality to regulate property development does not include the authorization to require building permits or to enforce building codes in an ETJ; Based on these inescapable conclusions, neither subchapter A nor subchapte r B authoriz e a municipality to require building permits or enforce building codes in an ETJ. This is because subchapte r A does not address rules relating to pro perty development such as buildin g permits and bui lding code s, and subchapter B expressly provides that it does not authoriz e a municipality to require
I 

### building permits or enforce building codes in an ET J. As s et forth above, Lakewood Village is a general law tow n w hose powers must be expressly authorized by statute. Because neither subchapter A or subchapter B of Texas Local Government Code Chapter 212 provide authority to require building perm its of enforce building co des in the ETJ, Lakewood Villag e is prohibited from d oing so. Thus, Lakewood V illage failed to sho w a probable right to the relief sought , a nd th e trial court err ed in g ranting a temporary injunction in favor of Lakewood Village.

10

### D. The Authority on Which Lakewood Village Relies is Inapp osite Be cause

it is Based on a D

ifferent, Repealed Statute an d is no Longer Good L aw Lakewood Village relies on Lucas v. North Texas Municipal Water Dist., 724 S.W.2d 811, 824 (Tex. App. 1986) for the proposition that the power to regulate subdivisions encompasses the power to require building permits and enfor ce building codes. Lakewood Vill age' s reliance on Lucas is misplaced. In Luc as, interpreting T exas Revis ed Civil Statute 970a, the D allas Court o f Ap peals held "Conseque ntly, we conclude that the power over subdivisions conferred by article 970a necessarily or fairly implies a right to issue regulations governing constructio n of housing, buildings, and the components there of." Id. However , the Dallas Court of Appeals has since reversed course on this issue. Interpretin g the current v ersion of Chapter 212, the D allas Court of Appeals held "A city is statutorily prohib ited from regulating land us e and co nstructio n on property in its ETJ; a city may apply only its subdivision ordinances to such prop erty. " L evy v . City of Pian o, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 7515 (Tex. App. Dallas Nov
. 8, 2001)(not designated for publication) (Emphasis added). The Levy court proper ly recognized that the regulation of subdivisions does not encompass the regulation of construc tion on property. Th us, Lucas is no longer good law and does not support Lakewood Vi llag e's position.

l i

### Furtherm ore, the statutory schem e set forth i n the current versio n of Chapter 212 is no t th e same as existed when Lucas was decided. The Lucas court based its holding on the interpretation of Texas Revised Civil Statute 970a, Article 1, Section 4 which allowed a city to extend its ordinances establishing rules and regulati ons governing subdivisions and plats into its ETJ. 1 

### However, unlike the current vers ion of Chapter 212, there was no separate subchapter relating to the regulati on of property development. I d. Thus, the Lucas c ourt's holding was based
on th e interpretation o f a diff erent statut e and is inapplicable to the current version of Chapter 212. This e xplains why th e D allas Court in L evy h eld that general l aw towns are prohibited from regulating construction on property in a n ETJ without
even c iting L ucas. Lakew ood Village co ntends that subchapter A p rovides authority to require building permits and enfo rce building codes in ETJ s to all type s of municipalities. Howev er, if this were true, Tex.Loc.Govt. Code Section 212.049 would be meani ngless

. If Lakewood Village is correct, there would be no reason to s tate tha t nothing in subchapter B aut horizes a m unicipality to req uire building permits and enforce building codes in the ETJ if subchapter A already authorized all municip alities to do so . Rathe r, section 212.049 means that municipalities that do not poss ess this power cannot use subchapter B as authority to require building

1 Se e en rolle d vers ion o f H.B . 1 3, 58 t h legislature, 1963 http://www .lrl.st ate.tx .us/L ASDO CS/5 8R/H B13/H B13 5 8R.pdiW pagc= 104

### permits or to enforce building codes. Thus, Section 212.049 is a recognition that

some types of municipalities cannot require building p ermits and en force building codes in E TJs. In addition, Local Government Code Section 212.172 provides that a municipality can enter into a written agreement with a land owner to enforce the
mun icipa lity's development regulations in the ETJ. If all municipalitie s have the right to enforce development regulations in the ETJ as a matter of right as Lakewoo d Vi llage contends, ther e would be no reason for any agr eement be tween
a municip ality and a land owner . Again, Section 212.172 reflects a recognition that
some types of municipalities c annot requ ire buildin g permits and enf orce building codes in E TJs. Lakewoo d Village disi ngenuously a rgues that through a resolution passed in 2010, Denton County recognized its right to require building permits and to enforc e building codes in its ETJ. (CR 200-204). However, Lakewood Vill age 's Town Counci l meeting minutes contradict this argument. O n Augu st 11, 2011, t he Town Secretary informed the Town Council about "Dent on County issuing building permits in Lakewood Village ETJ and refusing to support the town's authority to enforce building permits and inspections on proposed constructio n." (See Tab B attached to Bizios Reply Brief). Contrary to Lakewood Vil lage 's argument, Denton County d oes not supp ort Lakewood Vil lage 's argument. In any 13

### event, Lakewo od Village provides no authority for the proposition that a county

can co nfer pow ers on a general law town where the legis lature has refu sed to grant such powe

rs. E. Lakewo od Village's admission that it has not adopted Subchapte r B is fatal to its position Recogni zing that Section 212.049 is dispositi ve, La kewood Village claims th at it has not adopted subchapter B as required by Section 212.041. Therefore, Lakew ood Village claims that Section 212.049 is inapplicable. (App ellant's Brief at pgs. 26-27)

. If it is tru e that Lakewood Village has not adopted subchapte r B, then it has no power to regulate property development at all. As set forth above, subchapte r A does not address property development regulations in general or building permits or building codes specifically. Lakewood Village could only conceivably derive the power to regulate property deve lopment from sub chapter B
. Thus, Lakewoo d Villa ge's admission that it has not adopted subchapter B is fat al to its pos ition in th is case. In other words, Section 212.049 establ ishes that buil ding permits and bu ilding codes fall with in the realm of p roperty d evelopment which is governed by subchapter B. If subchapter B confers no powers on Lakewood Village, by necessity, Lakewood Village lacks the power to regulate property developme nt, including any regulat ion of building permits and building codes

.

14

### F. Th e Tri al Court Erred in Fi nd in g a Pro bab le Rig ht To Re lie f

Be ca us e La ke wo od V ill ag e' s Bu ild in g Per mit Fee s Co ns tit ut e U nl aw fu l T axe s T he tr ia l C o urt 's O rd er G rant in g T empo rary In junc tio n fo un d th at L ak ew oo d Vi lla ge es ta bl is he d a pr ob ab le ri g ht to relief on its cl ai m th at Bizi os is re q

u ir e d to ob ta in bu ild in g pe rm its fr om th e to wn, in cl ud in g th e p aym ent of p er

m it fee s. (CR 651-653). H ow ev er , th e ev id en ce es ta bl is he s th at L ak ew oo d Vi lla ge 's pe rm it fe es ar e far in ex ces s of th e co st of

re g u lati o n , a

n d thus , co

ns tit ut e tax es . A b u il di ng p er

m it is si m

pl y a lic en se auth or iz in g co ns tru ct io n. Trevi no & Gonzale

z Co. v. R.F. Muller Co., 949 S.W .2d 39, 40 (Tex. Ap p.— San Ant on io 19 97 , n o writ ). A lic en se fe e cann ot be ex ces siv e no r m o re th an
re as on ab ly ne ce ss ar

y to co ve r th e co sts of g rant in g th e lic en se an d

ex er ci si ng p ro p er pol ice re gu latio n. Ft. W or th v . G ulf Refining Co., 12

5 Tex
. 512 (Tex. 19 35)

. C ourt s ac ro ss th e co untry have an al yz ed whe th er b u il d in g pe rm it fe es ar e in fa ct pe rm iss ib le re gu lato ry fe es or pr oh ib ite d tax es . Merrelli v . Ci ty of St

. Clair Shores, 355 Mi ch. 575, 96 N.W .2d 14 4 (M ich

. 195 9); Daniels v . Point Pleasant, 23 N.J. 3 57 ,1 29 A. 2d 265 (N.J. 195 7); Orange and Rockland Util ities v . Tow n of Cla rkstown , 80 A .D .2d 84 6,4 44 N.Y.S .2d 670

15

### (1981); Bon A ir Estates, Inc. v . Village of S uffern , 32 A.D. 2d 921, 30 2 N.Y.S. 2d

304 (1969); Township of Ridley v. Ridley Ar ms, Inc., 90 P a. C ommw . 14 3, 494 A. 2d 870 (Pa

. C omw lth

. 1985) ; Ra um v. Bo ard of Supers of Tred yffrin Townsh ip, 29 Pa
. C ommw . 9, 370 A.2 d 777 (Pa. C omw lth

. 197 7); Coloni al Oaks W es t, Inc. v . East Brun swick , 296 A .2d 653, 660 (N.J. 19 72). Th es e ca se s h o ld ge ne ra lly th at t

he am o unt of th e f

ee m ay no t exce ed th e cost of i ss ui ng th e pe rm it an d of in sp ec ti ng an d re gu latin g th e pe rm itte d ac tiv ity an d th at

a c ity do es n o t hav e a po w er to impo se a tax un d er th e gu is e of a lic en se or pe rm it

. Id.; Lod

ge of Ozark

s, Inc. v . Branson, 796 S.W .2d 646 (Mo

. Ct. App . 199 0). M un ic ip al iti es ar e stric tly lim ite d in th eir po w er to tax by th e po w er s g rante d to th em by th e Te xa s C on st itutio n or by st at ute
. Heath v . King, 705 S.W .2d 812, 8 14 ( Tex. App . D all as 198 6). A ge ne ra l l aw to wn h a s no p ow er to tax outs id e of its co rp or at e lim its

. V ance v . Pleasanton, 26 1 S.W
. 4 57, 459 (Tex

. Ci v. App . 192

4). So if th e ex ces siv e pe rm it fe es co ns titut e tax es , th ey
are un law fu l. In th is ca se , t

he re can be no qu es tio n th at th e T o wn 's bu il di ng p e rm it fe es co ns tit

ut e pr oh ib ite d tax es. Th e to ta l co st to Lake w oo d Vil lag e to h av e

16

### b u il d in g pl an s re vi ew ed an d in sp ec tio ns pe rf orm ed is $1200. (2 RR 1 44)

. Lake w oo d Vi lla ge ch ar ge d Bizi os $1200 in su bc ontr ac to r fee s. (3 RR 1 9)

. F urth er , Lake w oo d Vil lag e ch ar ge d Bizio s $14,656.00 in bu il di ng pe rm it fee s. (2 RR 9 2-93). T hu s, Lake w oo d Vil lag e r ea liz ed a $14,65 6.00 p ro fit fr om th e b u il d in g p er

m it fe es for th e co ns truc ti on of on e ho m e. Th es e fee s ar e
ov er 12 00% in exc ess of th e T

o w n' s i ns pe ct io n a

n d pl an re vi ew co sts
. Thes e p erm it fe es be ar no re as on ab le re latio ns hip to th e co st of re gu latio n an d

ar e, th er ef

or e, tax es . See Daniels v. Point Pleasant, 23 N.J. 357, 362 (N.J. 19 57 )( ho ld in g bu il di ng pe rm it fe es th at exc eed co st of re gu latio n by 700% inva li d tax ) P art of th e relief Lake w oo d Vil lag e se ek s is th e re qu ir em ent th at Biz ios

o b ta in b u il d in g pe rm it s fr om th e to wn whi ch in cl ud es th e p aym ent of its

ex ce ss iv e pe rm it fee s. As th e pla int iff , Lake w oo d Vil lag e bo re th e b urd e n of p ro v in g th at it h a d a pr ob ab le ri ght to th e relief so ug ht

. Sun Oil Co. v. W hi ta ke r, 424 S.W .2d 216, 218 (Tex. 196 8). Be cau se Lake w oo d Vi lla ge 's b u il d in g pe rm it fee s are un law fu l t ax es, th e tri al c o urt erre d in fi nd in g th at L ak ew oo d Vi lla ge es tabl is he d a pr ob ab le ri g ht to relie f as to its cl ai m th at Biz ios is re qu ir ed to p ay impe rm is si bl y exc ess ive pe rm it fe es.

17

### CO NC LU SIO N AN D PRAYER

L ak ew oo d Vi lla ge ha s no po w er to re q u ir e b u il d in g pe rm its or to

en fo rc e bu il di n g co de s in it s ETJ be caus e th er e is n o st at uto ry auth ority g ranti n g th es e po w er s. F urth er , Lake wo od Vi lla ge 's b u il d in g pe rm it fe es
co ns ti tute tax es whi ch cann ot be impo se d outs id e th e to wn li m its

. A cc or di ng ly , th e tr ia l co urt er re d in gr anti ng th e te mpo rary in junc tio n. Am icus Curiae pr ay s th at th e C ourt re ve rs e th e tr ia l c o urt 's O rd er G rant in g T em po rary In

junc tio n, an d th at th is ca se be re m an d ed for furth er pr oc ee di ng s co

ns ist ent w

ith th is Co urt 's op in io n.

Respectfully Submitte d,
/s/Frank G. Cawle v FRANK G. CAWLEY State Bar No. 2400697

8 WHITEHURST & CAWLEY, L.L.P. 4560 Belt Line Rd., Su

ite 202 Addison, Texas 75001 (972 )503 -545 5 (972) 503-6155 - Facsimile Counsel for Amicus C uriae

18

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was forwarded to the following counsel of record and unrepresented parties via certified mail, return receipt requested, pursuant to the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedu re 9.5 on the 26th day of September, 2014: The Honorable Jonathan Bailey 431 s t 

### Judicia l District Court D ento n C ounty Court s B ui ld in g 145 0 E as t M cK inn ey S

tr ee t D ento n, T

exa s 76209 A ndre w M es se r M es se r, R

ock efe ller & Fo rt, PLLC 6351 P re st on Ro ad , Su

ite 350 Fr isc o, Te

xa s 75034 A rthur J. A nd er so n W in st ea d, P

C 500 Win st ea d Bu ild in g 2728 N
. H ar

w oo d S tr ee t Da lla s, Te

xas 75201 /s /F r ank G. Caw le v

Fr ank G. C aw le y

19

### CERTIFICATE OF COMPLI ANCE As re q u ir ed by Tex as Ru le of App el late Pr oc edur e 9.4(i)(3 ), I certifyth at th er e is a to ta l of 4,759 w o rd s in th e fo re go in g co mpute r- ge ne rate d do cum ent. C ouns el is rel yi ng on a c ompute r ge ne rate d w o rd co unt. / s/ F rank G. C aw le y Fr ank G
. C aw le y

20Divi sion 51- 4.40 0. Yar d, L ot, and Spa ce Regu latio ns.
SE C. 51- 4.40 1. MIN IMU M FR ON T YARD. (a) Ge ner al p rovi sion s. (1) Require d front yar ds mu st be open and uno bstr ucte d exc ept for fen ces . Ex cep t as othe rwi se provi ded in th is se ctio n, ordinary p roje ctio ns o f wi ndo w sills , belt courses , corn ices , and othe r arch itect ural feature s may not pro ject mor e than 12 inc hes into the requ ired fro nt yar d. A fireplace chimney may pro ject up to two fee t into the req uire d fro nt yard if its area of proje ction does not exc eed 12 squ are feet

. Cantile ver ed roof eav es and balco nies may pro ject up to fiv e feet into the require d front yard. (2) Th e front yar d setba ck is mea sure d from the front lot line of the bui ldin g site or the requ ired right-of- way as dete rmi ned by the tho rou ghf are plan for all tho rou ghf

are s, whi che ver creates the great er setb ack

. On min or stre ets, th e front yard set bac k is mea sure d from the front lot line of the buil ding site or the exis ting right-of

way, whi che ver creates the greater setb ack

. Whe n the city council by ordi nan ce est abl ish es a spe cifi c right-of -way line for a stree t, the fro nt yard setb ack is mea sure d fro m that right-o f-way li ne.

(3) If a buil ding line that is e stab lishe d b y ord inan ce requ ires a g reat er or les ser front y ard than pres crib ed by Sect ion 51-4 .410 , t he buil ding line establis hed by ord inance dete rmi nes t

he min imum r equir ed f

ront yar d. (4) Re ser

ved

. (5) If a lot run s from one stre et to ano ther and has double frontage , a requir ed front yard mus t be provi ded on both stre ets. If acce ss is proh ibite d on one fro nta ge by plat or by the city, the follo win g struc tures or portion s of stru ctur es in the yar d a long that fron

tag e a re gove rned by t

he r ear y ard regu latio ns in S ectio n 5 1-4 .403 : (A ) Swi mm ing pool s. (B ) Gam e cou

rts. (C ) Fen ces . (D ) Gar age s. (E ) Acc esso ry s tora ge build ings

.

21 2(6) If stre et frontage with in a blo ck is divi ded by two or mor e zon ing

district s, the fro nt yar d for the enti re bloc k mus t com ply with the requ irem ents of the dis tric t with th e greate st front y ard r equi reme nt.

(7) If a bu ildin g i s ere cted or al tere d t o exc eed 36 f eet in height, and if the bui ldin g site is eith er perp endi cularly contigu ous to or perp endi cularly acro ss an adj oin ing str eet from an R, R(A ), D, D(A ), TH , TH (A) , or CH district, an addi tion al setb ack mu st be prov ided that is e qua l to twic e the height of that porti on of the bui ldin g that e xce eds 36 fee t. The add itio nal setba ck is on ly requ ired for that po rtion of a b uild ing that ex cee ds 3 6 fe et in height.

(8) The mini mum front yard requ irem ents in a planned dev elo pm ent dis tric t are contro lled by th e pl ann ed d evel opm ent district regu latio ns.

(9) In a mul tiple -fam ily, MH , A, offi ce, commer cial , central are a, or industr ial district , t he board of adju stme nt may allo w a spe cial exce ptio n from the front yar d req

uir em ent s of Sec tion 51-4 .410 to per mit the erec tion of a perm anently con stru cte d port e-co che re, cove red walkway , or can opy if the stru ctur e is rect ilin ear in sha pe an d doe s no t exc eed 25 feet in w idth at th e b uild ing line, and if th e b oar d finds that the stru cture will not a dve rsel y af fec t neighbor ing pro perty. (b ) Fro nt ya

rd p rov isio ns for re side ntia l dis trict s. (1) If a co rner lot in a sing le-family , duple x, o r ag ricu ltur al distr ict has tw o str ee t frontage s of equ al dist anc e, one fro nta ge is gov erne d by the front yard regulatio ns of this sect ion, and the othe r fro ntag e i s g overned by the side yar d regu latio ns in Sec tio n 51-4 .402
. If the corn er lot has two stre et frontag es of une qua l dist anc e, the sho rter fro nta ge is gov erne d by thi s sect ion, and the long er frontag e is gov erne d by the sid e y ar d regulation s in Sect ion 51-4 .402
. N otw iths tand ing thi s prov isio n, th e continu ity of the est abl ish ed setb ack alo ng stree t fron tage mu st be mai ntai ned

. (2) In a resid entia l district, if a stru cture spec ified in Sec tion 51- 4.4 08( a)( 1) is erec ted or alte red to exce ed the max imum height allow ed in Sec tion 51­ 4.4 10, an add itio nal setb ack must be prov ided that is equ al to one- half the height of that por tion of the buil ding that exce eds 36 fee t, up to a max imum tota l setb ack of 50 fee t. Th e a ddi tio nal setb ack is on ly requi red for that portion of a b uild ing that e xce eds 36 fee t in hei ght. In case of con flic t betw een Sub sec tion (a)( 7) and this pro visi on, Sub sect ion (a) (7) ap pli es. (3) If a T H distr ict abut s a noth er r esid ent ial distr ict, as def ined both in thi s cha pte r and in Cha

pter 51A, in the same bloc k and fro nts on the sam e side of the stre et, the resi dential district with the great er front yard req uire ment dete rmi nes the min imum fro nt y ard

. T he mini mum front yard for the resi dential district with the greater front ya rd requ irem ent m

ust exte nd at lea st 150 fee t into th e TH district.

21 3(4) In a m anu factured home district, a m anu fact ured hom e m ay not be located clos er than 20 fee t to a pub lic stree t right-of- way or a priv ate driv e used for acc ess , circul atio n, or serv ice to a lot o r stand w here a m anu fact ure d h ome is lo cat ed. (5) Res erv ed. (6 ) Res erve d. (7) In MF -3 and MF -4 districts, if a bui ldin g is erect ed or alter ed to exc eed 36 fe et in height, an addi tion al setba ck mus t b e p rov ided that is e qual to one- half the hei ght of that porti on of the build ing that exc eed s 36 fee t, up to a max imum tota l setb ack of 50 fee t. The add itio nal setba ck is only requ ired for that porti on of a build ing that exc eed s 36 fee t in height. In cas e of conf lict betw een Sub sect ion (a) (7) and this pro visi on, Sub sect ion (a) (7) a ppl ies. (c) Fro nt ya

rd prov isio ns for no nresi denti al d istri ct s. (1 ) In a nonresi dential distr ict, if a buil ding is erec ted or alte red to exc eed 36 fee t in height and if th e b uild ing site is eith er perp endi cularly contigu ous to or per pen dic ular ly acro ss an adjo inin g stree t from a MF -1, M F- l(A ), MF- 2, or MF -2(A ) dis tric t, an a ddi tion al s etba ck mu st b e p rovid ed t hat is e qua l to one -ha lf the h eig ht o f th at por tion of the buil ding that exc eed s 36 feet, up to a max imum tot al setb ack of 50 fee t. Th e add itio nal setb ack is only requ ired for that porti on of a buil ding that ex cee ds 36 fee t in h eight. (2) Res erv ed.

(3 ) In the CA -l- CP and CA -l- SP district s, a 10-f oot setb ack is req uire d that is mea sure d from the stree t curb as esta blis hed by the Da llas Central Bu sin ess Dis tric t Stre ets and Veh icul ar Circu latio n Plan , Ord inan ce No. 132 62, as am end ed. Wh en an own er esta blis hes a setba ck on his pro perty greater than the 10-f oot req uir em ent , a floo r are a bonus of six time s the add itio nal setb ack area is allo we d. The max imum perm itted flo or area ratio with a b onus is 24 to o ne.

(4) In a CA -1 distr ict, a side walk mus t be prov ided betw een the back of th e stre et cur

b and the fac e of a build ing at grad e in acco rdan ce with thi s sub sect ion. Th e face o f a bui ldin g is behi nd the columns for a buil ding with exte rior col umns.

(A ) Av era ge sidew alk width equ als the tota l side wa lk surf ace are a divid ed by th e lin eal f eet of f ront age . (i) Eac h frontage on eac h bloc k mus t contain the req uir ed ave rag e sid

ewa lk w idth

.

(ii ) The computation of ave rag e side wal k widt h exc lud es t

he are a oc cupi ed by st ruct ural wal ls or columns .
21 4(iii ) In comp uting ave rag e side wal k width, the sur fac e

area at th e c orn er is counte d o nly onc e.

(B) In a CA -l- CP distr ict, side wal ks mu st be con stru cted and mai ntai ned in a cco rdance with the follo wing regu latio ns. (i) An avera ge si dew alk width o f 18 fee t is req uire d. (ii) A minimum side wal k widt h of 12 feet that is uno bstr ucte d by any stru ctur e or planting is requ ired

. Th e 12- foo t mini mum side wa lk width m ay b e d ivid ed into seve n- and fi ve- foo t minimum seg me nts
.

(C) In a CA -l- SP distri ct, side wal ks mu st be con stru cted and mai ntai ned in ac cor dan ce with the follo win g re gulation s. (i) A build ing w ith a fl oor are a ratio of m ore than 1 5 t o one is subje ct to the requ irem ents of th e CA- l-C P distri ct in Sub sect ion ( c)(4 )(B ). (ii ) A build ing with a flo or are a ratio of 15 to one or less mus t hav e an ave rage sidew alk width of 15 fee t and a min imum side wal k width of nine fee t that is un obs truc ted by a ny s truc ture or pl anti ng. (D) In a CA -1 district with out a CP or SP ove rlay district des ign atio n, sid ew alk s mus t be cons truc ted and mai ntai ned in acco rdan ce with the foll ow ing regulation s: (i) A build ing w ith a fl oor area ratio of m ore than 1 5 t o one is s ubj ect to the requ irem ents of th e CA- l-C P distri ct in Sub sect ion ( c)(4 )(B ). (ii ) A build ing with a flo or are a ratio of 10 to one thro ugh 15 to on e mus t hav e an ave rage side walk width of 15 feet and a min imum side wal k wi dth of n ine f eet t hat is unobs truc ted by an y st ructure. (iii ) All othe r buil ding s mu st prov ide a min imum side wal k w idth of 1 0 fe et with s even fee t unobstru cted by a ny stru cture or planting

. (d) Sp eci al excep tion for tree pres ervatio n. (1 ) The board may grant a spe cial exc epti on to the min imum fro nt yard require me nts in this sectio n to pres erve an ex istin g tree .

(2 ) In dete rmin ing whe ther to grant thi s spe cia l exc epti on, the board sha ll co nsid er the fo llow ing fact ors:

(A ) Wh eth er the requ ested spec ial exc epti on is c ompati ble with the charact er o f th e ne ighb orho od.

21 5(B) Whe ther the valu e of surr oun din g prop ertie s will be adv erse ly a ffec ted. (C) Whe ther the tree is worthy of pre serv atio n. (e) Sch edu le o f minimum front yard s. (1) Exc ept as prov ided in this sect ion, a pers on shal l not ere ct, alt er, convert, or ma inta in a stru ctur e or part of a struc ture in vio lati on of the mini mum fro nt yar d requ irem ents of Sec tion 51-4 .410
. ( Ord

. N os. 169 59; 170 44; 174 42; 174 45; 178 59; 19 06 0; 19 45 5; 20 23 6; 20 36 0; 22 05 3; 2653 1)
SE C. 51- 4.40 2. MIN IMU M S IDE YA RD . (a) Ge ner al p rovi sion s. (1) Req

uire d side yar ds mus t be ope n and uno bstr ucte d exc ept for fen ces . Excep t as oth erw ise provi ded in th is se ctio n, o rdin ary proj ecti ons of w indo w s ills , belt courses , cornice s, and othe r arch itec tura l features may no t proj ect mor e than 12 inc hes into the requ ired sid e yar d. A fire plac e chimney may pro ject up to two feet into the requ ired sid e y ard if it s a rea of proje ction doe s no t ex cee d 12 squ are fee t. R oof eav es may pro ject up to thr ee fee t into the requ ired side yar d. Ba lco nie s may not proj ect into the req uire d si de yard

. (2) The side yard setb ack is mea sure d from the side lot line of the bui ldin g site , exc ept whe n a front y ard is treated as a side yar d, the setb ack is me asured from the lot line or the exis ting right-of- way , as dete rmin ed by the tho roughfare plan , fo r all tho rou ghf

are s exc ept for min or stre ets, whi che ver cre ate s the greater setb ack

. On mi no r stre ets, the setb ack is meas ured from the lot line or th e exis ting right-of -way, whi che ver creates t

he greater setbac k. (A) Wh en city counci l by ordi nan ce e stab lish es a sp ecif ic r ightof-w ay l ine f

or a street , the requi red setba ck i s me asure d fr om that rig ht-o f-way li ne. (3) If a build ing is erec ted or alter ed to exc eed 36 fee t in heig ht and the buil din g site is eith er perp endi cularly cont iguo us to or, if a fro nt yard is treat ed as a sid e yar d, per

pen dicu larl y acro ss an adjo inin g stre et or alle y from an R, R(A ), D, D( A) , TH , T H(A ), or CH dis tric t, a n a ddi tion al setb ack mus t b e pro vid ed that is equ al t o twi ce the tota l h eight of t he buil din g. The add itio nal setb ack is o nly requ ired for that po rtion of a bu ildin g th at exce eds 3 6 fe et in height.

(4) A unitary air con ditio ning unit whi ch has a stan dard sound rat ing number (SR

N) des ign atio n of 20 or less acco rdin g to the Ai r Con ditio ning and Ref rige rati on Inst itut e m ay be locat ed in the requ ired side yard, but not nearer than thr ee fee t to the prop erty line as fo llow s:

21 6(A) no mor e than thre e unit s with a SRN des ign atio n of 18 or less wi th a mi ni mum sep aration of 10 fee t between unit s;

(B) no mor e than two unit s with a SRN des ign atio n of 19 or less with a mini mum sep arat ion of 1 0 feet betw een unit s; or

(C ) no m ore th an o ne unit with a SR N d esig nati on of 20. (5) Th e min imum side yard requ irem ents in a planned deve lopm ent dis tric t ar e co ntro lled by th e pl ann ed d evel opm ent distri ct re gul atio ns. (b) Side yard pro visi ons for resid entia l dis trict s. (1) In a sing le-family district, one requ ired sid e yar d may be redu ced belo w the setb ack requ ired in Sect ion 51-4 .410 , if the othe r sid e yard is incr ease d to at lea st double the side yar d requ ired in Secti on 51-4 .410 , sub jec t to the follo wing con diti ons : (A) Th e minim um side yard betw een stru ctur es on cont iguo us lots mu st n ot be less than the m inimum side yard requ ired in S ecti on 51- 4.4 10.

(B ) To redu ce th e re quire d s ide yard , a sub divi sion plat must be app rov ed by the commis sion and filed with the county clerk sho win g the location of all bui ldin g line s, and sho win g the propo sed dist anc es betw een the buil ding line s and pro perty l ine s, st

reet s lines, and alley line s. (C) A pers on may not ere ct an acc esso ry stru cture exce pt for a sw imm ing poo l and its a ppurten anc es i n the double si de yard

. (2) In a resi dential distr ict, if a stru ctur e spe cifi ed in Sect ion 51- 4.4 08( a)( 1) is erec ted or alte red to exce ed the max imum height allo wed in Sec tion 51­ 4.4 10 , a n add ition al setb ack mus t b e prov ided that i s equa l t o one -ha lf the height of that portion of the buil ding that exc eed s 36 feet , up to a max imum tot al setba ck of 50 feet. Th e add itio nal setb ack is o nly requ ired for that port ion of a b uild ing that exc eed s 3 6 feet in he ight. In cas e of con flic t betw een Subs ectio n (a)( 3) and this pro visi on, Subs ectio n (a) (3) app lies

. (3) In a resi dential distr ict, a pers on need not pro vid e a side yard set bac k fo r a s truc ture acc esso ry t o a r esid entia l use if the stru cture: (A ) doe s no t exceed 1 5 fe et in he ight; and (B) is lo cated in the rea r 30 perc ent o f the lot

. No te: Th is para grap h d oes not appl y to a front y ard gov erne d b y th e side yar d r egul atio ns in S ect ion 51-4 .402 (su ch a s a fr ont y ard t

reat ed a s a s ide y

ard on a corner lot)

.
21 7(4) In a TH , mult iple- fami ly, O -l , 0 -2 , comme rcia l, or central area dist rict , a mini mum of 15 fee t betw een eac h group of eig ht sing le-f ami ly stru ctur es mu st be pro vid ed by plat.

(5) If a T H district abuts a di stric t th at requ ires a greater sid e ya rd, the sid e yar d requ irem ents of the mor e restr ictiv e district appl y to the abuttin g side yar d in the TH dis tric t.

(6) In a manufac ture d home district, no pers on may locate a manuf actured hom e near er than 10 feet to the side line of any lot or stan d, and the min imum s pa ce betw een a djac ent manu factured h ome s must b e 20 fee t.

(7) In an MF -3 or MF- 4 distr ict, if a buil ding is erec ted or alter ed to exc eed 36 fee t in heig ht, an add itio nal setba ck mu st be prov ided that is equ al to o ne- hal f of the tot al hei ght of the buil din g, up to a m aximum setb ack of 50 fee t. In prov idin g the add itio nal setb ack , one side yar d may be redu ced up to 20 per cent from the dime nsio n req uire d, if th e othe r s ide yard setb ack is incre ased by a dist ance equ al to the redu ctio n. Th e a ddi tio nal setba ck is o nly requ ired for that port ion of a b uild ing that e xce eds 36 fee t in hei ght. In case of con flict betw een Sub sect ion (a) (3) and this prov isio n, Sub sect ion (a)( 3) a pp lie s. (c ) Side yar d provi sion s for nonresi dential distr ict s. (1) In a nonresi dential distri ct, if a buil ding is erec ted or alter ed to exc eed 36 fee t in hei ght and the buil ding site is either perp end icul arly contigu ous to or, if a fro nt yar d is treat ed as sid e yar d, perp endic ularl y acro ss an adjo inin g stre et or alley from an MF -1, M F- l(A ), MF -2, or MF -2(A ) district , an add itio nal setb ack mu st be pro vid ed that is e qua l t o one -hal f t he tota l h eight o f t he buil ding , up to a m aximum tota l setb ack of 50 feet

. T he add itio nal setba ck is only requ ired for that port ion of a bui ldin g that excee ds 3 6 fe et in hei ght

.

(2) Res erv ed. (3) In an SC distr ict, if a buil ding site is adja cent to an R, R(A ), D, D( A), TH , TH (A) , or CH district, a mi nimum si de yard of 2 0 fe et must be p rov ided

. (4) In an SC distr ict, a minimum sid e ya rd of 2 0 f

eet mus t b e pro vide d for th e sid e yard of a buil ding site with a nonr esid enti al use that abut s a resi dential dis tric t, as defi ned both in this chap ter and in Cha pter 51 A, and that sid e yard mu st com ply with Su

bsec tion s (a

)(3 ) and (c)( 1). (5) In an LC , H C, 1-2, or 1-3 dis tric t, a m inimum side yar d of 10 fee t mu st be prov ided for the s ide yard of a build ing site with a n onr esid enti al use that abuts a res ide nti al district, as defi ned both in th is chap ter and in C hap ter 51A, and that side yard mu st c omply with Sub sec tion s (a) (3) a nd ( c)(1)

.

21 8(6) In an 0

- 1 district , on e sid e yar d m ay be r edu ced to zero if th e other side yar d is incr ease d to a mini mum of 15 fee t. Whe n an O -l district abuts a resi dential district , as def

ine d both in this cha

pter and in Chapter 51A, the side yard s abuttin g the resi dential dis tric t mu st be :

(A) a m inimum of 10 feet, if tw o s ide yard s ar e p rovi ded ; or (B) a minimum of 15 feet , if o nly one sid e ya rd is pr ovi ded

. (7 ) In an 0 -2 , LO , MO , o r GO district , if a nonresi dential buil ding is erec ted or a lter ed to exce ed 3 6 fe et in h eight, an addi tion al s etba ck mu st be p rov ided that is e qu al to one -ha lf the tota l h eig ht of t he buil ding , u p t o a m aximum tota l se tba ck of 50 fee t. T he add itio nal setba ck i s o nly requ ired for that port ion of a buil ding that exc eed s 36 fee t in hei ght

. In case of a con flic t betw een this prov ision and Sub sec tion s (a)( 3) and (c) (1) , Su

bse ctio ns ( a)(3) and ( c)( 1) a pply

. (8) In an NS or GR district, a min imum setb ack of 20 fee t mus t be prov ided fo r that portio n of a sid e yard of a b uild ing site with a nonresi dential use whi ch abuts o r is dir ect ly a cross an al ley f rom : (A) an R , R(A), D, D (A) , TH , TH (A) , or CH dis tric t; o r (B) that port ion of a plann ed dev elo pm ent district restrict ed to sin gle -fam ily and

/or d uple x us es. (9 ) In an NS or GR district, a min imum setb ack of 10 fee t mus t be prov ided fo r t hat porti on of a sid e ya rd of a b uildi ng site with a nonresi dential use whi ch abuts o r is dir ectl y ac ross an al ley f rom : (A ) an R , R(A), D , D(A), TH , TH (A) , or CH district ; or (B) that porti on of a plann ed dev elo pm ent district restricte d to mu ltip le-f

am ily and/o r m anuf

actured hom e u ses. (10 ) The mini mum side yar ds requ ired und er Sub sect ion s (c)( 8) and (c) (9) mu st a lso comp ly w ith S ubs ecti ons ( a)(3 ) and (c)( 1).

(11 ) In an NO, LO , M O, or GO district , a min imum setb ack of 20 feet mu st be pro vid ed for that port ion of a side yard of a buil ding site whi ch abut s or is dire ctly acr oss an alley from :

(A) an R , R( A), D , D(A), TH , TH (A) , or CH district ; or (B) that porti on of a plann ed dev elo pm ent distr ict restrict ed to sing le-f am ily and

/or dup lex u ses .

21 9(12 ) In an NO, LO, M O, or GO district , a min imum setb ack of 10 feet mu st be pro vide d for that port ion of a side yard of a buil ding site whi ch abuts or is dire ctly acr oss an a lley from :

(A) an A , A(

A), MF , MF (A), MH, or MH(A ) distric t; o r (B) that portion of a planned dev elop ment district restrict ed to mu ltip le-f

ami ly and

/or manufac tured ho me uses . (13 ) The mini mum sid e yar ds requ ired und er Sub sec tion s ( c ) ( ll ) and (c)( 12) mu st al so c omp ly w ith S ubs ecti ons (a)( 3) and (c) (1).

(14 ) In an NO, LO, MO, or GO district, garb age col lect ion and me chanic al e qui pm ent area s ma y n ot b e locat ed cl oser than 20 fee t to the n ear est buil ding site in an R, R( A) , D, D(A ), TH , TH (A) , or CH district, or that port ion of a planned dev elo pm ent district restri cted to sing le-family and/ or d upl ex u ses. (d) Sp eci al except ion f or tree prese rvati o n. (1) The board may grant a spec ial exceptio n to th e m inimum sid e y ard require me nts in th is s ectio n to pre serv e an exist ing t ree . (2) In dete rmin ing wh ethe r to grant this spe cia l exc epti on, the boar d sha ll consi der the foll owi ng fa ctor s: (A) Wh eth er the reque sted spec ial exc epti on is co mp atib le w ith the charac ter o f th e ne ighb orho od.

(B) Wh eth er the valu e of surr oun ding prop ertie s wi ll be adv erse ly a ffe cte d. (C ) Wh eth er th e tre e is worthy o f pr eservati on. (e) Sch edu le o f minimum sid e ya rd s. (1 ) Exc ept as prov ided in this sec tion , a pers on shall not ere ct, alte r, convert, or mai ntai n a stru cture or part of a stru ctur e in vio lati on of the min imum sid e yard require me nts of Sect ion 51- 4.4 10. (Or d. Nos . 1 7442 ; 178 59; 185 97; 188 49; 190 60; 194 55; 202 36; 20 36 0; 22 05 3)

S E C
. 51 -4. 40 3. M IN IM UM RE A R Y ARD. (a) Gen era l pr ovis ion s.

22 0(1 ) Require d rear yar ds must be ope n and unob struc ted exc ept for fen ces . Ex cep t a s o therw ise p rovi ded in th is secti on, o rdin ary pro ject ions of w indo w sills , belt course s, cornice s, and othe r arch itec tura l feature s may not proj ect mor e than 12 inch es into the require d re ar ya rd. A fire pla ce ch

imne y m ay p roje ct up to two fee t into the req uire d r ear yard if its area of p roje ction doe s n ot excee d 12 squ are feet

. Ro of e ave s m ay proj ect up to thr ee fee t into the requ ired rear yar d. Bal con ies may not proj ect into the require d r ear yard

.

(2 ) The rear yard setb ack is mea sure d from the rear lot line of the bui ldin g s ite

. (3 ) If a buil ding is erec ted or alter ed to exc eed 36 feet in hei ght and th e b uild ing site is e ither perp endi cularly cont iguo us to or perp endi cularly acro ss from an adj oin ing alle y from an R, R(A ), D , D(A ), TH, TH (A) , or CH district, an add itio nal setb ack mus t be provi ded that is equ al to twic e the tot al hei ght of the bui ldin g. The add itio nal setb ack is only requ ired for that porti on of a buil ding that exc eed s 36 fee t in hei ght

. (4) The min imum rear yard requ irem ents in a plann ed dev elo pm ent dis tric t are controlle d b y the planned deve lopm ent distr ict regu latio ns. (b ) Re ar yard prov ision s fo r re side ntia l dis tric t s. (1 ) In a resi dential distr ict, if a stru ctur e spec ified in Sec tion 51- 4.4 08( a)( 1) is ere cted or alte red to exc eed the max imum heig ht allow ed in Sec tion 51­ 4.41 0, an add itio nal setb ack mus t b e prov ided that is equa l to one -hal f the hei ght of that por tion of the bui ldin g that exc eed s 36 feet , up to a max imum tota l setb ack of 50 fee t. Th e a ddi tion al setb ack is on ly requ ired for that port ion of a buil ding that ex cee ds 36 fee t in hei ght. In cas e of a con flict betw een Sub sect ion (a) (3) and this prov isio n, Sub sec tion (a)( 3) appl ies. (2 ) In a resi dential distr ict, a pers on need not prov ide a rear yard setb ack for a str

ucture acce ssory to a resid enti al us e if : (A) the struc ture does n ot ex ceed 15 f eet in h eight; an d (B) the rear ya

rd is not adja cent to a

n a lley

. (3 ) In an MF- 3 or MF -4 distr ict, if a buil ding is erec ted or alte red to exc eed 36 fee t in h eight, a n add itio nal setb ack mu st be prov ided that is e qua l to one -hal f of the tot al hei ght of th e b uildi ng, up to a maximum t ota l se tbac k of 5 0 fe et. In pro vidi ng the add itio nal setb ack , the rear yard may be r educ ed up to 2 0 p erce nt from the dim ens ion require d if the front yard is incr ease d a distance equ al to the redu ctio n. Th e add itio nal setb ack is onl y requ ired for that port ion of a buil ding that exc eed s 36 fee t in hei ght. In cas e of a c onf

lict betw een S ubs ecti on ( a)(3 ) and this prov isio n, Su bsec tion (a) (3) app lies

.

22 1(4) In an MF -1 or M F-2 district, a minimum rear yard of 10 fee t m ay

be pro vid ed wh en a bu ildin g s ite back s up on an MF, MF (A) , or nonresi dential district, as def ined both in thi s chapter and in Chapter 51A, whe ther the two districts are separate d by an a lley or not. The rear yard is sub ject t o S ubse ctio n (a) (3). (c) Re ar yard prov ision s for nonresid enti al d istri ct s. (1) In a nonr eside ntial district, if a buil ding is erec ted or alter ed to exc eed 36 fee t in heig ht and the build ing site is eith er perp endi cularly contigu ous to or perp end icul arly acro ss from an adjo inin g alley from an MF -1, M F- l(A ), MF- 2, or MF

2(A ) d istri ct, an add itio nal setba ck mu st be prov ided that i s equa l t o one- half of the tota l hei ght of the buil ding , up to a maximum to tal s etba ck of 50 feet

. The ad ditio nal setba ck is onl y r equ ired for that po rtion of a build ing th at e xcee ds 3 6 fe et in hei ght

. (2 ) Re serv ed. (3 ) In an 0 -2 , LO , M O, or GO district, if a nonresi dential build ing is ere cte d or a lter ed to e xce ed 36 fee t in height, an add ition al s etba ck mus t b e p rovid ed that is equa l to one -ha lf the tota l heig ht of the buil ding , u p t o a max imum tota l s etba ck of 50 fee t. T he add itio nal s etba ck is only requ ired for that po rtio n o f a bui ldin g th at e xcee ds 3 6 fee t in hei ght

. In case of a con flict betw een this prov ision and Sub sect ions (a)( 3) and (c) (1) , Su

bse ctio ns (a

)(3 ) and (c)(1 ) apply

. (4 ) In an SC distr ict, a m inimum rear yar d of 20 fee t m ust be p rovi ded wh en a b uild ing site wi th a no nres idential use back s up on a r esid enti al d istric t, a s de fine d both in thi s cha

pte r and in Chap ter 51A, whe the r the tw o district s are separated by an alle y o r no t. The rear y

ard is subjec t to Subse ctio ns ( a)(3 ) an d (c) (1)

. (5 ) In an N S, GR, LC , H C, or indu stria l d istr ict, a m inimum rear yar d of 10 fee t m ust be prov ided whe n a buil ding site with a n onr esid enti al use bac ks upon a resi dential dis tric t, as defi ned both in this chapter and in Cha pte r 51 A, whe ther the tw o dis tric ts are sepa

rate d by an alley or not. Th e rear yard is sub ject to Sub sect ions (a) (3) and (c) (1)

. (6 ) In an NS or GR district, a min imum setb ack of 20 fee t mus t be pro vid ed for that port ion of the rear yard of a buil ding site with a nonr esid entia l use wh ich abuts or is direc tly a cro ss an alley from :

(A) an R, R(A ), D , D( A), T H, T H(A ), o r C H di stric t; or (B ) that porti on of a plann ed dev elo pm ent distr ict restricted to sing le-f ami ly and/o r dupl ex u ses. (7 ) In an NS or GR district, a mini mum setb ack of 10 fee t mus t be pro vid ed for that port ion of the rear yard of a buil ding site with a nonresid enti al use wh ich abuts or is direc tly a cros s an alle y fro m:

22 2(A) an A , A(A ), M F, MF(A ), MH, or M H(A ) di stri ct; or (B ) that porti on of a planned dev elop ment dis tric t restri cted to mu ltip le-f

ami ly a nd/ or m anuf

actured hom e us es. (8) The min imum rear yard s requ ired unde r Sub sec tion s (c)(6 ) and (c)( 7) m ust als o compl y wi th S ubse ction s (a) (3) a nd ( c)(1 ). (9) In an NO , L O, MO , o r G O dis tric t, a m inimum setb ack of 20 fee t mu st be prov ided for that port ion of the rear yar d of a build ing site wh ich abuts or is dire ctly acr oss an a lley from :

(A) an R , R(A), D , D(A), T H, TH( A), or C H d

istr ict; or (B) that port ion of a planned dev elop ment district restr icted to sing le-f ami ly and

/or dup lex uses . (10 ) In an NO, LO, MO , o r G O dis tric t, a mini mum setb ack of 10 fee t mus t be pro vide d for that port ion of the rear yar d of a build ing site wh ich abut s or is dire ctly acr oss an a lley from :

(A) an A , A(A), MF , MF (A) , MH , or MH (A) district ; or (B) that porti on of a planned dev elop ment dis tric t restri cted to mu ltip le-f

am ily a nd/ or manuf

actured hom e us es. (11 ) The mini mum rear yar ds requ ired und er Sub sec tion s (c)( 9) and (c)( 10) mu st a lso c omply with Su bsec tion s (a) (3) and (c)( 1). (12 ) In an NO, LO, MO , or GO distr ict, gar bag e coll ectio n and me chanic al e qui pm ent area s may n ot b e loc ated clos er than 20 f eet to t he nearest build ing site in an R, R(A ), D, D(A ), TH, TH( A), or CH district, or that port ion of a plann ed dev elo pm ent dis tric t res trict ed to singl e-fam ily and /or dup lex u ses. (d ) Spe cial exc epti on for tre e pr eservati o n. (1) Th e b oard may grant a spec ial exc epti on t o the min imum rear yar d require me nts in th is se ctio n to prese rve a n ex istin g tre e. (2) In dete rmin ing whe ther to grant this spe cia l exc epti on, the boar d shal l co nsi der the foll ow ing facto rs:

(A ) Wh ethe r th e re ques ted spe cial exc ept ion is c omp atibl e wi th the charac ter of th e n eighborh ood

.

22 3(B) Wh ethe r the valu e of surr oun ding prop ertie s will be adv erse ly a ffe cte d. (C) Whe ther the t ree is wo rthy of pr eservati on. (e) Sch edu le of mini mum rear yard s. (1) Exc ept as prov ided in thi s sect ion, a perso n shal l not ere ct, alter , convert, or mai nta in a stru ctur e or part of a stru ctur e in violation of the min imum rear yard require me nts of Sec tion 51-4 .410
. ( Ord

. N os. 178 59; 181 43; 185 97; 188 49; 1906 0; 194 55; 20 23 6; 20 36 0; 22 05 3)
SE C. 5 1-4 .40 4. MIN IMU M L OT AREA FO R R ESI DE NT IAL US E. (a) Ge ner al p rovi sion s. (1) A pers on shal l no t redu ce a lot below the min imum area requ irem ents of t

his sect ion, unles s: (A) the lot is replatted for a commun ity uni t de velo pme nt; o r (B ) the city or other gov ernm enta l agen cy redu ces the lot size by wid eni ng an abutting stree t. In this situation the min imum lot a rea is co mputed on t he bas is o f th e o rigi nal lot s ize b efor e the stre et widen ing

.

(2) The area requ irem ents in a planned dev elop ment district are control led by the plann ed d evel opm ent distric t reg ulat ion s. (b) Lot are a pr ovis ions for m anuf actur ed h om e di stric t s. (1) In a MH distr ict, a manufac ture d hom e mus t have the follo wing min imum lot are a: (A) 1,50 0 square fee t for a manufac ture d hom e on a tran sient stan d; o r (B) 4,00 0 s quare fe et f or a manufac ture d hom e o n a su bdiv ided lot

. (c) Sch edu le o f min imum yard area for r esid ent ial us e. (1) Exc ept as prov ided in th is s ecti on, a p erson sha ll n ot e rect , al ter, or convert any resi dential stru ctur e or part of a stru cture to hav e a sma ller lot are a than is allo we d in the mini mum regu latio ns of Sec tion 51- 4.41 0. (O rd. Nos. 185 97; 2 036 0)

22 4SEC . 51 -4.4 05. MIN IMU M L OT W IDT H FOR R ES IDE NT IAL USE . (a) Ge ner al p rovis ion s. (1) A pers on may not redu ce a lot belo w the min imum width require ments o f th is s ecti on, unle ss:

(A) the l ot i s platted for a co mmunity unit d eve lop me nt; or (B) the city or othe r gove rnm enta l agen cy redu ces the lot size by wid enin g an abuttin g stre et. In this situation the min imum lot width is com put ed on the basi s of t

he orig inal lot s ize befo re widen ing. (2 ) The lot width requ irem ents in a planned dev elop ment dis tric t are control led by the planned dev elop ment dist rict regu lati ons . (3) The mini mum lot width for a res ide nti al use is 10 fee t, unle ss a larg er m inimum lot width is sp ecif ied in Se ctio n 51 -4.4 10. (b) Lot width pro visi ons for MH district s. In an M H district , a manufac ture d hom e mu st h av e the fo llow ing mini mum lot width :

(1) 30 fe et for a m

anuf actured hom e on a tra

nsie nt s tand ; or (2) 40 fe et f

or a man ufac tured home on a s

ubd ivid ed lot. (c) Sch edu le of mini mum lot width fo r r esid ent ial us e. Exc ept as prov ided in thi s se ctio n, a pers on sha ll n ot e rec t, al ter, or co nvert a ny resi dential stru ctur e o r p art o f a stru ctur e to hav e a sma ller lot width than is allow ed in t he larg er o f th e lo t w idth requi red in t his sec tion or the lot w idth requ ired by th e min imum regu latio ns of Sec tion 51-4 .410
. (Ord. N os. 203 60; 247 31)

I SEC . 51 -4.4 06. MI NIM UM LOT DE PT H F OR RE SID EN TIA L U SE. (a) Ge ner al p rovi sion s. (1) A perso n may not redu ce a lot belo w the min imum depth requ irem ents of t

his sec tion , un less : (A) the lot is platte d fo r a c ommunity uni t de vel opm ent ; or (B) the city or other gov ernm enta l agen cy redu ces the lot size by wid eni ng an abuttin g stree t. In this situation the min imum lot depth is compute d by the orig ina l lo t siz e be fore t he st ree t wid enin g.

22 5(2) The dep th requ irem ents in a planned dev elop ment district are controlle d b y th e pl ann ed deve lopm ent distr ict regul ation s.

(3) Th e minim

um lot depth for a resi dential use is 10 fee t, unl ess a larg er minimum lot dep th is spec ified in Se ctio n 51 -4.4 01. (b ) Lo t d epth provi sions for MH district s. In an MH dist rict , a manufac ture d hom e m ust have th e fo llow ing min imum lot dept h: (1 ) 50 feet f

or a manufac tured hom e on a tra nsie nt stand; or (2) 80 f

eet f or a manufac ture d ho me o n a subd ivid ed lot. (c) Sch edu le of m inimum lot dep th f or resid entia l u s e. Exc ept as pro vid ed in thi s se ctio n, a p erso n s hal l no t ere ct, alter , o r co nvert an y r esid enti al s truc ture or p art of a stru ctur e to hav e a sma ller lot depth than is allow ed in the larg er of this sect ion or the min imum r egu lati ons of S ectio n 5 1-4. 410
. (Ord. Nos. 2 036 0; 2 473 1)
SEC . 51 -4.4 07. MAXIM UM LOT CO VER AG E. (a) Gen eral prov ision s. (1 ) In a resi dential, offi ce, NS , SC, GR, or LC district, inst ituti ona l buil ding s ma

y c ove r a maxi mum of 6 0 p erce nt of the l ot. (2 ) Res erv ed. (3 ) The maxi mum lot cove rage req uire me nts in a planned dev elo pm ent d

istrict are contr olled by t he p lann ed d evel opm ent distr ict regu latio ns. (4 ) The boar d may grant a spe cia l exc epti on to incre ase the lot cov erag e o n a bu ild ing site in an NO , LO , MO , or GO d istri ct b y n o more th an 10 perc ent if: (A) the buil ding site is mor e th an 100 fee t fro m an R, R(A ), D , D(A ), TH , TH (A) , or CH distr ict, or that port ion of a planned dev elop ment dis tric t restrict ed t o single -fam ily and/ or d upl ex u ses; (B) the incr ease will not adve rsely affe ct neighbo ring pro perty; and (C) the buil ding site is land scap ed in acco rdan ce with a land sca pe plan subm itted to and app rove d by the board. The board may also imp ose app rop riat e fac ade stan dard s for off- stre et park ing stru ctur es on the build ing site as a con diti on to the granti ng o f this sp ecia l ex cep tion

.
22 6(b) Max imum lot co vera ge fo r re side ntia l dis trict s. (1) In a T H district , 80 perc ent of an i ndiv idua l lot may be cove red by stru ctures, if t he cov era ge for the tota l p roje ct d oes not exce ed 60 per cent a nd at leas t 4 0 per cent is r ese rve d fo r op en spa ce. (c) Sch edu le o f m aximum lot co vera g e. (1) Ex cep t a s provid ed in th is se ctio n, a perso n s hal l no t er ect , al ter, or conver t any stru ctur e or part of a stru ctur e to cov er a gre ater per centag e of a lot than is allo we d in Sect ion 51- 4.4 10. ( Ord

. No s. 17 812 ; 188 49; 1 945 5; 2 740 4)
SEC . 51-4.408. MAXIMUM BU ILDING HE IGHT. (a) Spe cial hei ght prov isio n s. (1 ) Stru ctures for utility and pub lic servic e use s and insti tutio nal use s may be erec ted to any heig ht cons istent with the Fed eral Avi atio n Adm inis trati on air spa ce limi tatio ns, airp ort flig ht overl ay district regu latio ns, and the buil ding cod e, if setbac ks are pro vid ed as requ ired by Sect ions 51-4 .401 , 51- 4.4 02, and 51- 4.40 3. Ho we ver , loc al util ity tran smi ssio n and distribution line s and sup porting stru ctur es, and , as spec ified in this par agr aph , mounted cell ular ante nna e are exe mp t from the setb ack s require d by Sec tion s 51- 4.40 1, 51-4 .402 , and 51-4 .403
. A mounted cell ular ante nna, as def ine d in Sec tion 51- 4.2 02( 12) , atta che d to a utility stru ctur e is exe mp t from the setb ack s requ ired by Sec tion s 51-4 .401 , 51-4 .402 , and 51-4 .403 if the utility stru ctur e is gre ate r th an 65 f

eet in hei ght

. For pu rpos es o f th is subparagr aph , a utili ty s truc ture me ans an elec trica l tran smi ssio n distribution tow er, an elev ated wat er stor age tank, and any oth er stru ctur e op erated by a mun icipa lity, a tra nsit auth ority , or a cert ific ated , fra nch ised , or lice nse d ut ility company i n con nect ion with provi sion of t he utility. (2) In a district in whi ch build ing heig ht is lim ited to 36 fee t or les s, the foll owi ng stru ctures may proj ect a maxi mum of 12 f eet abo ve the heig ht spec ified in Sec tion 51-4 .410 : (A ) stru ctur es on top of a buil ding : (i) elev ator pent

hous e o r bulkhe ad; (ii) mec han ical e quipm ent roo m; (iii) cool ing t owe r; (iv) tank desi gne d to hol d li qui ds; (v) ornamental cupo la or dom e;

22 7me chanic al e quip ment; (vi ) skyl ight s; (vi i) clere story ; (vi ii) visu al scr een s whic h surr ound roof mounted (ix ) chimney and vent stacks; (x) amat eur c ommunic atio ns tower ; an d (xi ) para

pet wall, limite d to a height of f our feet ; and (B ) stru ctur es at gra de l eve l: (i) amat eur c ommunic atio ns to wer . (3) Th e max imum build ing heig ht req uire ments in a plann ed dev elo pm ent district are controlle d by the planned deve lopm ent district regulation s. The maximum perm itted hei ght in a matrix district is estab lishe d by the city coun cil at the tim e th e d istri ct is created.

(4) In sing le-family , duplex , townhou se, MF -1, and MF -2 distri cts: (A ) no dorm er eave s may proj ect abo ve the hei ght spe cifi ed in Sec tion 51- 4.41 0; and (B ) the high est point of a stru ctur e with a gab le, hip, gambrel, or do me roo f m ay not proj ect mor e tha n 1 2 fe et abov e th e h eig ht s pec ifie d in S ecti on 51­ 4.4 10. (Se e il lustr ation s in Figure 1 .)

' 22 8FIGURE 1 ILL UST RAT ION OF SEC TIO N 51-4 .408 (a)( 4)

de = dorm er eaves,
e = the lowe st ea ves of the s truc ture
. g = gra de (the ave rage of the finis hed ground surf ace elev atio ns mea sure d at th e high est and low est e xteri or c orne rs of the s truc ture ) g 1 = the lowe st fini she d ground surf ace elev atio n at an exte rior co rne r of the stru cture. g 2 = the high est fini she d ground surf ace elev atio n at an exte rior corner of the stru cture. h 1 = the vert ical dist anc e mea sured from grad e to the mid point of the vert ical dim ens ion betw een t

he lowe st eaves and t

he h ighe st ri dge of the st ructure. h 2 = the vertica l dis tan ce mea sure d from grad e to the high est po int of the str ucture .
r = the high est r idg e and the high est point of t he s truc ture ,
s = a sloping ground surf ace .
22 9Th e hei ght spe cifi ed in Sec tion 51-4 .410 plus 12 feet is the max imum perm itted vert ical

dist anc e m eas ure d fro m g rad e to t he high est point of th e str ucture . Do rme r eav es may not proj ect abo ve the height spec ified in Sect ion 51- 4.4 10. (Or d. 184 81)

23 0(5) In a n SC district, the fo llow ing a ddit iona l he ight regu latio ns a ppl y: (A ) Th e max imum build ing height in an SC distr ict is 120 fee t unle ss the SC district boundary line does not touc h at any point the boundary line of a zoni ng dis tric t in wh ich build ing heig ht is l imited to less than 240 feet , in wh ich cas e th e max imum buil din g he ight in th e SC district is 24 0 feet.

(B ) All port ions of a buil ding with in 330 fee t of pri vat e prop erty in an R, R(A ), D, D(A ), TH , TH( A), or CH district, or with in 330 fee t of that port ion of a planned deve lopm ent dis tric t restricte d to sing le-f ami ly and

/or dup lex use s, are limi ted to 60 fee t in height. The dist ance mea sure d is the sho rtes t dist anc e betw een the bui ldin g and the priv ate prop erty
.

(C ) For purp oses of this subs ectio n, "pr ivate pro perty" me ans any pro perty n ot d edic ated to p ubli c us e, ex cept t hat "pri vate prop erty " do es n ot i nclu de: (i) a pr ivat e str eet or all ey; (ii ) prop erty on wh ich a util ity and serv ice use , as defi ned in Sec tion 51-4 .202 , is being conducte d as a main use; and (iii ) a ra

ilroa d rig ht-o f-way. (6) In an NO , LO , MO , or GO district in whi ch buil ding hei ght is limi ted to 35 fee t or less , t he stru ctur es in Sub sect ion (a)( 2) may proj ect a max imum of four fee t abo ve the max imum perm itted height estab lishe d for the district by the city council

. (b ) Sch edu le of maxi mum buil ding heig ht s. (1) Exc ept as prov ided in this sect ion, a pe rson shal l no t erect , al ter , or convert any stru ctur e or part of a stru ctur e to exce ed the max imum heig ht stan dar ds in Sec tion 51- 4.4 10. ( O rd .N os . 18 481 ; 185 97; 1 884 9; 1 945 5; 21 000 ; 27 404)
SEC. 5 1-4.409. MAXIM UM FLOOR AREA RAT IO. (a) Ge ner al p rovis ion s. (1 ) Res erv ed. (2 ) A ba sem ent is no t cou nted in the co mputatio n of floo r ar ea r ati o. (3) The max imum floo r are a ratio requ irem ents in a planne d dev elo pm ent dis tric t are controlle d by the planned dev elop ment district regulation s. The

231max imum floo r area ratio in a matrix distr ict is e stab lishe d by the city council at th e ti me

the dis tric t is created

.

(4) Res erv ed. (5) Th e maxi mum floo r are a ratio in the C A -l- CP and CA -l- SP dis tric ts may be incr ease d to 24 to 1 by the use of t he buil ding setb ack bonus prov isio ns in th e fr ont yard re gul atio ns. (6 ) In an SC district, the max imum floo r area rati o for offic e uses , as def ine d in S ecti on 51-4 .210 (1), is

. 75 to 1, an d the max imum floo r area ratio for all uses com bin ed is 1 t o 1
.

(7 ) In an 1-2 district, a spec ific use perm it is req uire d to auth oriz e a flo or are a ratio gre ater than 4 :1. (b) Sch edu le o f m aximum f loo r ar ea r ati o. (1) Ex cep t as prov ided in t his secti on, a pers on shal l not erec t or alte r any str ucture or part of a stru ctur e to exce ed the maxi mum floo r a rea ratio in Se ctio n 5 1­ 4.4 10. (O rd .N os . 16 959 ; 18 597 ; 188 49; 1 892 0; 20 361 )
SEC . 51-4.4 10. SCHEDUL E OF YARD, LOT , AND SPACE REGULA TIONS. Th e fo llow ing charts compris e th e sc hedu le o f y ard, lot, an d spa ce regu latio ns f or pur pos es o f th is d ivis ion

. (Or d. 1 892 0) YA RD
. LO T. A

ND SPA CE CH AR T
SEC . 51-4.41 1. MAXIMUM D ENSITIES F OR RES IDENTIA L USES. (a) De nsity p rovi sion s for resi dential district s. (1) In a TH-1 d istri ct, n o mo re than six d we llin g u nits f

or e ach acre are all ow ed

. (2 ) In a TH- 2 district, no mor e than nin e dw elli ng unit s f or each acr e are allo we d. (3 ) In a TH-3 distr ict, no m ore than 12 dw elli ng units for each acre are all ow ed.

23 2allo we d. (4) In a TH -4 district, n o m ore t han 15 dwe lling uni ts f

or each acre are (b) Den sity prov isio ns for no nres idential d istri ct s. (1) In an SC district, no mor e th an 15 dwe lling uni ts for eac h acre are allo we d. (2) In an NS distr ict that abut s an R, R(A ), D, D(A ), TH , TH( A), or CH dis tric t, or that abut s that porti on of a plann ed dev elop ment dis tric t restricted to sin gle -fami ly and

/or dup lex use s, no more than 15 dw elli ng uni ts for eac h acre are allo we d. ( Or d. Nos. 1859 7; 1 945 5)
SEC. 51 -4.41 2. SHARED ACCESS DEVE LOPME NT. Th is sect ion inco rpor ates by refe renc e the languag e of Sec tion 51A -4.4 11 of Ch apt er 51A, "D AL LA S DE VEL OP MENT CO DE: ORDIN AN CE NO. 19 45 5," of the Da lla s City Cod e, as that sect ion exis ts today and as it may be ame nde d in the future. (Or d. 2 47 31 )

233