City of McKinney v. OH Skyline/380, L.P.
375 S.W.3d 580
Tex. App.2012Background
- 1983: City zoned 24.23 acres as a planned development district with multi-family and commercial uses.
- 1987: final regulations established building size/density for the planned development.
- 2007: Commercial acquired 5.126 acres; Investors acquired 11.574 acres (their tracts together called the Property). Investors later sold its tract to OH Skyline.
- 2010: City proposed amendments to the comprehensive zoning ordinance (Zoning Amendments) to modify multi-family zoning standards.
- Notice: publication notice for the public hearing was timely; individual notice was not given to appellees or other 200‑ft property owners; neighbors within 200 ft may have received notice.
- OH Skyline filed suit challenging the Zoning Amendments; City filed pleas to the jurisdiction; after a vesting-rights issue, Investors and Commercial were added with a single declaratory judgment claim under Chapter 211; City sought dismissal and appealed on interlocutory grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge notice (Chapter 211) | Investors lacks standing; no current ownership or justiciable interest. | City contends Investors has no standing because no property owned; lacks justiciable interest. | Investors lacks standing; granted in favor of City. |
| Standing to challenge notice (Chapter 211) | OH Skyline lacks standing as purchaser after amendments; not owner at time notice due. | City asserts OH Skyline cannot challenge notice as it wasn’t owner when notice due. | OH Skyline lacks standing; sustained City’s second issue. |
| Commercial’s standing to receive notice | Commercial is within 200 feet and owns property affected by the amendments; entitled to notice. | City argues only neighbors or owners within 200 ft not including the subject owner within 200 ft. | Commercial has standing; City’s third issue is decided against it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Todd, 53 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. 2001) (standing and jurisdiction principles; liberally construed pleadings)
- Leach v. City of Richland Hills, 627 S.W.2d 854 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1982) (purchaser cannot challenge pre-existing zoning; notice analysis)
- Murmur Corp. v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of Dallas, 718 S.W.2d 790 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986) (standing to challenge notice for ownership transfer situations)
- Bolton v. Sparks, 362 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. 1962) (notice and safeguards for property owners against municipal overreach)
- City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (statutory interpretation and notice requirements in zoning)
- Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011) (interpretation of statutes to avoid absurd results)
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (plea to jurisdiction and de novo review of standing)
- Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 21.006(a), (statutory provision cited in opinion) (—) (public hearing requirement for zoning amendments)