East Central Independent School District v. Board of Adjustment for the City of San Antonio and Sarosh Management, LLC A/K/A ZRS Management Inc.
387 S.W.3d 745
Tex. App.2012Background
- ECISD sought judicial review of the Board of Adjustment's October 5, 2009 vote reversing Planning Department revocation of Sarosh's occupancy; petitions were filed October 28, 2009 in two district court cases under Tex. Local Gov't Code § 211.011(a)-(b).
- Sarosh's occupancy near an elementary school triggered the 300-foot restriction; an error in measuring from door-to-door instead of property lines initially led to approval before discovery of the error.
- Planning Department later revoked the certificate on August 12, 2009; the Board of Adjustment reversed that revocation on October 5, 2009; minutes were approved October 19, 2009 and filed in the Board's office.
- The Board's rules require minutes reflecting votes to be filed in the Board's office and approved at a meeting; there is dispute over when the decision was filed for purposes of the 10-day deadline.
- Gonzalez (City staff) created an audio record and transcribed minutes; the minutes were not filed in the Board's office until approved; Sarosh challenged whether those actions satisfied filing requirements.
- The trial court granted Sarosh's plea to the jurisdiction; ECISD appeals the dismissal, arguing timely filing; the appellate court sustains on timeliness and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under §211.011(b) for filing petition | ECISD argues the filing occurred when minutes were approved and filed. | Sarosh argues the filing started when the board's decision was recorded (October 5). | Timely; filing occurred October 19, 2009; petition filed October 28, 2009. |
| Collateral attack vs. direct appeal under §211.011 | ECISD contends §211.011 applies to its collateral challenge. | Sarosh contends the statute governs timely petitions for review. | Not addressed; Issue Two resolved first; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice v. Miller, 51 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. 2001) (jurisdictional challenges and de novo review of jurisdictional facts)
- Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (plea to jurisdiction de novo review standard)
- Bland Indep. School Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (jurisdictional challenges in school district context)
- Miranda v. Tex. Nat. Res. Conserv. Comm'n, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for determining whether jurisdictional facts exist)
- Tellez v. City of Socorro, 226 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. 2007) (deadline for filing petitions under §211.011(b) is jurisdictional)
- Hall v. Board of Adjustment of City of McAllen, 239 S.W.2d 647 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1951) (minutes vs. electronic records for filing of board decision)