Harper Park Two, LP v. City of Austin
359 S.W.3d 247
Tex. App.2011Background
- Chapter 245 freezes the regulations in effect at the time of the first permit for a project and ties subsequent permits to that regulatory baseline; vested rights attach to the project, not to a specific owner, and can follow transfers of the project.
- The Harper Park development was initiated by a 1985 preliminary plan filed with the City of Austin, within extraterritorial jurisdiction, under Barton Creek Watershed rules limiting certain commercial developments.
- The 1985 plan labeled a six-acre lot as “office,” but the labels were non-binding and the City could not enforce use beyond the watershed ordinances at that time.
- Bases for vested-rights under 245 require the entire Harper Park subdivision as the original project, not just a particular lot, to be treated as one series of permits for which the first permit filing governs subsequent permits.
- Hotels were contemplated within the broader “commercial” development category under the watershed ordinances, so the 1985 project could encompass a hotel under the then-existing rules.
- In 2007 a final plat for Section Two and a 2009 hotel-site plan raised whether the hotel on Section Two was the same project, which would entitle Harper Park Two to rely on 1985 rules; the district court held it was a different project, which the appellate court reverses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes the relevant “project” for vested rights under 245. | Harper Park Two: the project is the Harper Park subdivision as a whole, not merely the six-acre office-labeled portion. | City: the project is the specific six-acre office portion, distinct from other parts of Harper Park. | The project is the Harper Park subdivision as a whole; 1985 rules apply to the entire project, including hotel uses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shumaker Enters., Inc. v. City of Austin, 325 S.W.3d 812 (Tex.App.-Austin 2010) (statutory interpretation of vested rights and project scope under 245)
- En Seguido, Ltd., v. City of San Antonio, 227 S.W.3d 237 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2007) (rights vest in the project and change of project can affect vesting)
- Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 1999) (development rights can be affected by intervening regulations absent chapter 245 protections)
- Hartsell v. Town of Talty, 130 S.W.3d 325 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004) (statutory interpretation of project scope under 245 (one series of permits))
- BMTP Holdings, L.P. v. City of Lorena, 359 S.W.3d 239 (Tex.App.-Waco 2011) (project scope and vesting considerations under chapter 245)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (principles of statutory construction and legislative intent)
- Jones v. Fowler, 969 S.W.2d 429 (Tex.1998) (read statutes as a whole and effectuate legislative intent)
- In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 92 S.W.3d 517 (Tex.2002) (interpretation of complex regulatory regimes and statutory text)