Harry Bizios v. Town of Lakewood Village, Texas
453 S.W.3d 598
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Town of Lakewood Village (Type-A general-law municipality, ~620 residents) sought to enforce its building-code ordinance in its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) against Harry Bizios, who began building a house in March 2014 located wholly in the Town’s ETJ.
- Bizios had obtained all permits required by Denton County and Little Elm (the more populous neighboring home-rule city) and received a county development permit; no plat was filed with the Town.
- The Town obtained a temporary injunction halting Bizios’s construction until he obtained the Town’s building permit and inspections, relying on Local Government Code ch. 212 (esp. §§ 212.002–.003) and its ordinance.
- Bizios appealed, arguing the Town lacked constitutional or statutory authority as a general-law municipality to apply its building code in the ETJ and that § 212.007 prohibited the Town from applying subdivision regulations to his property.
- The court reviewed statutory construction de novo and considered whether the legislature expressly granted general-law municipalities authority to enforce building codes in their ETJs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bizios) | Defendant's Argument (Town) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Type-A general-law municipality may extend its building code into its ETJ | Town lacks statutory/constitutional authority to apply building code in ETJ | Legislature granted authority via §§ 212.002–.003 and related provisions to regulate development and extend ordinances into ETJ | Court: No. General-law municipality has no express authority to enforce building code in its ETJ; injunction was an abuse of discretion and reversed |
| Whether § 212.003’s prohibitions bar the Town from regulating building use, size, bulk, height, and number in ETJ | § 212.003 prohibits those zoning-type regulations in ETJ absent express state authorization | Town contends § 212.002 (rules governing plats/subdivisions) and related provisions allow extending such rules to promote development | Court: § 212.003’s plain language and legislative scheme bar those regulations absent express authorization; read strictly in favor of landowner |
| Whether Subchapter B (development plats) or other code sections authorize requiring development plats or building permits in ETJ when subdivision plat already approved by larger municipality | Bizios: Little Elm already approved subdivision plat; Town has not adopted Subchapter B; Subchapter B even expressly states it does not authorize enforcement of building code in ETJ | Town: Subchapter A/B and other code sections show power to regulate development and extend code | Court: Town has not adopted Subchapter B; § 212.045(d)/§ 212.049 show development-plat scheme does not authorize municipal enforcement of building code in ETJ; Town cannot rely on these to justify enforcement |
| Whether other statutes (chapters 214, 233, etc.) implicitly authorize a general-law town to enforce building code in ETJ | Bizios: Those statutes do not expressly give general-law municipalities authority to extend building codes into ETJ; where legislature intended such authority it did so expressly for home-rule cities or specific circumstances | Town: Chapters 214 and 233 and specific provisions (e.g., § 214.904, § 233.153) support extending building-code requirements into ETJ | Court: These provisions apply to municipalities already granted such capacity (typically home-rule) or to specific statutory schemes; they do not supply an express grant to general-law municipalities to enforce building codes in ETJ |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing temporary injunction abuse of discretion)
- City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (de novo review of statutory construction)
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (city authority to regulate ETJ is derived from legislative grant)
- Dallas Merchants & Concessionaire’s Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 852 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1993) (ordinance conflicting with state statute unenforceable)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2004) (general-law municipalities possess only powers expressly conferred by the State)
- City of Lucas v. N. Tex. Mun. Water Dist., 724 S.W.2d 811 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986) (previous case construing subdivision power to include development prior to later legislative changes)
- City of W. Lake Hills v. Westwood Legal Defense Fund, 598 S.W.2d 681 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1980) (general-law municipality powers are limited to those authorized by statute)