Shumaker Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Austin
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 8882
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Shumaker Enterprises owned ~470 acres in Travis County for mining; filed a County permit on July 1, 2005 for the project; Front Tract was in the City’s ETJ but Middle and Back Tracts were not.
- On December 31, 2005, the City’s ETJ expanded to include the Middle Tract due to annexation, before the County acted on Shumaker’s permit.
- The County later issued a permit allowing Back Tract development but restricting Front Tract and Middle Tract unless a City permit was obtained or, for Middle Tract, proof that City permit was not required.
- Shumaker then applied to the City for development of the Front Tract, and the City issued a permit; Shumaker sought a City determination that no City permit was required for Middle Tract based on the County filing prior to ETJ expansion.
- The City required a City permit for the Middle Tract; Shumaker sued for mandamus and declaratory relief; the district court granted summary judgment for the City.
- The court held that Local Government Code section 245.002 does not lock in a regulatory agency’s permitting requirements until the original filing concerning the permit with that agency is made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §245.002(a)(1) locks in requirements based on the original permit filing. | Shumaker argues the County filing locks in all later requirements. | City argues the lock-in applies to the City permit filing, not the County filing. | Section 245.002(a)(1) locks in requirements for the City permit filing only. |
| Effect of §245.002(a-1) on rights accrual and notice. | Rights accrue from the initial filing giving fair notice to the relevant agency. | Rights accrue at the filing that gives fair notice to the agency and do not transfer across agencies. | a-1 clarifies accrual timing; it does not extend rights to another agency. |
| Whether §242.001(c) affects the result for mining projects. | §242.001(c) does not apply to mining projects; it governs plats/related permits. | ||
| Whether the City could impose ETJ-based requirements on the Middle Tract after ETJ expansion. | Chapter 245 does not prohibit City-imposed requirements that existed when City permit was filed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 1998) (locks in rights under §245 when a permit is filed; regulatory changes protected)
- Save Our Springs Alliance v. City of Austin, 149 S.W.3d 674 (Tex.App.—Austin 2004) (limits changes to deter detriment to applicant under §245.002(a))
- City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex.2000) (summary judgment de novo and proper deference to statutory interpretation)