446 S.W.3d 823
Tex. App.2014Background
- Seadrift challenged Town of Annetta South Ordinance Oil, which binds ETJ lots to a minimum of two acres.
- Approximately 106 acres of Seadrift’s proposed subdivision lie within the Town’s ETJ; the remainder lies within the Town proper.
- Seadrift’s plats had two-acre or smaller lots within the ETJ, while lots within the Town’s boundaries were two acres.
- Town denied Seadrift’s preliminary plat, certifying the basis as “density” or excessive density under Ordinance Oil.
- Seadrift sued for declaratory judgment and mandamus relief to compel plat approval; trial court granted partial summary judgment for Seadrift on the declaratory judgment claim.
- Town appealed; Seadrift cross-appealed seeking mandamus relief; the court affirmed in part and denied mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ordinance Oil violates 212.003(a)(4). | Seadrift argues Oil extends density limits into ETJ. | Town contends Oil merely sets lot size, not density per acre. | Ordinance Oil violates 212.003(a)(4). |
| Whether summary-judgment evidence shows denials based on Oil’s two-acre requirement. | Seadrift shown denial was density-based due to Oil. | Town asserts denial may have other reasons; evidence insufficient. | Evidence shows density as sole basis for denial. |
| Whether mandamus relief and attorney’s fees were proper; cross-appeal viability. | Seadrift contends Oil invalidation makes plat approval ministerial. | Town argues mandamus premature; fees proper only if Declaratory Judgment action justified. | Mandamus relief denied; attorney’s fees affirmed; cross-appeal overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (ETJ authority derives from legislative grant; limits applicable)
- Ex parte Ernest, 136 S.W.2d 595 (Tex. 1939) (general ETJ principle; limits on municipal power)
- City of Brookside Village v. Comeau, 633 S.W.2d 790 (Tex.) (presumption of validity; burden on challengers)
- RCI Entm’t, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 373 S.W.3d 589 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2012) (strict construction; conflict with state statute voids ordinance to the extent of conflict)
- Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109 (Tex.1999) (ETJ extension limitations; distinguishes Oil from density regulation)
- City of Weslaco v. Carpenter, 694 S.W.2d 601 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1985) (definition of subdivision and impact on lot size interpretations)
- Thomas v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 241 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1951) (derogation of common law; strict construction against restriction creators)
- Bryan v. Darlington, 207 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1947) (legislative grants construed narrowly to separation of powers)
- Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791 (Tex.1991) (mandamus; ministerial duty requires certainty in duty)
- Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465 (Tex.1995) (declaratory judgments may terminate controversy; fee considerations)