Case Information

The Attorney General of Texas Cfc tober 24, 1984 JIM MATTOX

Attorney General

Supreme Court Buitdina P. 0. Box 12548 512,4752501 Austin. TX. 7871% 254S Telecopier Telex 9101874-1367 Texas Board of Architectural Auetln. Texas The Executive Directo.: Mr. Philip D. Cm?::, PAIA 8213 Shoal Creek :3:Lvd., Suite 107 Examiners 7W58 Opinion No. JM-217 Re: architect Authority of a landscape 249c. Dear Mr. Creer: 714 Jxkson. Suite 700 Dallas. TX. 752024505 2141742-8944

You ask whet,ter the landscape architect for the city of Corpus

Christ1 Mayo 4824 Alberta Ave.. Suite 150 detailed plans and specificatloas El Paso, TX. 799052793 915/5333484 retainill!! walls, park shelters, decks, viewing

platfonw, elevated boardwalks, etc. under the definit ton of of 001 Texas. suits 700 archite,::ure as set out in article 249c. V.T.C.S. Houston, TX. 77002.3111 713/22%5M8 We conclude that a landscape architect may not develop plans and specifications fcmr such structures when their preparation SO8 Broadway, Suite 312 vhich fall within the definitions of Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 engineering, archL:ecture, or public surveying. Whether the design or 8081747.5238 construction of 4~ particular improvement constitutes an exercise archlzecture, or public surveying is a question dependent 4309 N. Tsnth. Suite B upon the facts of azach case. This office is not authorized to resolve McAllen. TX. 78501-1585 such matters in t:w opinion process. 512/882.45d7 landscape architecture. defined In article 249c. 200 Main Plus. Suite ro0 section 1 (b) , includes San Antonlo. TX. 78205.2797 512/2254191 preparat:Lon . . . plans,

studies L responsible specifications, and supervialon in connection with the development of An Equal Opparlunityl land awas where, and to the extent that, Affirmative Action Emplow princip,*l purpose of such service is to arrange

and modify the effects of natural scenery aesthetl,: effect, considering the use to which the land i:; to be put. Such services arrangammt of natural forms, features, and plantings. including the ground and water forms, vegetat Loa. circulation. walks, and other landsca ?a~ features fulfill aesthetic *2 Mr. Philip D. Creer - Page ;I

functional requirments but shall not include any services or funct:lona within the definition of eng&eering, uublic surveying, or architecture as duliined by the laws of this state. (Emphasis added).

In light of this definiticn. your question Is In essence whether a landscape architect may perform the aforementioned services without public surveying, or engaging the practice:1 of engineering. of enginefc?ing is defined as

any service or cr’r;%tive work . . . the performance of which requires engineering education, training and experience ln the application special knowledge th: mathematical, physical, or engineering sciences to such services or creative work.

V.T.C.S. art. 3271a. §2(4). Public surveying is

“determining the boundaries or the topography of real property or of delineating routes, spaces, or sites in real property” by the use of “relevant elements law * research, measurement. analysis, mapping, and land description writing.” computation,

5282c, $2(l). The practiw of architecture is defined

249a. section 10(a). V.T.C.S., as

any service or creative work . . . applying art and science of developing concepts, planning for functional relationships and intended uses, and estahl.ishing form, appearance, aesthetics, and construction details, for any building or buildings, or environs, be constructed, enl.arged or altered, the proper application of which architectural education. training and experience. The regulat:lng _ and architecture each contain language expressing

objective of safeguarding life, health, property and public welfare.

See V.T.C.S. arts. 249a. IL; 3271a, 11.1; 5282~‘ $3. Article 249c ztains no such language!; we do not, however, infer lesser any the public from this omission. The statutes regulating and architecture reflect the state’s overriding interest in px,cmoting safety and competence in design, measurement, and construction while discouraging confusion deception of the public b>, unlicensed practitioners. See Parrish v.

Phillips. 401 S.W.2d 347 I,‘l’ex. Civ. App. - Houston 1966. writ ref’d n.r.e.); Farha v. Elam, 3(;5 S.W.Zd 692 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth Mr. Philip D. Creer - Page 3

1964. writ ref’d n.r.e.); Habry v. Prime=, 333 S.W.Zd 684 (Tex. Civ. onL other grounds. 338 S.W.2d 704 (Tex.

APP . - Houeton 1960). $?. that 4 ZIcle 249c promotes corresponding interests. 1960). We believe See Attorney General Opinion R-814 (1976). -

The laws pertaining to four professions discussed this opinior~ each provide exemptions for certain individuals othervise satlaf!ying the requirements of regulation. See i49c. 16; 3271a. 121; 5282~. 04. Arti= V.T.C.S. arts. 249s. 110; 249c, section 2, exempts professional engineers, land surveyors, architects from the provisions of the act. Landscape architects, on the other hand, are not er,empted from compliance with articles 249a, the creation of a statutory 3271a. snd 5282~. As a goneral matter, exception by the 1egislatu::c “makes plain the intent that the statute should apply in all cssel not excepted.” State v. Richards, S.W.2d 597. 600 (Tex. 1957).

It has been suggested :hst landscape architects may be permitted to perform services within t,he practices

and public surveying as long as they do not represent themselves to the public as members of those professions or employ the titles respective professions. It is true that lo Attorney General Opinion R-814 (1976) this office concluded that non-licensed persons could perform services involving ,zlements of landscape architecture as long as they did not hold thenselves out as landscape architects. This conclusion though, was predicated on the applicability exemptions contained in article 249c. Similarly. In Attorney General Opinion M-545 (1969). this office held that certain structural designs could be prepared by pertcns not registered 3271a as long as they do not represent that they are licensed and registered.

This conclusion, too, presumed the applicability exemptions contained 327:~~. With regard landscape architects, there is no exemption upt’c, which we may rely. Accordingly, it has been concluded on prior occasions that landscape architects are not excused, by agreement or otlervise, from the licensing requirements of from which they are not specifically excepted. Attorney General Opinions E-890 (1976); H-495 (1975). The question you ask does not require a diffewnt answer. On the contrary, because services in question are to be performed the city of Corpus Christi, we answer your question in the negative. See, e.g., 3271a. 919 (plans and specifications for any public work whose cost exceeds $3000 must be p::c!pared by and construction supervised by registered professional engineer).

SUMMARY A architect may not, under definition :.andscape architecture, plans and specifications certain structures when their preparation hr. Philip D. Crcer - Page 4

which fall withjo, of engineering, Whether the or architecture. development of much plans and specifications constitutes au csercise or a::t:hitecture is a factual matter

that this office i.s not authorized to resolve. i JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN

First Assistant Attorney Gweral

DAVID R. RICRARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN

Chairman, Opinion Committe~r

Prepared by Rick Gilpia

Assistant Attorney General

APPROVED: : OPINION COMWITTEE

Rick Gilpin, Chairman

Colin Carl

Susan Garrison

Jim Moellinger

Nancy Sutton