Case Information
*1 The Attorney Generd of Texas Harch 24,
JIM MATTOX opinion No. Jn-20 Eonorablc M. 6. Wells
Supreme Court Building County Atrorncy P. 0. BOX 12546 Anderson County Courthouse Re: of subdivision ApprOVAl Aurtin. TX. 76711.2546 F. 0. Box 707 PlAtA 5121475~2501 PAlAAtine. TeXAA Telex 9101674.1367 Tdecopier 5121475.0266 DAar Mr. WallA:
[1607] win 3.. suite tarn Dallas. TX. 75201.4706 2141742~6344 And plats incorporated
You hAVe asked About home rule located city, beyond the Authority t0 approve the CiCy or diAApprOVe Of the City Of Palestine. subdivision maps 4624 Alberta Ave.. Suite 160 Both Articles 974A. V.T.C.S.. And 6626, V.T.C.S.. provide thst El Paso. TX. 799052793 maps And plsts of of ,~5352464 corporate of an city muAt be approved by city Authoritiee in order to be filed or recorded. This would end 1~20 Dallas Ave.. Suits 202 matter were it not for Articles 970A. V.T.C.S.. And 6626~, V.T.C.S.. HO~J~O~. TX. 770026986 which, it has been Argued. conflict those first mentioned. 713l65M666 our opinion, in question do not conflict, city of has not only the Authority. the duty, or 806 Broadway. Suite 312 disApprOVe ~11 maps and plats of subdivisions of Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 its boundries. 606,747.5236 of Lhe Acts said to conflict. is rhe 97oA. 4306 N. Tenth. Suile S McAllen. TX. 76501.1665 Municipal Palestine. mile AonA of “extraterritorial Id. S3.A.(2). Act. Among other In Addition things, Around cities protecting establishes size of one zoned
territory fromannexAtion by ocher cities, stAtwe sllows A city to extend by ordinance the Applicstion its rules And regulations 200 thin PIaza. Suite 400 plAtS And the subdivision land “to ~11 the Area under its San Anlonio. TX. 702W2797 512/225.4191 jurisdiction.” From this, some have thet to. approve to A distance one mile beyond An Equal OppOrlunilyl Affirmative Action EmPlOW
The relAtionship of articles 97OA. 974A. And 6626 is discussed Pohl. Estsblishing And Altering the Character of TeXAS Subdivisions, Baylor LAW Review, The history legislation unclear. of A certain
Originally, sire were under Srcicle 974S over maps and plats S five mile radius boundaries. In 1944, *2 RonorAble Ii. C. Wells - RAge 2 (JH-20)
however, the TeXAA Supreme Court held that An amendment to Article 6626 (giving counties map And ~1st Approval Authority) repealed the Article 974A “extrAterritoriAl” plAt-ApprOVAl jurisdiction Of municipalities. TrAvalter v. Schaefer. 179 S.W.Zd 765 (Tex.
1944). A later coUTt held thAt counties could not impose substantive requirements under article 6626 aa condition for county ApprOVAl maps or pl~ta. See Commisaionera’ Court v. Frank Jester Development CompAny. 199 S.Wx 1004 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1947, writ ref’d n.r.e.). state of Affairs. neither nor counties could the mapping And pletting Cf. City of Corpus Christ1 v. Gouger, 236 S.W.2d
outside (Tex. Civ. App. -San Antonio 1951. writ ref’d) (amendment repeal article 974a in 1949 did not lmpliedly given commissioners’ court by Article 6626).
In 1951 the legislature passed two dealing the matter. The passed. Article 2372k. V.T.C.S.. gave larger counties the power to promulgate certain requirements to be met by persona subdividing situated “outside the boundaries of Any town or city,” it SxprSSSly rApAAlAd Conflicting 1Al.W. Later. during the aAme session of the legislature, Article -- AppliCAblA large And amsll counties Alike -, WAS Amended. As ? Amended, Article returned to cities and duty approve or disapprove maps And plats of city limits “AS provided in Article 974A.”
General Daniel in Attorney General Opinion V-1401 the later 6626 Amendment repesled the conflicting 2372k. And thst cities. not counties, had the to approve maps And plats within the five mile zone.
Implicit conclusion of Attorney General DAnis was the further conclusion incorporating reference to Article the Amendment to Article 6626 conferred upon cities same they had exercised prior supreme court’s 1944 TrAvAlter decision. That authority included to withhold of plats and maps of aubdivisiona not conforming the city. V.T.C.S.. art. 974a, 14.
Subsequently. 1957. Article 6626a. V.T.C.S.. was enacted giving smaller counties same mep And plat ‘Approval powers 2372k had previously larger “without of any city,” repealer clause specified that nothing Home
therein should “repeal. nullify, alter or change rights Rule Charter to’regulate. zone. restrict subdivlaions radius a five (5) mile limita.” Acts 1957, 55th Leg., ch. $5. at 1302. 1303. In 1961. legislature -, further enactment had requirement of prior approvsl of plats by cities. Acts 1961. 57th ch. 449, 12. At 1022. 1023. See Attorney General Opinion H-1057 Leg.. - *3 HonorAble Ii. G. Wells - Page 3
Token together, we think these provisions show A legislative intent that Article invest ~11 cities with power to subdiviaiona zone. And thAt counties hAVe limited regulstory powers over other aubdivisiona in the county under Articles 6626~. General Opinion H-904 (19761. But see Attorney Opinions 1313-1438 (1962). C-459 This WAS the atste law in 1963 when Article 97OA. V.T,C.S..
Municipal Annexation Act. WAA enacted.
The MunicipAl Annexation Act is only incidentally concerned with the ApprOVAl Of plAtA and m3pA. It establishes, primarily for annexation PUrpOAeA, protected OnA mile “extrAtArritoriAl A for cities of PAlestine’s population bracket. Incidentally the act Allows such cities to exteud the ApplicAtion particulsr ordinances establishing rules And regulations plats And aubdivisiona to the Area. And to enforce them by .injunctive relief. On the other hand, Article 6626 requires cities to eXeKCiSe plat Approval Authority within A five mile eone, And, through incorporation of Article section 6626 makes it the duty of city officiAla plans (After public hearing).
plats or replata that conform plan of the city And meet general rules And regulations promulgeted by city subdivisions.
WA duo not believe the “one mile” provision the Municipal Act mutt be read to repeal the “five mile” provisions Articles 974A And 6626. Although each addresses statute powers of A city respect to plats aubdiviaions, they do in WAYS that are not inconsistent. There no repugnancy between the concept (1) have
require aubdivisionA conform general and generel rules and ragulAtiona regarding plats maps before A pproving have Additional enforce injunction perticular ordinances respecting only within one mile of
If two statutory can bc reasonably construed so both may stand, neither will be held to repeal the other. See 53 Tex.
Jur. 2d, Statutes st 153. Moreover, 1963enActment it did not repeal ACt codified 86 article 974a, V.T.C.S.,
AS last amended or any other law or part of lsw upon subject of which the provisions Act relate they Are expressly inconsistent and then only of such inconsistency.
Acts 1963, 58th Leg.. ch. 160, Art. III, At 447. 454. In our opinion, the enactment 970A did not repeal Any provision of either articles 974A or 6626, nor Affect operation.
,
Honorable M. G. Wells - PAge 4
Consequently, we Advise you that unless the AppropriAtA municipA1 the city has Approved A Aubdiviaion Mp or plat for five milea lte (but not five .milea of a lerger city), county clerk is without to file it. Art. 6626. WC Also Advise that COUnty is unneceasery the maps And plAt6 A0 situated. thAt by Articles And widthr rightA-Of-wAy 6626~ to regulate construction And streets Applies only located more than from city’s See Attorney General Opinions H-904 (1976); V-1401 Cf. Attorney General Opinions H-1146 (1978); H-1057 (1977). G%?eral Opinions C-459 (1965); WW-1438 (1962) (disapproved of conflict herewith). SUMMARY
The county clerk of Anderson County Authorized file A mep or plat of A subdiviaioa has been Approved Appropriate city AuthOKity. County AppKOVAl unnecessary.
Very truly you & LJ~ I& JIM NATTOX Attorney General TAXAS TOM GREEN
First AASiStAnt Attorney General
DAVID R. RI&RDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Bruce Youngblood
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Susan L. GAKKiSOn, Chairman
Jon Bible
Rick Gilpin
George Gray
Jim Moellinger
Bruce Youngblood