September 22, 1989
Honorable Pamela K. McKay Opinion No. JM-1100
County Attorney
County of Kendall Re: Under what circumstances
204 E. San Antonio Street section 232.001 of the Local
Suite 1 Government Code requires a
Boerne, Texas 78006 tract owner to prepare a plat
(RQ-1664)
Dear Ms. McKay:
You ask for our interpretation of the requirements of
section 232.001(a) of the Local Government Code in regard to
the preparation ~of a plat by a landowner who divides a tract
of land outside the limits of a municipality into two or
more parts. Section 232.001(a) provides:
The owner of a tract of land located
outside the limits of a municipality who
divides the tract into two or more parts to
lay out a subdivision of the tract, including
an addition, or to lay out suburban lots or
building lots, & to lay out streets,
alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the
tract intended to be dedicated to public use
or for the use of purchasers or owners of
lots fronting on or adjacent to the streets,
alleys, squares, parks, or other parts must
have a plat of the subdivision prepared.
(Emphasis added.)
You say that the section can be read in two ways.
Under one reading, YOU say, the language "and to lay out
streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts," etc.,
could be taken to apply only where the division.is "to lay
out suburban lots or building lots." Under such construc-
tion, you say, a plat would be required under the subsection
either when the tract is divided into two or more parts to
lay out a subdivision or addition, QK when the land is
divided into "suburban lots or building lots" in conjunction
with which "streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other
parts," as described in the subsection, are to be laid out.
p. 5763
Honorable Pamela K. McKay - Page 2 (JM-1100)
you say that the provisions can also be read to provide
that the platting requirement under the subsection is
triggered only where there is a division of the tract --
whether to lay out a subdivision, addition, or building or
suburban lots -- & where "streets, alleys, squares, parks,
or other parts" are to be laid out. Under this reading, as
you say, a "division of a tract not involving streets,
alleys, etc., would not require platting" under the sub-
section.
Though we concede that the language in question is
somewhat convoluted, we think that this language on its face
-- particularly the "andW@ in question -- indicates that the
provisions must be read as in your second suggested reading.
The platting requirement under the subsection is not
triggered unless there is a division of the tract -- be it
for a subdivision, an addition, or suburban or building lots
-- u the division also involves the laying out of
Qztreets, alleys, squares, parks, or other parts" as
described in the statute.
Attorney General Opinion JM-781 (1987) implicitly sup-
ports this reading of section 232.001(a). That opinion
addressed whether certain divisions of tracts were subject
to the platting requirement under the provisions in question
prior to their codification as section 232.001(a).l No
distinctions were made in the questions presented or in the
responses as to whether the divisions in question were to
lay'out subdivisions, additions, or building or suburban
lots. The opinion addressed whether the absence of any
dedication of parts of the division for public use relieved
the owner who divided the tract of the platting requirement
and concluded that the absence of dedication for public use,
standing alone, did not settle 'the issue.
lThe statute refers) to land 'intended for
public use,' not to iand 'dedicated to public
use. ' Additionally, [it refers] to land
1. The opinion addressed inter lia the provisions of
article 6702-1, section 2.401, ".T.:.S. These provisions
were codified in 1987 as section 232.001. Acts 1987, 70th
Leg., ch. 149, 5 1, at 1003.
P- 5764
Honorable Pamela K. McKay - Page 3 (JM-1100)
'intended for public use, m the use of
purchasers or owners.'2
Clearly implicit in this discussion, we think, is that
the platting requirement is not triggered unless the
division of the tract -- be it for a subdivision, addition,
or suburban or building lots -- also involves the laying out
of
streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other
parts of the tract intended to be dedicated
to public use or for the use of purchasers or
owners of lots fronting on or adjacent to the
streets, alleys, squares, parks, or other
parts . . . .
Local Gov't Code 5 232.001(a).
You also express concern about the "legal definitions"
of the terms nsubdivision,t@ "suburban lots," and "building
lots" as used in section 232.001(a). For example, you ask:
"how small may a rural tract be without becoming a 'suburban
lot,' which requires platting if roads or streets are
involved[?]"
We do note that courts have defined "subdivision,*1 as
used in similar provisions, very broadly. &9 Citv of Lucas
v. North Tex. Mun. Water Dist,; 724 S;W.2d 811, 823 (Tex.
ADD. -.Dallas 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (term "subdivision"
as-used in former article 970a, section 4, V.T.C.S., "may be
simply a division of a tract of land into smaller parts");
Citv of Weslaco v. Caroenter, 694 S.W.2d 60~1, 603 (Tex. App.
- Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (term as used in
former article 970a, section 4, V.T.C.S., "may refer simply
to the act of partition itselfll); see also Attorney General
As codified, the language of section 232.001(a) now
reads2:'untended to be dedicated to public use," rather than
"intended for public use@' as did the predecessor provisions
of article 6702-1, section 2.401. This slight variation in
the language in the codified version from that addressed in
the opinion does not, we think, make the discussion in
Attorney General Opinion JM-781 of article 6702-1, section
2.401, less apposite to our analysis here of section
232.001(a). &9 Local Gov't Code S 1.001 (no substantive
change intended).
p. 5765
Honorable Pamela K. McKay - Page 4 (JM-1100)
Opinion JM-781 (1987). We do not think it necessary to
address here whether the term as used in the language
"subdivision of the tract, including an addition" in section
232.001(a) might mean more specifically a "planned develop-
ment." Whether given divisions constitute "subdivisions,11
or "additions," or the laying out of "suburban"
"building" lots would probably involve questions of fag:
such that the issue would have to be approached on a
case-by-case basis.
SUMMARY
Under Local Government Code section
232.001(a) a division of a tract of land
outside the limits of a municipality into two
or more parts -- whether the division be to
lay out a subdivision, addition, or suburban
or building lots -- is subject to the
platting requirements of the subsection only
if the division is also to lay out streets,
alleys, squares, parks, or other parts of the
tract intended to be dedicated to public use
or for the use of purchasers or owners of
lots fronting on or adjacent thereto, as
provided in the subsection.
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
MARYKELLER
First Assistant Attorney Generai
LCIUMCCRKARY
Executive Assistant Attorney General
JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLKY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN.
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by William Walker
Assistant Attorney General
p." 5766