t
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX October 22, 1985
Attorney General
Supreme Court BulldIng Honorable S. Dorbandi: Carroll Opinion No. JM-365
P. 0. Box 1254S Anderson County Attorney
*ustIn. TX. 7571% 2540 P. 0. Box 707 ue: Clarification of statute6
512l4752501
Palestine. Taxas 75801 relating to approval of sub-
Taisx 9101874-1367
Teleco~ler 512/475028S
division plats
Dear Hr. Carroll:
714 JAckson. Suite 700
Dallas. TX. 75202.4506 You have requested clarification of the current statutes relating
214l742-SS44
to the power and dul:y of the comrmissiouers court of Anderson County
and the power and duty of the city of Palestine to approve maps and
4S24 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 plats of subdlvisiom that are located outside the corporate limits of
El Paso, TX. 789052793 the city of Palestine. It is our opinion that within the city of
915l5333S4 Palestine's one-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction, as determined by
article 970a. V.T.C.!;.. a subdivision plat shall not be filed without
,r ems. Suite 700 the authorization of lboth the city of Palestine and Anderson County.
HG-van, TX. 770023111 Both the city and th'z county are authorized to independently regulate
713l2235SS5 subdivisions within the area of the one-mile extraterritorial juris-
diction, except that. whenever the regulations of the city and the
county are in conflkt, the more stringent provisions prevail. In
SO6 Broadway. Suite 312
Lubbock, TX. 794013679
untncorporated areas outside the city's one-mile extraterritorial
SOW’47-5238 jurisdiction, the county Is authorized to approve or disapprove
subdivision plats and the city has no authority to regulate sub-
divisions or approve the filing of plats, except as provided by the
4309 N. Tsnlh. Suite 6
Interlocal Cooperatim Act.
McAllen. TX. 78501-1685
512mS2.4547
In March of 198Z1, this office issued an oplnlon on the authority
of the city of Pales,c:ine at that time to approve subdivision maps and
2w Maln PIUS. suite 400 plats for land locat'ed outside the city limits. Attorney General
San Antonlo. TX. 782052797
Opinion JM-20 (1983). traced the enactment of and amendmants to
512Q25.4191
articles 97Qa. 974a. 6626, and 6626a. V.T.C.S.. as well as interpreta-
tions of the acts b), the courts and this office, and concluded that
An Equal OpportunItyI the city of Palestine had the authority and duty to approve or dia-
Altlrmallve Actlon Employer approve ~11 maps and plats of subdivisions of land located within five
miles of its corporiate boundaries. Since the iasuanca of that
opinion, three sessic~ns of the legislature have enacted, reenacted and
amended those and other statutes relating to the approval of sub-
division plats.
Acts 1983. 68tt, Leg., ch. 327. at 1717. both amended article
6626a. V.T.C.S., an3 enacted article 6626aa, V.T.C.S.. as a new
p. 1672
. ,
Eouorable S. Dorbandt Carroll - Page.2 (~~-365)
/
statute. As amended by &apter 327. article 6626a applied to all
counties with an exception that is not applicable to Anderson County
and authorized a ccmmissionc!rs court to refuse approval of a plat of a
subdivision for any tract ‘of land situated without the corporate
limits of any city if the plat does not meet the requirements
authorized by that act. V.T.C.S. art. 6626a. Ill, 3, 4. As enacted
by chapter 327. article 662t~a.aprovides in part. that
[i]n areas under B city’s extraterritorial juris-
diction as defineed by [article 970a], no plat
shall be flied with the county clerk without the
authorization of both the citv and the county.
Inside said extratsrritorial jurisdiction the city
shall have indeplendent authority to regulate
subdivisions under [article 970a], and [974a], and
other statutes applicable to cities; and the
county shall have independent authority to
regulate subdivisil>ns under [article 6626a], and
other statutes applicable to counties. Inside
said extraterritorial jurisdiction whenever such
city regulations t&flict with such county regula-
tiohs , -the more stringent provisions of such
regulations shall govern; and in unincorporated
areas outside said extraterritorial jurisdiction s
city shall har%o authority to regulate sub-
divisions or to authorize the filing of plats,
except as provided by The Interlocal Cooperation
Act [article 4413 (32c)]. (Emphasis added).
Acts 1983. 68th Leg., ch. 3:!i’. $2, at 1720-21.
Attorney General 0pin:Lon JM-121. issued in December 1983,
concluded that, notwithstand%ng that articles 974a and 6626, V.T.C.S.,
provided for city approval elf subdivision plats within five miles of
the corporate limits of ,r city, the amendment and enactment of
articles 6626a and 6626aa, respectively. by chapter 327 impliedly
repealed the five-mile rsnge and provided instead that a city may not
exercise plat approval authority outside the city’s extraterritorial
jurisdiction as that area :Ls determined by article 970a. It is our
opinion that “said extraterritorial jurisdiction” within the meaning
of article 6626aa is a city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction as
datermined by article 970a. Article 6626aa expressly states that in
areas under a city’s ext:aterrltorlal jurisdiction as defined by
article 970a. a plat may uot be filed without the authorization of
both the city and the courty. Article 970a establishes extraterri-
torlal jurisdiction of one nile for s city with Palestine’s popula-
Mon. V.T.C.S. art. 970a. 03(A)(2). Article 6626aa expressly
provides that inside.“sald extraterritorial jurisdiction” (one mile in
the case of Palestine). the city and the county nay Independently
p. 1673
Bonorable S. Dorbandt Carroll - Page' 3 (JM-365)
/
regulate subdivisions. Th*! city may exercise its authority under
articles 97Oa and 974s and other applicable statutes to extend by
ordinance the city's rUlC,S and regulations governing plats and
subdivisions of land and to 'apbrove or disapprove maps and plats of
subdivisions not conforming to the city's standards. The county may
exercise its authority to r'egulate subdivisions under article 6626a
(now article 6702-1, 92.401) and other applicable statutes. Either
the city or the county may enforce its regulations. However, article
6626aa expressly provides that when the city's and the county's
regulations conflict "inside said extraterritorfal jurisdiction" (one
mile In the case of Palestk~e), the more stringent regulations shall
govern. -See Attorney Generlll Opinion JM-121 (1983).
Prior to the enactment of chapter 327. the Regular Session of the
Sixty-eighth Legislature enrwted the Property Code as a recodification
of existing law without c.ny substantive change in the law. The
recodification of former article 6626 as section 12.002 of the
Property Code provided that the commissioners court of a county must
authorize the map or plat of a subdivision if the property is located
five miles or more outside !:he corporate limits of a city and that the
governing body or planning commission of the city must authorize a
subdivision plat if the prc,perty is located vithln five miles of the
corporate limits of the city. The enactment of chapter 327 lmpliedly
repealed the provisions of section 12.002 of the Property Code to the
extent that they conflicted with chapter 327.
Also prior to the enactment of chapter 327. the Regular Session
of the Sixty-eighth Legislature placed the former version of article
6626a In the County Road anS Bridge Act without amendment. Acts 1983,
68th Leg.. ch. 288. 12.W2, at 1459 (codified as art. 6702-1,
V.T.C.S.). In addition to the fact that chapter 327 was a later
enactment by the same sess:lon. subsequently in July 1984, the County
Road and Bridge Act was rcrised and reenacted to incorporate in that
act the same provisions which had been enacted as article 6626a by
chapter 327 and to expressly repeal article 6626a. See V.T.C.S. art.
6702-l. $2.401, as amended by Acts 1984, 68th Leg.. 2d.S.. ch. 8. at
44. See also Attorney General Opinion JM-121 at 510.
In Attorney General Cpinion .JM-121. this office concluded that
the five-mile range for city approval of subdivision plats contained
in both article 6626 and article 974a were impliedly repealed in 1983
by the enactment of articld! 6626aa in chapter 327. Subsequently, the
Sixty-ninth Legislature anended section 1 of article 974a for the
limited purpose of authorizing use of a corner of the survey or tract
to be subdivided as a reference point for the plat. in addition to the
use of the original corner of the original survey. Acts 1985, 69th
Leg., ch. 346. at 2601. III so doing, the legislature reenacted the
original language in section 1 of article 974a which states that the
owner of a tract of land situated vithin the corporate limits, or
p. 1674
Eonorable S. Dorbandt Carroll - Page-4 (JM-365)
within five miles of the corporate limits, of a city shall cause a
plat to be made which describes the subdivision by metes and bounds
and locates it with respecl: to a corner of the survey. We do not
believe that the act of the Sixty-ninth Legislature reinstated the
five-mile range for city approval of subdivision plats.
The orlglnal act relal:ing to the platting of subdivisions was
passed in 1927. giving cltj.es authority over the filing of plats of
subdivisions within five miles of the city limits. IO 1944, the Texas
Supreme Court held that an amendment to article 6626 in 1931, giving
counties man and olat annrowal authority. reuealed the article 974a
“extraterritorial” * plat-approval jurisdictfon of the cities. See
Travalter v. Schaefer, 179 S.W.2d 765 (Tex. 1944); Attorney Gene=
opinion JM-20 (1983). A 1949 act of the legislature amended section 1
of article 974a by making the requirements more detailed for maps or
plats of land lying within jncorporated cities or within five miles of
a city. In 1951, a Texas court of civil appeals held that the 1949
act amending section 1 of s.rticle 974a did not restore to the cities
the subdiv.vision plat authodty which had been vested in the cities
prior to the 1931 amendment csf article 6626. The court stated that If
the legislature desired to reinvest the cities with authority over
maps and plats of subdivtded laud outside the city limits, the
legislature must use language Indicating a clear intention to modify
the provisions of the 1931 amendment to article 6626. See City of
Corpus Christi v. Gouger, 2Iit S.W.2d 870 (Tex. Civ. App. -% Antonio
1951, writ ref’d). It IS our opinion that a court also vould deter-
mine that the 1985 amendment of section 1 of article 974a, which
relate8 only to survey in?ormation required for subdivision plats,
does not impliedly repeal the provisions of article 6626aa and article
6702-l. section 2.401, just as the court of civil appeals determined
that the 1949 amendment of section 1 of article 974a. which related to
detailed requirements of srlbdlvlsion plats, did not implledly repeal
the provisions of article 5626 which earlier had deprived cities of
the authority to disapprove subdivision plats outside the city limlts.
Eence, we conclude that the basic statutory provisions that
determine the power and duty of Palestine and Anderson County to
approve maps and plats of subdivtsions located outside the city are
section 2.401 of the County Road and Bridge Act, article 6702-1,
V.T.C.S., and section 1 oE article 6626aa. V.T.C.S. Additionally.
articles 970a and 974a. V.T.C.S., determine the area of the city’s
extraterritorial jurisdiction and the city’s regulatory authority in
that area.
SUMMARY
Amap or plat of a subdivislon located within
the city of Palestine’s one-mile extraterritorial
jurisdiction shall not be filed with the county
p. 1675
,
Honorable S. Dorbandt CarrolL - Page 5 (JM-365)
clerk without the authorization of both the city
of Palestine and ,4nderson County. Both the city
and the county my independently regulate sub-
divisions vithin the area of the one-mile extra-
territorial jurlsd!lction except that, when the
regulations of the city and the county are in
conflict, the mom stringent provisions prevail.
Only the county 1s authorized to approve or
disapprove plats of subdivisions located in
unincorporated arms outside the city's one-mile
extraterritorial jucisdiction.
-JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOMGRF+EN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICBARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
ROBERTGRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICX GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by, Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINIONCOMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Gulllory
Jim Noellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
Sarah Woelk
p. 1676