The Attorney General of Texas
March 29, 1978
JOHN L. HILL
Attorney General
Honorable Chet Brooks Opinion No. H- 1146
Chairman, Senate Committee
on Human Resources Re: Approval of subdivision
Senate Chamber plats by a county.
Austin, Texas 767R
Dear Senator Brooks:
You have requested our opinion concerning the authority of the Fort
Bend County Commissioners Court to require developers to build sidewalks
and to dedicate’s percentage of residential acreage to other public use prior
to receiving plat approval. You have asked whether these requirements and
others contained in the Fort Rend County “Policies for the Approval of
Subdivision Plats” are in conflict with state statutes.
Fort Bend County has a population of less than 190,000 and is thus
governed by article 6626i, V.T.C.S. As we explained in Attorney General
Opinion H-1057 (1977), article 6626a was enacted in order to provide counties
of less than 190,000 population authority to establish some substantive
requirements for the approval of plats. Like article 2372k, V.T.C.S., which
applies to larger counties, article 6626a was a response to the court’s decision
in Commissioners Court v. Frank Jester Development Co., 199 S.W.2d 1004
(Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1947, writ ref’d n.r.e.1, in which it was held that
counties had no authority to establish such substantive requirements. The
holding of this case remains undisturbed except by articles 6626a and 2372k;
thus, any substantive requirements for the approval of plats must be
authorized by those articles.
Section 3 of article 6626a authorizes counties to require owners of a
subdivision to provide for rights of way and street cuts. The only general
authority provided is contained in subsections (e) and (f) which authorize
“reasonable specifications” for the construction of roads and streets and for
the provision of adequate drainage for such roads,
The requirements promulgated by Fort Bend County are valid only to
the extent they are authorized by article 6626a. The commissioners court
may adopt regulations requiring street cuts and rights of way in the
p. 4656
.
Honorable Chet Brooks - Page 2 (H-1146)
dimensions authorized by article 6626a, section 3. They may promulgate drainage
specifications as well as reasonable specifications for the construction of roads or
streets, “considering the amount and kind of travel over said streets.” In our
opinion, our courts would probably hold that the specifications for streets may
rem&e the construction of sidewalks. where it can be shown that reouirement is
reasonable in light of the amount andkind of travel over the streets. ‘Grapotte v.
Adam 111S.W.2d 690 (Tex. 1938); Parra v. P. W. Woolworth Co., Inc., 545 S.W.2d
-75 Tex. Civ. App. - Rl Paso 1977, no writ); Jones v. City of Mineola, 203 S.W.2d
596
1020 (Tex. Civ. ADD.- Texarkana 1947. writ ref’d). We therefore believe that the
authority to e&&h street specifications &I .include the authority to require
sidewalks, within the limitations set out in article 66264 section 3(e). We fiid no
provision authorizing requirements for areas of other public use, and conclude that
such regulations would not be valid.
SUMMARY ~,
Fort Bend County may provide requirements for the
approval of subdivision plats only to the extent such
requirements are authorixed by article 6626a Requirements
concernfng sidewalks will probably be held valid as part of
reasonable specifications for streets. Requirements ‘for
other areas of public use are not authorized by article 6626a
and are invalid.
APPROVED:
DAMM. KENDALL, Pi$ Assistant
C. ROBERT HEA
Opinion Committee
jst
up. 4657