BILL ANALYSIS

 

 

 

C.S.H.B. 4057

By: DeAyala

Land & Resource Management

Committee Report (Substituted)

 

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

Historically, the City of Houston has largely regulated land development through deed restrictions enforced by homeowners and property owners' associations. Reliance on deed restrictions has served the city well. Property owners bought into their communities based on the current restrictions or lack thereof. The city has enjoyed remarkable growth with a market-based system rather than a top down zoning regulatory system. The city charter requires a referendum for the adoption of a zoning ordinance, and all zoning referendums have failed. 

 

The city is in the process of creating conservation districts. These districts will regulate many of the same items found in deed restrictions and circumvent existing state law on the creation of deed restrictions by allowing a simple majority of property owners to implement newly created regulations without a property owner opt-out provision. Instead of having regulations be enforced through private covenants like deed restrictions, the city is putting themselves in the position to approve, monitor, and enforce the building design guidelines created by these newly formed districts. Property owners in these districts are not afforded a one-year period in which to opt out, as provided in state law for deed restrictions.

 

C.S.H.B. 4057 seeks to address this issue by providing for a one-year period in which a property owner may exclude property from a conservation district in order to provide property owners in such districts the same right provided in state law for newly created deed restrictions.

 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT

 

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly create a criminal offense, increase the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or change the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.

 

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

 

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.

 

ANALYSIS

 

C.S.H.B. 4057 amends the Local Government Code to authorize the owner of a property included within the boundaries of a conservation district authorized by ordinance to elect to exclude the property from the district by filing in the real property records for the county in which the property is located an acknowledged statement that describes the property by reference to a map or plat of the subdivision and that states that the owner elects to have the property excluded from the district. The bill's authorization applies as follows:

·         to a property located in a municipality with a population of two million or more; and

·         regardless of whether the municipality has established a process for designating places or areas of historical, cultural, or architectural importance and significance through the adoption of zoning regulations or zoning district boundaries.

The authorization does not apply to the designation of a property as a local historic landmark or the inclusion of a property within the boundaries of an applicable local historic district.

 

C.S.H.B. 4057 requires the statement to be filed before the first anniversary of the date of the inclusion in a conservation district and establishes that a property's exclusion takes effect on the filing of the statement by the property owner. The bill defines "conservation district" as a local preservation district authorized by ordinance by an appliable municipality to preserve, maintain, and protect the physical elements of development and the community character and heritage of neighborhoods having distinctive characteristics and patterns of development.

 

C.S.H.B. 4057 applies only to inclusion of a property within the boundaries of a conservation district authorized by ordinance after the bill's effective date.

 

EFFECTIVE DATE

 

On passage, or, if the bill does not receive the necessary vote, September 1, 2023.

 

COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE

 

While C.S.H.B. 4057 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.

 

The substitute differs from the introduced as follows:

·         whereas the introduced applied within a municipality with a population of more than 1.8 million, the majority of which is located in a county with a population of more than 3.8 million, that has not adopted city wide zoning through a binding referendum pursuant to the city charter, the substitute instead applies only to a property located in a municipality with a population of two million or more;

·         whereas the introduced applied to a conservation district or similar district, the substitute instead applies only to a conservation district that is a local preservation district authorized by ordinance by an applicable municipality to preserve, maintain, and protect the physical elements of development and the community character and heritage of neighborhoods having distinctive characteristics and patterns of development;

·         the substitute omits the option in the introduced that provided for the legal description of the property in the property owner's exclusion statement by means other than reference to a map or plat of the subdivision; and

·         whereas the introduced applied only to a designation made after the bill's effective date, the substitute instead applies only to inclusion of a property within the boundaries of a conservation district authorized by ordinance after the bill's effective date.