BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 2481
By: Turner, Bob
April 28, 1995
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

Currently the Government Code requires that any permit requested
from a regulatory agency be considered by the agency on the basis
of the requirements in effect at the time the original application
for the permit was filed.  Some confusion has arisen regarding when
and to whom this provision applies.  Also, the current statute is
silent as to the situation when a project is commenced when no
permit is required and then the regulatory agency subsequently
begins requiring a permit before the project is completed.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this legislation is to clarify the definition of
"Permit", "Project", and "Regulatory Agency" and to allow a project
that was begun at a time when no permit was required to continue
without the need to obtain a permit.  In cases when the requirement
to obtain a permit is modified after a project has commenced, the
permit holder can elect to proceed under the least restrictive
requirements.

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.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1  Amends Section 481.142, Government Code, by:  including
           zoning approval, plan approval, and plat approval in the
           definition of "Permit"; including the continuation of
           an endeavor in the definition of "Project"; and
           including governing bodies, boards, and commissions that
           issue or approve permits in the definition of
           "Regulatory Agency".

SECTION 2  Amends Subchapter I, Chapter 481, Government Code, by
           adding Section 481.1425, which clarifies that for a land
           development project, the development as a whole is
           considered to be a single project and may not be broken
           into steps for permitting purposes.

SECTION 3  Amends Section 481.143, Government Code, by adding
           language to subsection (a) to consider a situation where
           no application was required when a project began.  Also
           adds a new subsection (c) which allows a permit holder
           to take advantage of procedural changes of the
           regulatory agency that occur after the project is
           initiated which will enhance or protect the project.

SECTION 4  Clarifies that this Act applies to a project for which
           the original application is filed, or for which
           construction begins:  1) before the effective date of
           this Act if the project is continuing on that date; or
           2) on or after the effective date of this Act.

SECTION 5  Effective date:  September 1, 1995.

SECTION 6  Emergency clause.


COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The substitute is a legislative council draft of the original bill,
and therefore, the substitute reorganizes some of the sections of
the bill without making substantive changes.  In addition, the
substitute adds SECTION 4, which clarifies the projects to which
the bill applies.  The substitute also adds an effective date.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

H.B. 2481 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on
April 18, 1995.  

For the purposes of testimony, the committee considered the
following related bills together:  H.B. 2481, H.B. 2762, and H.B.
3092.

The following persons testified in favor of one or more of the
bills:

           Richard Suttle, representing F.M. Properties (H.B.
2762);
           John Condon, representing himself (H.B. 2481 and H.B.
3092); 
           Jimmy Gaines, representing the Texas Landowners Council
           (H.B. 2481 and H.B. 3092);
           William Terry Bray, representing Highland Resources,
Inc. (H.B. 3092);
           David Bodenman, representing Highland Resources, Inc.
(H.B. 3092); and
           Shayne Woodard, representing the Texas Association of
           Builders (H.B. 2481 and H.B. 2762).

The following person testified against one or more of the bills:

           John Condon, representing himself (H.B. 2762);
           Frank Turner, representing himself, the Texas Municipal
           League, and the City Planners Association of Texas (H.B.
           2481 and H.B. 2762);
           Mary Arnold, representing herself (H.B. 2762); 
           Tracy Watson, representing himself and the City of
Austin (H.B. 3092); 
           Greg Vick, representing himself and the City of Cedar
           Hill (H.B. 2762 and H.B. 2481); and
           Danielle Milam, representing the San Antonio Water
System (H.B. 2481).

The following person testified neutrally on one or more of the
bills:

           Jimmy Gaines, representing the Texas Landowners Council
           (H.B. 2762); and
           Danielle Milam, representing the San Antonio Water
System (H.B. 3092).

H.B. 2481 was left pending.

H.B. 2481 was considered by the committee in a formal meeting on
April 24, 1995.

The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill.  The
substitute was adopted without objection.

The bill was reported favorably as substituted, with the
recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of
8 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 1 absent.

In a public hearing on April 25, 1995, the vote by which H.B. 2481
was reported favorably as substituted was reconsidered by the
committee without objection.

The vote by which the substitute for H.B. 2481 was adopted was
reconsidered without objection.

The substitute was withdrawn without objection.



The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill.  The
substitute was adopted without objection.

The bill was reported favorably as substituted, with the
recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of
7 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 2 absent.