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.