BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 3092
By: Krusee
April 28, 1995
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

Certain municipalities apply subsequently enacted ordinances, rules
and regulations to previously approved land development plans. 
This creates uncertainty and instability in the land development
process which deters long term investment and high quality, large
scale projects which cannot be completed within a short time.

PURPOSE

This legislation would allow land to be developed based on a
municipality's ordinances, rules and regulations in effect when the
original application for the first development plan for that land
is filed with the municipality.

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 Subchapter Z, Chapter 212, Local Government Code
           by adding the following:

           Section 212.903.

           (a) Restricts application of bill to home-rule
               municipalities that have a charter provision
               allowing for limited-purpose annexation and
               have annexed territory for a limited purpose,
               and which have within their corporate limits
               land that is also within a road district that
               has issued refunding bonds and imposed
               assessments on each parcel of land under
               Section 4.438A of the County Road and Bridge
               Act.

           (b) Defines "affected area", "development",
           "development plan" and "permit."

           (c) Allows land to be developed according to an
               approved development plan, regardless of any
               expiration date imposed by the municipality.

           (d) Allows development to proceed according to the
               ordinances, rules and regulations in effect
               when the original application for approval of
               the first development plan was filed
               regardless of subsequently enacted ordinances,
               rules or regulations that would otherwise
               apply.

           (e) Requires permits for development under a
               development plan to be considered on the basis
               of regulations in effect when the original
               application for approval of the first
               development plan was filed.

           (f) Applies to development plans applied for
               before as well as after the effective date of
               the legislation.


           (g) Rights and remedies under this legislation are
               cumulative to all other rights and remedies.

           (h) Exempts permits for the construction of
               buildings intended for human occupancy that
               are issued pursuant to regulations and laws
               adopting uniform building standards and codes.

SECTION 2  Severability clause.

SECTION 3  Emergency clause.


COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

The substitute changes the bracketing language to clarify the areas
that are subject to the bill.  The substitute adds a definition for
"affected area," which is defined as an area within a county other
than the county in which a majority of the territory of the
municipality is located.  Subsection (h) is added in the
substitute, and it provides that building codes and related
standards are exempt from the provisions of the Act.  This change
allows building codes to change during the permitting process to
allow for safety improvements.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

H.B. 3092 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. 3092 was left pending.

H.B. 3092 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.