SLC H.B. 1395 75(R)BILL ANALYSIS LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT H.B. 1395 By: Turner, Bob 5-1-97 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND During the 1980's, the intensity of land use regulation in some parts of Texas increased dramatically. To compound the problems for landowners and business people, the frequency with which the regulations changed in some parts of the state got completely out of hand. In far too many cases, land was purchased for development and tremendous amounts of time, money and effort were expended taking a project through the development approval process, only to have the rules changed in the middle of the process. This often resulted in significant economic waste and the frustration of reasonable, investment backed expectations. In Austin new regulations sometimes limited development to less than 10% of a tract of land. The Legislature first addressed this problem in 1987 with the passage of Subchapter I, Chapter 481, Texas Government Code. This legislation basically locked in the development regulations for a tract of land at the time when the application for the first permit in the series of permits needed to develop the project was made. Despite the straightforward language of the original legislation, some cities came out with interpretations of the legislation which rendered it practically meaningless. For example, Austin adopted a policy that a subdivision plat was one "project" and site plan approval needed for actual construction on that platted lot was a new and different "project." The Legislature addressed the problem again in 1995, but no sooner was that done than some cities started adopting new strategies to limit the effectiveness of the legislation. The most common among these new strategies is that any change in the precise type of land use originally envisioned for the project is considered to result in a "new project" which is unprotected by the legislation. For example, even though a property owner may have zoning and subdivision approvals that would allow the alternative uses of a tract of land for a restaurant, an office or a church, any change in what was originally contemplated is considered to bring the project under all new development criteria. In many cases, this prevents landowners and business people from effectively responding to changing market demands. Another common abuse is the refusal to recognize zoning changes which are required to be obtained in order to pursue a project as one of the permits which can establish the date when the approval process began. Even though rezoning is in fact often the first thing which is required and can be a very costly an time consuming process, the project is left exposed to political whims and changing regulations even after a rezoning is specifically granted to allow a project. PURPOSE CSHB 1395 will further clarify amendments to Subchapter I, Chapter 481, Texas Government Code, which will eliminate some of the problems described above and allow the legislation to be used as originally intended. 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 Sec. 481.143, Government Code, as follows: Sec. 481.143. UNIFORMITY OF REQUIREMENTS. (a) Insert the word "subdivision" between Preliminary and Plans to the list of plans and plats that can be considered collectively to be one series of permits, regardless of whether all the permits are issued by the same regulatory agency or by more than one regulatory agency. (b) Provides that the rules, ordinances, etc., which apply to the approval of a subdivision plat also apply to the construction of any infrastructure improvement required in connection with the plat. (c) Provides that except as provided under (f)(5), if a municipality approved a site plan showing building locations for a project before the date of annexation, that city may not impair, stop, or cause the alteration of a project by imposing new rules, ordinances or requirements as the result of the annexation (d) States that notwithstanding (f)(4) or (f)(5), a municipality may not impair, stop, or cause the alteration of a building or the building's associated parking or landscaping that is lawfully being constructed at the time of an annexation by imposing new rules, regulation, etc., as a result of the annexation of the area containing the project. (e) conforming change (f) Sets forth exceptions to this section. (g) conforming change (h) conforming change (i) Allows revisions to a project if at least one permit in the series of required permits has been used and not more than 20 years has elapsed between the application for the first and the last permit in the series of permits necessary to construct the project. SECTION 2. States that this Act does not limit or otherwise affect the enforcement of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S. C. Section 1451 et seq.), its subsequent amendments, and Subtitle E Title 2, Natural Resources Code from the application of this bill, as did the predecessors of S.B. 1704 adopted in the 1995 session. Furthermore, this Act shall not be construed to impair the rights or remedies of any person with pending litigation brought under Subchapter I, Chapter 481, Gov. Code, before the effective date of this Act. SECTION 3. Emergency Clause. Effective Date. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE CSHB 1395 deletes Sec. 481.141. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT., which was contained in the original legislation. CSHB 1395 also deletes Sec. 481.142. DEFINITIONS., which was contained in the original legislation. CSHB 1395 provides that the rules, ordinances, etc., which apply to the approval of a subdivision plat also apply to the construction of any infrastructure improvement required in connection with the plat. The original legislation did not contain this provision. CSHB 1395 provides that except as provided under (f)(5), if a municipality approved a site plan showing building locations for a project before the date of annexation, that city may not impair, stop, or cause the alteration of a project by imposing new rules, ordinances or requirements as the result of the annexation. The original legislation did not contain this provision. CSHB 1395 states that notwithstanding (f)(4) or (f)(5), a municipality may not impair, stop, or cause the alteration of a building or the building's associated parking or landscaping that is lawfully being constructed at the time of an annexation by imposing new rules, regulation, etc., as a result of the annexation of the area containing the project. The original legislation did not contain this provision.