System updates will be applied on February 19, 2026 at 6:00 PM. These updates will include changes to the user interface. Work is expected to take approximately 30 minutes to complete, during which the site will be unavailable.

BILL ANALYSIS

 

 

 

H.B. 1475

By: Cyrier

Land & Resource Management

Committee Report (Unamended)

 

 

 

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

 

Current law authorizes a municipal board of adjustment to authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of a zoning ordinance if, among other things, due to special conditions a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. There has been some confusion among various municipalities regarding what constitutes an unnecessary hardship. A lack of clarity has led to municipalities interpreting and applying the term differently on a case‑by-case basis. Without better guidance, uncertainty and confusion will remain as to whether the application of an ordinance to a structure meets the unnecessary hardship standard of a particular board. H.B. 1475 seeks to address this lack of clarity and standardization by authorizing a board to consider certain factors as grounds to determine whether compliance with an ordinance as applied to a structure would result in unnecessary hardship.

 

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

 

H.B. 1475 amends the Local Government Code to authorize a municipal board of adjustment, in exercising its authority to authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of a zoning ordinance, to consider the following as grounds to determine whether compliance with the ordinance as applied to a structure that is the subject of the appeal would result in unnecessary hardship:

·         the financial cost of compliance is greater than 50 percent of the applicable appraised value of the structure;

·         compliance would result in a loss to the lot on which the structure is located of at least 25 percent of the area on which development may physically occur;

·         compliance would result in the structure not being in compliance with a requirement of a municipal ordinance, building code, or other requirement;

·         compliance would result in the unreasonable encroachment on an adjacent property or easement; or

·         the municipality considers the structure to be a nonconforming structure.

 

EFFECTIVE DATE

 

September 1, 2021.