I have a perspective client that is looking into developing a seven acre tract into a subdivision. The subject property is not located within the city limits, however it is just inside the limits of the city's ETJ. Although the property fronts on an oil sand road that is maintained by the county, the city is telling the landowner that he is going to have to put in a concrete street on his property, and install curb and gutter along the oil sand road (per city platting requirements). I know that Local Government Code 232.0031 says that a county may not impose a higher standard of streets or roads in a subdivision than the county imposes on itself for the construction of streets or roads with a similar type and amount of traffic, but is there anything that limits the city's requirements in their ETJ?
i was thinking HB 1204 too, but not positive. this PDF always pops up when i start digging around these kinds of questions. read the conclusion.
the gist is likely in the terms of whatever agreement the city made with either the county or your landowner when the annex took place.
The City is requiring the Developer to improve the county road outside the city limits? I would call BS on that. I don't have anything to base it on but I would still call BS. Building a "concrete street on his property" I understand. Improving the County Road is what I disagree with.
James
kkw_archer, post: 435038, member: 5453 wrote: I have a prospective client that is looking into developing a seven acre tract into a subdivision. The subject property is not located within the city limits, however it is just inside the limits of the city's ETJ. Although the property fronts on an oil sand road that is maintained by the county, the city is telling the landowner that he is going to have to put in a concrete street on his property, and install curb and gutter along the oil sand road (per city platting requirements). I know that Local Government Code 232.0031 says that a county may not impose a higher standard of streets or roads in a subdivision than the county imposes on itself for the construction of streets or roads with a similar type and amount of traffic, but is there anything that limits the city's requirements in their ETJ?
See Sections 212.001 - 212.003 of the Local Government Code. This is what extends the effect of municipal ordinances on land development to the ETJ. The perfectly rational reason for this is that it is assumed that the land within the ETJ has a good chance of being annexed into the city eventually and, if no adequate provision for the road improvements that the development requires is made, then the city residents have to ultimately pick up the tab.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LG/htm/LG.212.htm
Kent McMillan, post: 435045, member: 3 wrote: See Sections 212.001 - 212.003 of the Local Government Code. This is what extends the effect of municipal ordinances on land development to the ETJ. The perfectly rational reason is that it is assumed that eventually the land within the ETJ will be annexed and if no provision is made for adequate improvements that the development will require, then the costs are unfairly shifted to the residents of the city.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LG/htm/LG.212.htm
"Local Government Code 232.0031 says that a county may not impose a higher standard of streets or roads in a subdivision than the county imposes on itself for the construction of streets or roads with a similar type and amount of traffic"
It is apparent that the type of traffic the county anticipates is for an oil road.
The developer is proposing multiple residential use, sure sounds like different type and amount of traffic to me. The city is not requiring him to build the road for no benefit to himself save the sale of all those residential lots. I would say the city is being reasonable. I would assume he also wants to put city utilities under that unpaved oil road without a proper protecting over structure.
Paul in PA
Google says "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) is an area outside the city limits where cities can regulate some activities through agreements with the county. ... "
that type of word crafting has a very familiar ring to it
California calls that sphere of influence.
Paul in PA, post: 435048, member: 236 wrote: "Local Government Code 232.0031 says that a county may not impose a higher standard of streets or roads in a subdivision than the county imposes on itself for the construction of streets or roads with a similar type and amount of traffic"
It is apparent that the type of traffic the county anticipates is for an oil road.The developer is proposing multiple residential use, sure sounds like different type and amount of traffic to me. The city is not requiring him to build the road for no benefit to himself save the sale of all those residential lots. I would say the city is being reasonable. I would assume he also wants to put city utilities under that unpaved oil road without a proper protecting over structure.
Paul in PA
It's not impossible, but it is highly unlikely that there are any city utilities involved. To a developer, being in the ETJ in Texas has all of the liabilities of being in the City with none of the benefits. The presumption being that someday the City might incorporate the area within its ETJ into the City. Then the City has 10 years to provide City services to the incorporated areas. It's typically a huge overreach of power with little representation afforded the affected property owners to oppose it.
ETJ really annoys me, it might make sence of the people in the ETJ could vote in city elections, but they can't. I have only encountered this in Texas. Are there other states that allow this?
Shawn Billings, post: 435057, member: 6521 wrote: The presumption being that someday the City might incorporate the area within its ETJ into the City. Then the City has 10 years to provide City services to the incorporated areas.
so just because a property is within the political boundary The City (TAXPAYERS) has to provide services?
Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the property owner receiving the benefit?
maybe I didn't read it right
Peter Ehlert, post: 435065, member: 60 wrote: so just because a property is within the political boundary The City (TAXPAYERS) has to provide services?
Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the property owner receiving the benefit?maybe I didn't read it right
If you own property outside the city limits and outside the ETJ, then you have nothing to do with the city and the city has nothing to do with you. If you have property outside the city but inside the ETJ (which extends as far as 3 miles from the city limits, as I recall), the city can impose development codes on your property, at no benefit to the property owner (no city services are being provided). Some time later, the city may incorporate the area within its ETJ, which is why the ETJ and its development codes exist - to protect the city from incorporating a neighborhood that will be difficult to bring up to city code. After the city incorporates the area, then the city has 10 years to provide city services to the incorporated area (particularly utilities such as water and sewer), all the while the new residents are paying city taxes.
It's not like it was 80 years ago when developers were creating "additions", subdivisions of land that were just outside the city limits that were to be incorporated by the city. Everyone was a willing participant. Most of the time, in my experience, people outside the city limits today have chosen to live outside the city limits with the intention of being outside the city limits and its codes. The ETJ disrupts this intention.
I do think I heard on the news the other day that the state reps are going to take a look at this here in TX, as it is being missused, and cities are requiring things in the ETJ in areas that are not even on the radar to be annexed, causing heartache, heartburn, and expense for anyone wanting to build in a ETJ area. Now, I am not positive as thats exactly what I heard, as I am stringly against the ETJ idea, as the thought of a city that I don't live in, and receive no benefits from, should not be allowed to tell me how I have to build my home, or driveway, etc. If it's my land, I should be allowed to do what I want. That is my opinion of HOA's also. Bunch of folks wanting to go around telling other people what to do....
The way it should work IN the City is the Developer builds the streets, waterlines, and sewer lines. The City connects those to the City infrastructure and starts sending utility bills as the new residents move in.
The way the City WANTS it to work outside the city, inside the ETJ, the Developer builds the streets, waterlines, and sewer lines. Then the City might or might not annex the area, might or might not connect the utilities, might or might not improve the oil sand road to City Street standards. Obviously it doesn't work that way so many times nothing ever happens in the ETJ.
James
The ETJ distance is different depending on the size (population) of the adjacent City. In my little town it is 1/2 mile.
Shawn Billings, post: 435069, member: 6521 wrote: Most of the time, in my experience, people outside the city limits today have chosen to live outside the city limits with the intention of being outside the city limits and its codes. The ETJ disrupts this intention.
you hit on an important point here, one that is also a good reminder about unintended consequences and speaking in broad generalities.
if anyone cares to spend a little while trying to understand all the implications of ETJ in Texas, just google "Circle C" and grab a cup of coffee.
also, city services includes such things as fire, police, and EMS- not just pipes for various fluids.
Monte, post: 435070, member: 11913 wrote: I do think I heard on the news the other day that the state reps are going to take a look at this here in TX, as it is being missused, and cities are requiring things in the ETJ in areas that are not even on the radar to be annexed, causing heartache, heartburn, and expense for anyone wanting to build in a ETJ area. Now, I am not positive as thats exactly what I heard, as I am stringly against the ETJ idea, as the thought of a city that I don't live in, and receive no benefits from, should not be allowed to tell me how I have to build my home, or driveway, etc. If it's my land, I should be allowed to do what I want. That is my opinion of HOA's also. Bunch of folks wanting to go around telling other people what to do....
At least with an HOA, it's voluntary. People buy property with an HOA in place.
flyin solo, post: 435077, member: 8089 wrote: city services includes such things as fire, police, and EMS- not just pipes for various fluids.
There is truth to this. We've benefited from city fire, police and EMS in my area outside the city limits over the years and are grateful for it. Having said that, the County provides some compensation to the city for this through the Emergency Services District.
These EMS, fire and other public service districts are also allowed to ask for a vote to impose added sales tax to be collected to fund their operations.
Another reason to stay out of cities and any sort of ETJ they want to control. Simple.
The closest thing to this with which I have had direct involvement was related to a rural water district on which I served as a Director. The RWD had a contract with a city to purchase a range of water use monthly for specific terms. At the point in time when the contract was created (1960's) the city had decided they didn't want anyone building close to them without having some sort of control over the potential builders. They accomplished this to some extent by including in the RWD water purchase contract a requirement that the RWD provide no service to any tract consisting of less than 40 acres. This was a massive overreach as the RWD had territory nearly 20 miles from the city as well as territory on three sides of the city.
