Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Senate committee hears bill to clarify remedies for property owners challenging municipal zoning
Loading...
Summary
The Senate Committee on Local Government considered a substitute for Senate Bill 2,215 that would clarify enforcement options for property owners who challenge municipal zoning, including an explicit waiver of immunity allowing mandamus, declaratory or injunctive relief and recovery of attorney’s fees; the measure was left pending.
Senate Committee on Local Government members heard testimony on a committee substitute to Senate Bill 2,215 that would clarify how property owners may challenge municipal zoning actions.
The measure, introduced in committee by Senator Campbell, would convert the draft into a Legislative Council format and add language clarifying that persons “affected or aggrieved” by a municipality may seek enforcement of Chapter 211 zoning rules through mandamus, declaratory judgment, or injunctive relief and that prevailing parties may recover attorney’s fees.
Supporters said the bill is intended to prevent municipalities from evading state zoning requirements and from using pleas to jurisdiction to delay court review for years. Attorney David Earl, who said he represents property owners in multiple cities and has served as city attorney, described cases he said show municipalities failing to give required public hearings and notice, which he said can leave property owners without remedies because of sovereign immunity. “All this bill does is clarify that a property owner has the right to challenge an ordinance that’s passed without compliance with the state law and that that can be enforced through mandamus, injunctive relief or declaratory judgment,” Earl said.
Committee members pressed for examples; Earl cited an ongoing dispute he said involved a City of Selma rezoning and a property owner who lost a $10,000,000 sale after the city changed permitted uses without the notice and hearing he said were required. He also cited past City of San Antonio annexations he said left zoning in place without timely rezoning and argued plaintiffs were blocked from relief by sovereign immunity.
Senator West asked whether the bill establishes a private cause of action; Earl responded that declaratory-judgment remedies already exist but that the substitute expressly clarifies enforcement tools and an express waiver of immunity for enforcement of Chapter 211, and that the substitute also authorizes recovery of attorney’s fees for the prevailing party. Proponents said the language mirrors earlier statutory language used for Chapter 43 annexation enforcement.
No city representatives testified during the hearing on the substitute, and the chair closed public testimony. The committee left the committee substitute for Senate Bill 2,215 pending subject to call of the chair.
The bill remains pending, with committee members and witnesses noting the measure is intended as a clarification of existing remedies rather than the creation of a new cause of action.
