From the 89th RECAP – New Housing Development

HB 2559 - Relating to the imposition by a municipality of a moratorium on property development in certain circumstances.

This bill was advocated by Texas Home Builders Association (and additional support from a coalition of pro-housing developers – including TMHA) and increases the transparency and notice requirements to prevent municipalities from unfairly imposing moratoriums on property developments.

The changes now require a 30-day notice and certified mail notice to person(s) registered previously with the city secretary, and also that two (not just one, like previously) public hearings at least 30-days apart must occur before a city can impose a building moratorium.

HB 4506 - Relating to electronic delivery of notice for certain municipal zoning changes.

This bill allows for an opt-in system to choose to receive zoning change notices electronically (i.e. via email)

SB 15 - Relating to size and density requirements for residential lots in certain municipalities; authorizing a fee.

This is the minimum lot size bill for some cities. The concept is that some cities stifle new home development and increase housing costs by requiring large minimum lot sizes. When a city demands that each lot have more land, and that land is expensive (as it is in top populated Texas cities), it makes new housing construction more expensive. This bill creates preemption standards for smaller sized “greenfield” new development lots in some cities. It only applies to cities with a population of more than 150,000 and is in a county of more than 300,000. This means only the top 18 most populous counties and the larger cities within the following:

Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, Bexar, Travis, Collin, Denton, Fort Bend, Hidalgo, El Paso, Montgomery, Williamson, Cameron, Brazoria, Bell, Galveston, Nueces, and Lubbock.

Being limited to only new developments, this only applies to land that will be newly developed (not existing developments or neighborhoods, only “green field” new single-family homes)

For the Applicable cities they CANNOT:

• Require residential lots bigger than 3,000 sqft;
• Wider than 30 feet; or
• Deeper than 75 feet

Applicable cities CANNOT require on “small lots” (4,000 sqft of less) to have:

• Setbacks larger than 15 ft from the front and 10 ft from the back; or 5 ft side-to-side;
• Covered parking;
• More than one parking space per unit/house;
• Off-site parking;
• More than 30% open/permeable surface;
• Less than 3 stories;
• A maximum building bulk;
• Wall articulation requirement; or
• Any other zoning that imposes a restriction inconsistent with the new law

However, applicable cities CAN require:

• Setbacks needed for environmental features, erosion, or waterways that are authorized under federal or state law;
• Sharing a driveway with another lot;
• Single-family home permitting fees;
• Impact fees authorized under Chapter 395 – i.e. the Texas general impact fee law;

There are also the following narrow exceptions withing the applicable cities of: a permeable space exception for areas in aquifer recharge and impacted zones; and that necessary for stormwater regulation. Additional exceptions for some areas near police training and military bases, as well as HOAs and deed restrictions.

Legal Action – this new law has legal teeth by allowing a person to bring suit against a city for violating this law and get injunctive relief, compel the city to comply, attorneys’ fees and court costs for the winning party, and even opt to go to the 15th Court of Appeals for any appeals

SB 1567 – Relating to the authority of home-rule municipalities to regulate the occupancy of dwelling units.

This preempts some cities (population of 250,000 or less and with a college enrollment of 20,000 or more) where a public university is located from placing occupancy standards or limits on housing (i.e. making it easier for college students to cohabitate for housing cost purposes). These cities can, at most, only limit one occupant per sleeping room with a minimum floor area of 70 square feet; and one additional occupant for each additional 50 square feet of floor area in the same sleeping room.

SB 1883 - Relating to the approval of land use assumptions, capital improvement plans, and impact fees.

Also advocated by Texas Home Builders Association (and additional support from a coalition of pro-housing developers – including TMHA), reforms the law that allowed cities to impose and increase impact fees for new development by a simple majority vote.

The new requirements on cities looking to increase or impose impacts fees, increases the vote threshold to a super-majority (2/3rds), limits increase to, at most, every three years, and requires, prior to increasing the fees an independent audit (with 10 specific audit evaluation criteria that must be satisfied) followed by posting the audit results on their website and a public hearing.

SB 783 – Relating to certain regulations adopted by governmental entities for the construction or alteration of residential or commercial buildings.

The caption is a bit vague, but this is the second, and now successful (in 2021 the governor vetoed this bill), attempt to allow for the state energy code to be updated and not violate the preemption laws on building materials and recent adopted national codes.

But the new law does add that prior to updating the TX building energy codes, the State Energy Conservation Office must conduct an analysis that measures the impact of the amendment or adoption on housing attainability in this state; and quantifies the incremental construction cost and energy use cost savings associated with construction to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the proposed amendment or adoption.

The analysis must calculate the payback period for any required products or minimum standards or requirements that are more stringent than the energy code in effect on the date immediately before the date the amendment or adoption would take effect.

HB 2025 - Relating to the filing for record of a plat, replat, or amended plat or replat of a subdivision of real property or a condominium.

If a person files a plat, replat, or amended plat with the county clerk after September 1 of a year, the person must attach to it a tax receipt issued by each taxing unit with jurisdiction over the property indicating that the taxes imposed by the taxing unit for the current year have been paid or, if the taxes for the current year have not been calculated, a statement from the taxing unit indicating that the taxes to be imposed for the current year have not been calculated.

However, under the previous law if taxes are calculated after the person files the plat but before the county clerk records the plat, the county clerk may reject the plat.

Under this change the law changes so that a plat is not rejected if the taxes owed for a property for which a plat was filed are calculated after a person files a plat but before the county clerk records the plat.

SB 1202 – Relating to third-party review of property development documents and inspections of improvements related to those documents, including home backup power installations.

This narrow bill provides for certain third parties to review development documents and conduct inspections required to install home backup power generation as an alternative to review and inspection by the regulatory authority to alleviate regulatory bottlenecks, costly fees, and slow permitting processes.

SB 1566 - Relating to connection of utilities by certain entities in certain subdivisions formerly located in a municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Stops cities from prohibiting utility connections in certain areas (those within a city’s utilities certificate of convenience and necessity area) that was petitioned by the property owners to be removed/released from the cities ETJ.

HB 24 – Relating to procedures for changes to a zoning regulation or district boundary.

Referred to as partially ending the “tyrant’s veto” over proposed zoning changes where only 20% of surrounding property owners needed to protest a zoning change to force a super majority vote by a city council to approve the change. This law will require a higher level of objection and vote threshold to stop zoning changes.

The bill separates zoning actions into two categories – “comprehensive zoning change” and all other (i.e. not comprehensive…so run-of-the-mill zoning changes)

A “comprehensive zoning change” is one that proposes to allow more residential development, or a new zoning code or map that will impact the entire city, or allow for more development via a zoning overlay near major road and transit corridors.

For non-comprehensive zoning changes (so just your normal one-off zoning cases):

• Protest – 20% or more of owners impacted by the proposed change; 20% or more of owners of adjoining land within 200 feet; or 60% or more of the landowners and 200 ft adjoining land owners if the proposed change would allow more residential development and doesn’t add more commercial or industrial uses (limited exception for first floor mix uses)
• The Vote Threshold to Still Pass of Protested – 3/4ths vote needed to proceed with the proposed zoning changes over the objection of the protests (simple majority exception for those that add more housing but not more commercial zoning)

For comprehensive zoning changes (as newly defined)

• New Presumption of Validity – if the changes allow more residential development, then they are presumed to be valid, and will be valid if they are not annulled or invalidated within 60-days after the date of change

Note: The law didn’t change the existing law to annul or invalidate a change, meaning an invalidation will require a lawsuit to prove some procedural mistake or other critical process error.

The is a Special Sign Notice Requirements for Home-Rule Municipalities that at least 10 days prior to a proposed zoning change that does NOT apply to the entire city and through the final data of the determination the city must post a specific sign (size etc.) on the affected property or public right of way near the proposed property.