Austin Court of Appeals holds no vested rights for zoning changes related to square foot of use ratio
River City Partners, Ltd. V City of Austin, 03-19-00253-CV (Tex. App. — Austin, June 4, 2020).
This is a vested rights/Chapter 245 challenge suit where the Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the granting of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction.
In 1986, River City’s predecessor in title applied to rezone the property to the Community Commercial classification and the City approved with some conditions. In April 2003, the property owner applied to the City for approval to create an eight-lot commercial subdivision. While the application was pending the City passed its zoning ordinance. The City then approved the plat. Fast forward to 2017, aware that its plans exceeded the zoning ordinance limits on use size in relation to the building, River City sought an exemption on the ground that the ordinance conflicted with the 1986 Covenants. When the City denied the request, River City Partners sued for declaratory and injunctive relief asserting the City must apply the regulations in effect at the time of the application. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction which was granted. River City Partners appealed.
Under Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code, a vested right will attach to a project rather than a permit holder and follow any conveyances or transfers of rights related to the project. River City’s as-applied challenge is consistent with parts of Chapter 245 that apply on a project-by-project basis. However, Chapter 245 “does not apply to,” municipal zoning regulations unless they affect certain categories, including building size. Section 245.004 also does not employ similar language or even include the term “project” so the project-based analysis is not applicable. So, the question becomes does the restriction qualify as a zoning regulation on “building size.” The court interpreted the LDC provisions as they applied to the entire code and not simply in isolation. The City’s LDC required that uses not exceed a certain ratio of gross floor area to gross site area. However, the LDC does not prohibit multiple uses within the same building and therefore River City failed to establish the LDC affected building size, only use size. Since Chapter 245 only waives immunity for applicable vested rights, and River City failed to establish a possible vested right, the trial court was without jurisdiction. The plea was properly granted.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Chief Justice Rose, and Justices Triana and Smith.
