Laserfiche WebLink
ii <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />October 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 20 <br />The City contended that because development is defined as subdivi- <br />sion "or" construction, municipalities could place a moratorium on <br />construction for property they have approved for subdivision. <br />The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed. It noted that the Legislature's <br />use of the disjunctive word "or" is significant when interpreting <br />statutes. Here, it found that by using the word "or" in defining "develop- <br />ment," the Legislature indicated that these distinct aspects (i.e., subdivi- <br />sion and construction) were brought within the singular scope of the <br />term development. Thus, the court concluded that, under the plain <br />language of the statute, subdivision constitutes development; and thus, <br />a moratorium may not affect property previously approved for subdivi- <br />sion (or construction). <br />Here, the court found that the City had approved BMTP's final plat <br />in January 2006—almost two years before it passed the November <br />2008 moratorium at issue and four months before it passed any <br />moratorium (i.e., the June 2006 moratorium). The court concluded that <br />because the City approved the residential subdivision for the seven lots <br />at issue, the property constituted approved development under Chapter <br />212, and, accordingly, the moratorium could not validly apply against <br />BMTP's seven lots. <br />See also: State ex rel. State Dept. of Highways and Public Transp. v. <br />Gonzalez, 82 S. W.3d 322 (Tex. 2002). <br />See also: Spradlin v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 34 S. W.3d 578 (Tex. <br />2000). <br />Case Note: <br />BMTP had also brought a claim for inverse condemnation. It asserted that the <br />wrongful application of the moratorium amounted to a regulatory taking. The <br />court found that factual disputes persisted that the trial court had to first <br />resolve with respect to the extent of the moratorium's interference with <br />BMTP's use and enjoyment of its property before a court could determine if a <br />taking had occurred. <br />Zoning News from Around the Nation <br />ARIZONA <br />"Concluding state legislators likely violated the Arizona Constitu- <br />tion, the Attorney General's Office has agreed not to enforce some new <br />laws governing homeowner associations. . . . [T]he state agreed to ac- <br />cept a court order that eight separate provisions of SB 1454 were <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />