Who had to notify landowners about a proposed Texas subdivision plat revision, and did every nondeveloper owner in the subdivision receive notice?

Texas AG Opinion JM-699: Notice of Subdivision Plat Revisions

Plain-English summary

The Hood County Attorney asked two questions about notice for a developer's proposed subdivision plat revision under article 6626e. First, did the commissioners court have to send the individual notices, or could the county clerk require the developer to do it? Second, if a large subdivision had several smaller unit plats, did notice go only to owners in the unit being revised?

The Attorney General concluded that the commissioners court held the notice responsibility. Section 2(a) expressly required the court to publish notice of the application. Section 2(c) then said notice "shall also be given" to each nondeveloper owner. The word "also" connected the individual-mail duty to the court's publication duty.

The court had to notify all nondeveloper owners in the entire subdivision, not only owners in the smaller unit affected by the proposed change. The statute referred to "each owner" in the "subdivided tract" and did not create an exception for separate unit plats.

The opinion reasoned that a subdivision remained one subdivision even when recorded in smaller units. Restricting notice to one unit would defeat a central purpose of the notice requirement by excluding owners elsewhere in the subdivided tract whose established rights might be affected.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Who had to publish notice of the plat-revision application?

The commissioners court. Section 2(a) required the court to cause newspaper notice to be printed.

Who had to mail notice to nondeveloper owners?

The commissioners court. The opinion read section 2(c)'s additional notice requirement as another duty imposed on the court.

Could the county clerk shift the notice duty to the developer?

Not under the opinion's reading of article 6626e. The statutory duty belonged to the commissioners court.

Did only owners in the revised unit plat receive notice?

No. Every nondeveloper owner in the subdivision had to receive notice, including owners outside the smaller unit plat being revised.

How was individual notice sent?

The quoted statute required certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to each owner's address on the tract.

What did the commissioners court consider when approving a revision?

Section 3 required a showing that the revision would not interfere with established owner rights or that affected owners had agreed to it.

Background and statutory framework

Article 6626e allowed developers to seek revision of recorded subdivision plats subject to county subdivision controls. Section 3 governed the substantive decision, protecting established rights of owners in the subdivided land.

Section 2 created two forms of notice. Subsections (a) and (b) required newspaper publication stating the meeting's time and place and prescribed the publication period. Subsection (c) added mailed notice when any part of the tract had been sold to nondeveloper owners.

The opinion used statutory language and syntax to identify the responsible governmental body and the group entitled to notice. It did not rely on a practical division of a large development into unit plats because the statute used the broader term "subdivided tract."

Citations and references

Statutory authority:

• Article 6626e, sections 1 through 3, V.T.C.S. (subdivision plat revision, notice, and owner rights)

Attorney General opinion:

• Attorney General Opinion JM-365 (1985)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0699
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1987/jm0699.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS

May 15, 1987

Honorable John D. Hughes
Hood County Attorney
Room 6, County Courthouse
Granbury, Texas 76040

Opinion No. JM-699

Re: Whether a county clerk is required to notify nondeveloper owners of land in a subdivision of a developer's request to revise a subdivision plat

Dear Mr. Hughes:

Article 6626e, V.T.C.S., provides for the revision by developers of subdivision plats subject to the subdivision controls of the county and filed for record with the county clerk. See art. 6626e, § 1; cf. Attorney General Opinion JM-365 (1985). Section 3 of article 6626e provides that the county commissioners court shall permit the revision if it is shown either that the revision will not interfere with the established rights of any owner of a part of the subdivided land or, if the revision will interfere with such owners' rights, that the owners have agreed to the revision. Section 2 of the act provides for notice of the proposed revision by general publication and by specific notice to the nondeveloper owners of the subdivided land.

You ask two questions about the notice provisions of article 6626e. Your first question is whether section 2 requires the county to send notice to nondeveloper owners of part of the subdivided tract or whether the county clerk may require the developer to notify nondeveloper owners. Your second question relates to large subdivisions which have been platted in smaller units. You ask whether all nondeveloper owners in the subdivision must be notified or whether notice may be sent only to those nondeveloper owners of land in the unit of the subdivision that is subject to revision.

Section 2 of article 6626e provides:

(a) After the application is filed with the commissioners court, the court shall cause a notice of the application to be printed in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. The notice must include a statement of the time and place at which the commissioners court will meet to consider the application and to hear protests to the revision of the subdivision plat.

(b) The notice must be published at least three times within the period beginning on the 30th day and ending on the seventh day before the date of the meeting.

(c) If all or part of the subdivided tract has been sold to nondeveloper owners, notice shall also be given to each owner, at his address on said tract, by certified mail or registered mail, return receipt requested. (Emphasis added).

Resolution of your first question depends on whether subsection (c) was intended to place a duty on the commissioners court to notify nondeveloper owners.

Statutory construction depends on a determination of legislative intent. The language of a statute is the primary guide in determining legislative intent. The language and syntax of section 2 indicate that the legislature intended that the county commissioners court notify nondeveloper owners of proposed subdivision revisions. Subsection (a) of section 2 refers to the commissioners court and expressly requires "the court" to cause notice to be printed in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. Subsection (c) states that "notice shall also be given to each owner. . . ." Although subsection (c) does not refer expressly to the commissioners court, the use of the word "also" indicates that subsection (c) imposes an additional notice responsibility on the county commissioners court.

You also ask whether all nondeveloper owners in the subdivision must be notified or whether the county may limit notice to nondeveloper owners of land in the unit of the subdivision that is subject to revision. If one subdivision plat could be divided into smaller units for purposes of determining which landowners to notify, a core purpose of the notice requirements would be violated. Subsection (c) of section 2 states that "[i]f all or part of the subdivided tract has been sold to nondeveloper owners, notice shall also be given to each owner. . . ." (Emphasis added). This subsection refers to "each" nondeveloper owner of land in the "subdivided tract"; it does not limit notice to owners in some smaller "affected portion" of the subdivision. Nor does it limit notice to owners in the "subdivision plat." Even if one subdivision is platted in various units, it remains one subdivision. Consequently, the legislature must have intended that the county notify all nondeveloper owners in the subdivision of proposed revisions in the subdivision plat, including revisions in any smaller unit plat of the subdivision.

SUMMARY

Subsection (c) of section 2 of article 6626e, V.T.C.S., places the duty on the county commissioners court to notify all nondeveloper owners of all or part of a subdivided tract of a proposed revision of the subdivision plats, including revisions in any smaller unit plat of the subdivision, filed for record with the county clerk.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Jennifer Riggs
Assistant Attorney General