Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0498

August 29, 2025

The Honorable Donna Campbell, M.D.
Chair, Senate Committee on Nominations
Texas State Senate
Post Office Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711-2068

Opinion No. KP-0498

Re: Zoning procedures, notification requirements, and eligibility for protests under
Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code (RQ-0577-KP)

Dear Senator Campbell:

You ask three questions regarding municipal zoning procedures set out in Texas Local
Government Code sections 211.006 and 211.007. 1 First, you ask if “property owners within 200
feet of the proposed zoning change—whether within or outside city limits—are entitled to
notification” of the change “regardless of their presence on municipal tax rolls.” Request Letter at
1. Second, you ask whether property owners within a “designated radius,” regardless of whether
they are listed on the municipal tax roll, “have the right to protest” a proposed zoning change. Id.
Third, you ask about “the standard procedural requirements for verifying eligibility for notification
and protest, as well as the role of external (e.g., county-level) records in ensuring accurate
notifications.” Id.

The process to reclassify property generally involves a municipality’s zoning
commission and governing body.

“Zoning regulation is a recognized tool of community planning, allowing a municipality,
in the exercise of its legislative discretion, to restrict the use of private property,” City of Brookside
Vill. v. Comeau, 633 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex. 1982), in a manner that conforms to a comprehensive
plan, see Williamson Pointe Venture v. City of Austin, 912 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex. App.—Austin
1995, no writ) (per curiam); TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 211.004 (requiring zoning regulations be
adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan). Chapter 211, subchapter A, of the Local
Government Code sets forth the “General Zoning Regulations” applicable to municipalities. TEX.
LOC. GOV’T CODE §§ 211.001–.020. Pursuant to those provisions, the process to reclassify

1
See Letter and Attachment from Hon. Donna Campbell, M.D., Chair, S. Comm. on Nominations, to Hon.
Ken Paxton, Tex. Att’y Gen. at 1–2 (Jan. 24, 2025), https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/request-
files/request/2025/RQ0577KP.pdf (“Request Letter” and “Attachment,” respectively).
The Honorable Donna Campbell, M.D. – Page 2

property generally involves the municipality’s zoning commission and governing body. See id.
§§ 211.006–.007; Williamson Pointe Venture, 912 S.W.2d at 342.

We understand that your questions arise from a proposed zoning classification change in a
home-rule municipality in which the governing body does not meet jointly with the zoning
commission, and we limit this opinion accordingly. 2 See Attachment at 1–2 (relating to a City of
San Antonio zoning commission case involving a property owner’s request to change the
property’s zoning classification from commercial to multi-family); see also Milberger
Landscaping, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, No. 08-23-00283-CV, 2024 WL 5099206, at *10 (Tex.
App.—El Paso Dec. 12, 2024, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (stating San Antonio is a home-rule
municipality). On this backdrop, we turn to your first question, which we understand to relate to
the part of the reclassification process involving the zoning commission.

Landowners are only entitled to written notice of a hearing before the zoning
commission regarding a proposed classification change if the most recently approved
municipal tax roll indicates they own the property.

“In a home-rule city, a zoning commission must recommend zoning districts and zoning
regulations to the city’s governing body.” 3 City of Austin, 651 S.W.3d at 478; see also TEX. LOC.
GOV’T CODE § 211.007(a). The zoning commission must “make a preliminary report and hold at
least one public hearing” regarding a proposed zoning change. TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE
§ 211.007(b). “A municipality is required to give written notice of each public hearing before the
zoning commission on a proposed change in a zoning classification.” City of Dallas v. E. Vill.
Ass’n, 480 S.W.3d 37, 41 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, pet. denied); see also TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE
§ 211.007(c). The notice is “sent to each owner, as indicated by the most recently approved
municipal tax roll, of real property within 200 feet of the property on which the change in
classification is proposed.” TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 211.007(c); see also City of McKinney v. OH
Skyline/380, L.P., 375 S.W.3d 580, 584 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (holding this
requirement applies to the owner of property subject to the proposed change). If the property within
200 feet of the property on which the change is proposed is located in territory annexed to the
municipality and is not included on the most recently approved municipal tax roll, the notice shall
be given by publication in a newspaper. TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE §§ 211.006(a), .007(c).

Your first question appears to concern a landowner’s right to individual written notice of a
public hearing pursuant to subsection 211.007(c). Request Letter at 1. Subsection 211.007(c)
defines the scope of those to whom written notice is owed before a classification change is made.
City of McKinney, 375 S.W.3d at 583. By its terms, the subsection requires that written notice “be
sent to any person or entity that the current tax roll indicates is the owner of real property located

2
See Letter from Andrew Segovia, City Att’y, City of San Antonio, to Joshua C. Fiveson, Chair, Op. Comm.
at 1–2 (Feb. 28, 2025) (on file with the Op. Comm.) (describing advertising and notifications for hearings held
separately before the zoning commission and city council) (“City Letter”).
3
“A reference in . . . subchapter [A] to the adoption of a zoning regulation or a zoning district boundary
includes the amendment, repeal, or other change of a regulation or boundary.” TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 211.002. One
court explains that case law generally treats the terms zoning regulations or district boundaries as “synonymous” with
“changes in zoning classification.” City of Austin v. Acuna, 651 S.W.3d 474, 479 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2022, no pet.).
The Honorable Donna Campbell, M.D. – Page 3

within 200 feet of property on which the ‘change in classification’ is proposed.” Id. The right to
notice is therefore “established by the tax rolls” and “[t]he test for one who deserves individual
notice is its ownership of real property.” Id. at 584; see also TEX. TAX CODE § 26.09(e) (providing
“[t]he appraisal roll with amounts of tax entered as approved by the governing body constitutes
the” municipality’s tax roll). Thus, in regard to your first question, owners of real property located
within 200 feet of a proposed change in classification are entitled to individual written notice of
the hearing before the zoning commission only if the most recently approved municipal tax roll
indicates they own the property. 4

A landowner likely does not have to be listed on the most recently approved municipal
tax roll to count toward the protest calculation regarding a proposed classification
change before the governing body.

Your second question relates to the part of the reclassification process involving the
governmental body. See Request Letter at 1. Upon receipt of a final report from the zoning
commission, TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 211.007(b), the governing body sets a hearing date to
consider a zoning reclassification and publishes “notice of the time and place of the hearing . . . in
an official newspaper or a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality,” id. § 211.006(a).5
At the hearing, all “parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard.” Id. An
affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of all members of the governing body is required to adopt
the proposed change if validly protested by “owners of at least 20 percent of either: (1) the area of
the lots or land covered by the proposed change; or (2) the area of the lots or land immediately
adjoining the area covered by the proposed change and extending 200 feet from that area.” Id.
§ 211.006(d) (noting that the protest “must be written and signed”).

We understand your second question to ask whether a landowner must be listed on the
approved municipal tax roll to qualify as an owner who counts toward the protest calculation under
subsection 211.006(d). Request Letter at 1. Our goal is to ascertain and give effect to the
Legislature’s intent as expressed by the words of the subsection, City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246
S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. 2008), “read[ing] the statute contextually, giving effect to every word,
clause, and sentence,” Jaster v. Comet II Constr., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. 2014) (quoting
In re Off. of Att’y Gen., 422 S.W.3d 623, 629 (Tex. 2013)). We presume “the Legislature included
words that it intended to include and omitted words it intended to omit.” Pub. Util. Comm’n of
Tex. v. Luminant Energy Co. LLC, 691 S.W.3d 448, 461 (Tex. 2024) (quoting Union Carbide
Corp. v. Synatzske, 438 S.W.3d 39, 52 (Tex. 2014)).

4
That an owner may not receive individual written notice does not, however, mean the owner receives no
notification of a proposed zoning classification change because individual notice “is in addition to the general public
notice and opportunity to be heard provided in section 211.006(a).” FLCT, Ltd. v. City of Frisco, 493 S.W.3d 238,
264 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied); see also City Letter at 2 (stating that even though an owner may not
be “mailed a direct notice from the City, they still receive notice through the publication process . . . and may voice
their opposition to the Zoning Commission and City Council through the public hearing process”).
5
In addition to notice provided under section 211.006(a), the governing body of a home-rule municipality
“may, by a two-thirds vote, prescribe the type of notice to be given of the time and place of the public hearing.” TEX.
LOC. GOV’T CODE § 211.006(c).
The Honorable Donna Campbell, M.D. – Page 4

Subsection 211.006(d) does not, by its terms, require that an owner appear on the most
recently approved municipal tax roll. TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 211.006(d)(2). And the term
“owner” as used in subchapter A is not always confined to those on the tax roll. Id. § 211.007(c)
(instructing how to serve notice on owners not on the approved tax roll but whose property is
“within 200 feet of the property on which the change is proposed” and annexed to the
municipality). Consistent with a plain reading of the subsection, a landowner does not have to be
listed on the approved municipal tax roll to qualify as an owner under subsection 211.006(d). This
reading is likewise confirmed by statutory history, which reveals that protest rights predate the
statute’s limitation of the term “owner” to those on the approved tax roll in other contexts. See Act
of March 14, 1927, 40th Leg., R.S., ch. 283, § 1, 1927 Tex. Gen. Laws 424, 425; see also City of
Austin, 651 S.W.3d at 484 n.11 (noting that protest rights predate the right to written notice of
proposed changes in classification under subsection 211.007(c) by more than twenty years). Nor
does subsection 211.006(d) refer to the same class of people described in subsection 211.007(c).
Compare TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 211.006(d)(2) (referring to owners of “the area of the lots or
land immediately adjoining the area covered by the proposed change and extending 200 feet from
that area” (emphases added)), with id. § 211.007(c) (referring to owners on the tax roll with “real
property within 200 feet of the property on which the change in classification is proposed”); see
also City of Austin, 651 S.W.3d at 484 (rejecting the city’s argument “that protest rights are co-
extensive with the right to written notice”).

To be sure, the court in Strong v. City of Grand Prairie held that “the intent of the
legislature was to permit written protests of proposed zoning changes by the owners of ‘real
property’ lying within 200 feet of the property on which the zoning change is proposed, which
ownership is to be determined from the last approved city tax roll.” 679 S.W.2d 767, 770 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 1984, no writ) (emphasis added) (construing subsection 211.006(d)(2)’s
predecessor statute). But more recent guidance counsels in favor of the statute’s plain text. See
City of Austin, 651 S.W.3d at 484. As such, were the Texas Supreme Court to consider the issue,
it would likely conclude that the protest criteria under subsection 211.006(d) is ownership within
the qualifying geographical areas—regardless of the municipal tax roll. 6

Other than use of the tax roll to identify an owner entitled to written notice of a
hearing before the zoning commission, subsections 211.006(d) and 211.007(c) neither
direct nor prohibit the use of external records or a specific method or course of action
to verify an owner.

Your final question asks about “standard procedural requirements for verifying [owner]
eligibility for” notice under subsection 211.007(c) and to protest under subsection 211.006(d) “as

6
A previous opinion concluded “only those who own real property within the specified geographic limits
and whose ownership is indicated on the most recently approved city tax roll” are eligible to protest under subsection
211.006(d)(2). Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. GA-0630 (2008) at 3. But this conclusion was based on the fact that, at the
time, Strong was the only precedent on point. Id. at 4 (explaining we were advising about our understanding of the
current state of the law). The intervening decision in City of Austin construes section 211.006 differently, 651 S.W.3d
at 484, and compels us to revisit the statutory text’s plain language. House Bill 24, effective September 1, 2025,
changes the protest procedures as described in this opinion, but does not change our conclusion. See Act of May 31,
2025, 89th Leg., R.S., ch. 909, § 3, 2025 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. __, __ (to be codified at TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE
§ 211.0061).
The Honorable Donna Campbell, M.D. – Page 5

well as the role of external (e.g., county-level) records in ensuring accurate notifications.” Request
Letter at 1. As previously explained, supra p. 3, an owner’s right to written notice under subsection
211.007(c) is established by the most recently approved municipal tax roll. TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE
§ 211.007(c). The statute neither directs nor prohibits the use of other external records or a specific
method or course of action to verify an owner described in subsection 211.007(c). Id. § 211.007(c).
Likewise, subsection 211.006(d) neither directs nor prohibits the use of any particular external
record, method, or course of action to verify an owner described in that subsection. Id.
§ 211.006(d). Instead, this type of detail is often found in local zoning ordinances, subject to
judicial review for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., City of Dallas v. Homan, No. 05-20-01111-CV,
2022 WL 969631, at *4−5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 31, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also, e.g.,
Powell v. City of Houston, 628 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. 2021) (explaining that “[c]ity ordinances
are ‘presumed to be valid,’ and courts ‘have no authority to interfere unless the ordinance is
unreasonable and arbitrary—a clear abuse of discretion’” (citation omitted)). Thus, one generally
looks to an individual municipality’s local regulations to determine whether any external records,
or particular methods or courses of action are used to verify an owner.
The Honorable Donna Campbell, M.D. – Page 6

S U M M A R Y

The owner of real property within 200 feet of a proposed
change in zoning classification is entitled to written notice of a
hearing before the zoning commission if the owner is indicated as
such on the most recently approved municipal tax roll.

The plain text of the Local Government Code does not
require that an owner be listed on the most recently approved
municipal tax roll to count toward the protest calculation regarding
a proposed classification change before the governing body.

Other than use of the municipal tax roll to identify an owner
entitled to written notice of a hearing before the zoning commission,
Local Government Code subsections 211.006(d) and 211.007(c)
neither direct nor prohibit the use of external records or a specific
method or course of action to verify an owner.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General

LESLEY FRENCH
Chief of Staff

D. FORREST BRUMBAUGH
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel

JOSHUA C. FIVESON
Chair, Opinion Committee

CHRISTY DRAKE-ADAMS
Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee