City of McKinney vs. Custer Storage

  1. What did the Court rule in the case City of McKinney vs. Custer Storage?


    Judge Mark Rusch in the 401st District Court ruled if property is subdivided or should have been subdivided, the property shall be platted under the city’s subdivision ordinance. In those cases where platting is required, the city has the exclusive right to require building code compliance and permits prior to construction; to the extent a plat is not required, authority over construction remains with the county. Because Custer Storage was not subdivided, platted or replatted, permitting authority lies with the county.

    The Court also ruled the City-County 1445 Agreement, governing platting and permitting authority, is valid and enforceable, and the county ceded all platting, inspection and building code authority in the ETJ to the city (in 2002) as to all properties that are required to subdivide under the city’s subdivision ordinance. Read the final judgment from Judge Rusch.  
  2. What does this mean for the City of McKinney?


    The city will continue to operate under the 2002 City-County agreement that grants the city authority over subdivisions and building codes in the ETJ. The city will continue to work with Collin County on an efficient development process for all property owners in McKinney’s ETJ.
  3. What ordinances/policies have changed in light of this ruling?


    No ordinances or policies have changed. The court ruled the City-County 1445 Agreement is valid and enforceable, and the county ceded all platting, inspection and building code authority in the ETJ to the city (in 2002) as to all properties that are required to subdivide under the city’s subdivision ordinance. The city’s March 2015 Ordinance affirming the extension of its building codes into the ETJ is also valid.  At its April 17, 2017 work session meeting, the McKinney City Council directed staff to evaluate potential modifications to the city’s subdivision ordinance that would relieve platting requirements for the construction of single-family residences on lots that have not been subdivided. That review is underway.
  4. How does this ruling affect the City’s ability to control future build-out in the ETJ?


    McKinney, and all of Collin County, is experiencing tremendous growth, and rapid growth will continue for the foreseeable future. In order to accommodate such growth while maintaining the quality and charm that make McKinney such a great place to live, the city has to plan for the future. annexation is just one of the tools, along with comprehensive planning, economic development and capital improvement programs that helps a city maintain quality, plan for its future infrastructure needs, and provide city services to its citizens.
  5. What financial implications does this have for the City?


    McKinney’s budget already includes the staff expense of reviewing, permitting and inspection of those properties which are covered by the subdivision ordinance.
  6. Will the City appeal the judge’s ruling?


    No determination has been made at this time.
  7. How does the outcome of this case affect Arch Resorts vs. City of McKinney?


    The Custer Storage ruling does not affect Arch Resorts case. The Arch Resorts case is scheduled for trial in August 2017.