Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:08]

>> AT THIS TIME I'LL CALL THE MEETING, APRIL 7TH, 2021 TO ORDER. THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK TO ANY CASE TODAY SHALL HAVE SIGNED INTO THE DOOR.

IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO, PLEASE DO SO WHILE WE COMPLETE OUR

[MINUTES]

PRELIMINARIES. THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING, JANUARY 6, 2021.

ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS?

>> I MOVE WE ACCEPT THEM AS WRITTEN.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

(ROLL CALL). >> SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE, BUILDINGS MUST BE SECURED AND THE LOT CLEANED AND OWNED BY THE OWNER WITHIN TEN DAYS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE AS A RESULT OF THIS HEARING. IF IT IS NOT DONE THE CITY MAY DO SO AND BILL THE OWNER. IN ANY WHICH CASE THE BOARD ORDERS AN OWNER TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE BUT THE OWNER FAILS TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE BOARD'S ORDER, THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

ANY APPEAL MUST BE FILED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE AGGRIEVED PARTY RECEIVES NOTICE OF THIS BOARD'S DECISION. AT THE HEARING YOU SHOULD BE PRPREPARED TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME NEEDED TO COMPLETE REPAIRS.

SPECIFIC SCOPE OF REPAIR WORK TO BE COMPLETED AND COST ESTIMATES FOR THE WORK TO BE DONE BY LICENSED BONDED CONTRACTORS SUCH AS ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING OR HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT YOU AT THE HEARING, THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE FILE ON THE PROPERTY AT THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIOR TO THE HEARING, AND THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE PRESENCE OF CITY STAFF FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING. WITH THAT, I GUESS WE'RE PREPARED FOR A CASE LOAD FOR THE FIRST CASE.

[A. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-000050: 1733 N 8th St. (D A WINTERS OF CANNON, LOT 5 & W11 FT LT 6), Owner: Dyes, Dallas]

>> GOOD MORNING. I'M THE CODE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF ABILENE. TODAY WE HAVE A TOTAL OF THREE CASES ON OUR AGENDA. THIS WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED FOR TODAY'S MEETING. SO FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 3A, CASE NUMBER 21-00050 LOCATED AT 1733 1733 NORTH 8 ST.

CHECK LIST FOR RECORDS SEARCH SHOWS DALLAS DYE AS THE OWNER.

SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME.

TAX RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY ARE NOT APPLICABLE.

UTILITY RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY SHOW INACTIVE SINCE JUNE 2018. SEARCH REVEALS DALLAS DYE TO BE THE OWNER. THIS WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE. THIS WAS A STRUCTURE FILE AND THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN -- THAT WAS AN INTENT TO SECURE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE OPENINGS. THE CITY SECURED IT WITH THE NETTING BUT IT HAS TAKEN DOWN. IT'S BEEN SECURED WITH PLYWOOD.

THE EASTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, REAR SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE EXTERIOR FIRE DAMAGE. THIS IS INTERIOR FIRE DAMAGE THAT WAS SUSTAINED. SOME MORE.

[00:05:02]

DAMAGE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.

WE HAVE ELECTRICAL ISSUES THROUGHOUT AS WELL.

AND THE INTERIOR PLUMBING IS ISSUES.

THE TIMELINING OF EVENTS ON JANUARY 11TH, 2021, WE RECEIVED THE REPORT OF THE FIRE. PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED JANUARY 15TH AND THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE OWNER.

FEBRUARY 11TH I RECEIVED A CALL FROM A CITIZEN.

WE HAD TO ALLOW THE NOTICE, THE DAY -- WE HAD TO ALLOW THE OWNER TEN DAYS SINCE THE DAY HE RECEIVED THE NOTICE THIS CITIZEN INFORMED ME THAT THE OWNER WAS DECEASED AS OF JANUARY 14TH, 2021, WHICH THAT WAS CONFIRMED LATER ON.

ON MARCH 2 I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM AN ACQUAINTANCE OF THE DISEASED OWNER STATING HE ONLY HAD ONE LIVING RELATIVE AND SHE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE INTERESTED IN THE PROPERTY AND WOULD WANT IT DEMOLISHED. MARCH 3 I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A MS. MALINDA MADISON WHO STATED SHE WAS A COUSIN AND THE ONLY REMAINING LIVING RELATIVE AND THAT SHE WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOUSE AND ALSO STATED SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO SIGN A CONSENT OF DEMO HOWEVER SHE DIDN'T HAVE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. MARCH 4 WE SENT A CONDEMNATION NOTICE, MARCH 12TH THE PROPERTY WAS SECURED BY THE CITY AND MARCH 16TH WE SENT MEETING NOTICE.

MARCH 23RD MS. MADISON CALLED WANTING TO KNOW IF SHE WAS REQUIRED TO ATTEND, REITERATING SHE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. FURTHER RECOMMEND THE OWNER TO

DEMOLISH. >> BEFORE WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MARSH, THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK TO ANY CASE HERE TODAY PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE TODAY IS THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, MR. MARSH, ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MARSH ON THIS

CASE? >> THE OWNER IS DECEASED AND THIS LADY THAT WAS THE ONLY RELATIVE DOESN'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. ARE WE -- SO THERE'S NO OWNER OF RECORD FOR THIS NOW, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> AS OF RIGHT NOW, NO, SIR, THERE ISN'T.

SHE STATED SHE HAD NO WILL, HE LEFT NO WILL AND SHE WAS JUST THE ONLY LIVING RELATIVE. SHE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN

REPAIRING THE STRUCTURE. >> SO WE COULD PROCEED WITH

ORDERING DEMOLITION WITHOUT -- >> THAT'S A QUESTION FOR LEGAL I

THINK. >> YEAH, THE ISSUE THERE IS JUST THAT EACH OWNER FOUND IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS, AND THEN A SEARCH OF OTHER DESCENDANTS OR POTENTIAL OWNERS ARE ALL LOCATED AND NOTIFIED AND ALLOWED TO HAVE THEIR DUE PROCESS TO APPEAR AT TODAY'S HEARING. AND IF THE CITY HAS DONE THAT, IT'S DONE ITS DUE DILIGENCE AND REALLY ALL IT CAN.

IF NO ONE APPEARS AT THE HEARING TO BE HEARD, THEN THAT'S ALL THAT THE CITY CAN DO, IS TO FOLLOW THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED IN THE ORDINANCES.

>> COULD YOU GIVE US SOME INSIGHT INTO HOW MUCH TIME IT MIGHT TAKE FOR HER TO ESTABLISH OWNERSHIP SAYING -- TITLE HERE

ON THIS PROPERTY? >> THAT COULD TAKE SOME TIME.

I MEAN, IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER SHE HIRES AN ATTORNEY OR NOT.

YOU KNOW, IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HURT IF THE BOARD WISHED TO TABLE THE CASE TO ALLOW TIME FOR THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT COMMUNICATIONS MR. MARSH HAS HAD WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL AS TO WHETHER THAT IS THAT INDIVIDUAL'S INTENTION OR NOT. BUT TIMEFRAME WISE, YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE A FEW MONTHS TO ESTABLISH THAT, A CHAIN IN TITLE IF THEY DO IT ON THEIR OWN. GETTING AN ATTORNEY COULD BE A

LITTLE FASTER. >> THANK YOU.

MR. MARSH, IS SHE AWARE THAT SELLING THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE AN

[00:10:01]

OPTION FOR HER? >> YES, SIR I EXPLAINED ALL THAT TO HER, AGAIN, SHE STATED SHE HAS NO PROOF THAT SHE COULD OWN THE PROPERTY AND SHE HAD REALLY NO -- EXPRESSED NO DESIRE TO TRY AND OBTAIN THAT OWNERSHIP. HER WORDS EXACT WORDS, I QUOTE, WERE THAT SHE JUST WANTED TO DEMOLISH IT.

SHE WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

>> I WAS THINKING, IT MIGHT KEEP THE CITY FROM HAVING TO DO IT.

>> I MEAN, YES. THAT'S TRUE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. MARSH?

>> I MIGHT ASK, IN ITS CURRENT STATE, THE TYPE OF HAZARD IT PROPOSES AND TO THE COMMUNITY AND IF THERE'S ALREADY BEEN NEIGHBORS AROUND IT BRINGING THIS ITEM UP, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IT MAY NEED TO BE DEMOLISHED.

SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. MARSH. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21-00050. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21-00050 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR

DISCUSSION OR A MOTION. >> AS FAR AS DISCUSSION GOES, I'LL BEGIN SOME. WE DO SEE THAT WE'VE GOT THE POTENTIAL OF PUBLIC NOTICE AND ALL IN ALL TO FURTHER DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE. SO WITHOUT AN OWNER, BUT -- AS OUR LEGAL HAS TOLD US THAT WE'VE DONE ALL OF OUR DUE DILIGENCE AS THE CITY, WE JUST NEED TO EITHER DETERMINE THAT THERE IS SOME TIME TO DEVELOP FOR THAT OR THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE ON THE CITY TO EXPEND THE FUNDS FOR THE DEMOLITION.

SO I DON'T KNOW, WE MIGHT LOOK AT THE PHOTOS AGAIN OF THE EXTERIOR AND IF THERE'S ANY SURROUNDINGS TO THE PROPERTY, JUST WHAT SHAPE IT'S IN, FOR SECURING --

>> THIS HAS BEEN SECURED DUE TO THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE HAD RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY. IT IS LOCATED DOWN THE STREET FROM AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AS WELL, SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE WERE RECEIVING COMPLAINTS ABOUT IT.

BUT THAT'S THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET A PICTURE OF THE OTHER SIDE RIGHT THERE, BUT I MEAN I WAS ABLE TO GET A PICTURE OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. SORRY, WEST SIDE OF THE

STRUCTURE. >> I'D ASK ON THAT FRONT PORCH IF THE OPENINGS ARE SECURE BUT THE TRASH AND DEBRIS OUT FRONT THAT COULD BE HAZARDOUS FOR WHO KNOWS, KIDS WANDERING UP TO IT, IS THE PROPERTY ABLE TO BE SECURED FOR THIS FRONT NORTH SIDE FURTHER OUT THAN THE PORCH LINE? THAT'S A QUESTION TO YOU I SUPPOSE.

>> LIKE PUTTING UP -- >> CAN THERE BE A BARRIER IN THE YARD? STSTIS THERE YARD OR FENCING TOE

INTO? >> THAT ISN'T FENCING AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL AS FAR AS PUTTING UP FENCING OR A BARRIER THERE.

>> OKAY. THIS ONE DOESN'T LOOK VERY

PRETTY, GUYS. >> GOT CARS UP ON JACKS, TOO, THAT'S NOT IN ANY OF THE PICTURES.

MIGHT BE A HAZARD. >> IS THE ENTIRE HOUSE BURNED JUST LIKE THE PICTURES THAT WE'VE SEEN ON PART OF IT?

>> YES, SIR, THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE IS BURNED.

[00:15:01]

THERE'S I BELIEVE MAYBE JUST ONE BEDROOM THAT DIDN'T CATCH.

THE EXTENT OF THE REST OF THE DAMAGE THE PROPERTY GOT, BUT

YET. >> THE UTILITIES HAVE BEEN SHUT OFF ON THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2018, CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO IT'S BEEN SITTING VACANT?

>> YES. >> THIS FIRE OCCURRED IN JANUARY A YEAR AGO, IS THAT RIGHT, IN 2020?

>> '21. >> NO, --

>> OKAY, JUST THIS LAST JANUARY. >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY FURTHER

COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS? >> SINCE THE FIRE, YES.

VAGRANTS AND JUST SQUATTERS COMING IN AND OUT, BREAKING IN,

STUFF LIKE THAT. >> WELL, WE KNOW THAT IT'S -- NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED, BUT OUR TIMING IS WHAT WE NEED TO WORK ON. AND SO WHAT'S SUGGESTED BY --

>> I'M LOOKING AT YOU. >> I KNOW YOU SAID IT COULD TAKE MONTHS FOR US TO GET THE TITLE INTO THE LADY'S NAME.

>> WELL, I WOULD SAY THE ISSUE OF THIS INDIVIDUAL -- THESE ARE -- THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOTIFIED AS POTENTIAL HEIRS.

SO THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY ARE.

IN FACT, THE HEIR OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF.

IT'S NO GUARANTEE THAT ANYBODY COULD GET NECESSARILY GET TITLE TO THE PROPERTY. THEY'RE JUST -- THERE'S A SEARCH OF DESCENDANTS. ONCE THERE'S -- THE PERSON'S NAME ON THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS IS DETERMINED TO BE DECEASED AND THEN ALL THE DESCENDANTS THAT ARE FOUND ARE NOTIFIED AND THAT'S WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES THE CITY TO DO.

IT'S ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO DO THEIR PART TO SEE IF THEY HAVE AN ACTUAL INTEREST AND IF THAT'S AN INTEREST TO LEGAL INTEREST TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. IT MAY NOT.

IT DEPENDS ON MANY FACTORS, WHETHER THERE WAS A WILL, WHETHER AN AFFIDAVIT OF HEIRSHIP FILED OR WHATEVER TYPE OF -- WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THAT MAY GO TO PROBATE, IF IT DOES OR DOESN'T NEED TO, THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE.

I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S REALLY A QUESTION -- I COULDN'T DEFINITIVELY ANSWER. I GAVE YOU KIND OF A TIMEFRAME DEPENDING ON MULTIPLE FACTORS. IT COULD BE REALLY FAST, IT

COULD TAKE A LONG TIME. >> WHAT IS OUR ALTERNATIVE ABOUT GOING AHEAD AND ASKING FOR IT TO BE DEMOLISHED NOW?

>> I WOULD SAY IF YOU NOTICE IN THE ORDERS, IT'S AN ORDER FOR THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT THAT 30 DAYS IS STILL A TIMEFRAME FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL TO -- THEY COULD ESTABLISH OWNERSHIP DURING THAT TIMEFRAME. IT'S STILL -- OR THE BOARD COULD IF THEY WISH TO GIVE LONGER THAN THAT COULD TABLE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING FOR MORE THAN THAT TIMEFRAME.

SO THERE'S STILL TIME BUILT IN, BUT Y BEYOND THAT I COULDN'T ANSWER EXACTLY. THERE'S NO WAY FOR ME TO KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD EXACTLY HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE AN INDIVIDUAL. ASSUMING THEY DID HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST TO THE ENTIRE ESTATE THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO OBTAIN THAT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME.

I COULDN'T PROVIDE YOU A TIMEFRAME, I CAN JUST PROVIDE

YOU AN ESTIMATE. >> LET ME UNDERSTAND THEN.

IN ORDER TO AN OWNER THAT WE CANNOT DEFINE, IS THIS THING GOING TO GO INTO A STALL ANYWAY? OR CAN THE CITY -- I MEAN, IF YOU CAN'T FIND THE OWNER TO CHALLENGE IT IN 30 DAYS, THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN'T ESTABLISH AN OWNER, DOES THAT TIE THE HANDS OF ACTIVITY ON EVEN THE DEMOLITION? WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DECLARE IT A NUISANCE AND PUT THE ORDER TO DEMOLISH IT AND THEN IT'S OUT OF OUR HANDS.

EVERYBODY'S JUST WAITING NEIGHBORHOOD-WISE FOR THE THING

TO BE DEMOLISHED. >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND I WOULD SAY THAT MANY CASES THAT THE CITY COMES ACROSS THROUGH CONDEMNATIONS ARE INSTANCES WHERE AN OWNER IS DECEASED AND

[00:20:05]

THE LAW, CHAPTER 54 PROVIDE THT IN THAT ASSISTANCE REALLY ALL THAT THE STATE CAN DO, THE CITY CAN DO IS FIND THE POTENTIAL HEIRS AND NOTIFY THEM. IT PROVIDES A SPECIFIC PROCESS FOR THE WAY THE NOTIFICATIONS HAVE TO GO.

ONCE THOSE NOTIFICATIONS ARE MET, THEN THE STATE OR THE CITY HAS MET ITS OBLIGATIONS. IF THE BOARD FINDS THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERS DEMOLITION, THE BOARD CAN PROCEED.

IF SOMEONE OUT OF STATE RECEIVES ONE OF THOSE LETTERS IN THE MAIL AND AFTER THE FACT COMES TO CHALLENGE, THEY HAVE A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME TO FILE THEIR CHALLENGE AND THERE ARE A FEW IN DISTRICT WHICH ARE LAID OUT IN THE BOARD'S ORDER.

THERE'S NOTHING MORE THE STATE CAN DO BEYOND THOSE NOTIFICATIONS TO ALLOW A PERSON TO HAVE THEIR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE NO -- YOU KNOW, THERE IS AN OWNER, THERE'S SOME OWNERSHIP INTEREST, IT'S JUST NOT CLEARLY DEFINED BECAUSE SOMEONE IS DECEASEDDDECEASED AND THE PROPEY RECORDS DON'T REFLECT A LIVING HEIR AT THIS POINT.

BUT THAT FACT ALONE DOES NOT PREVENT PROCEEDING WITH FINDING A PUBLIC NUISANCE OR DEMOLITION IF THE BOARD WISHES TO DO SO.

SO LONG AS DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN FOLLOWED TO NOTIFY ALL POTENTIAL

HEIRS. >> I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ADD THIS PROPERTY ITSELF HAS BEEN APPROVED SHOULD THE BOARD CHOOSE TO PROCEED WITH THE FINDING IT A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A DEMOLITION HAS BEEN FUNDED THROUGH THE OFFICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES.

WE WOULD RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING, IT WOULDN'T COME OUT OF DIRECTLY THE CITY'S GENERAL BUDGET.

>> YOUR STATEMENT IS THAT SHE HAS BEEN MADE AWARE THAT IF SHE DID GET OWNERSHIP, SELLING IT WOULD BE AN OPTION FOR HER?

>> YES, SIR, YES, SIR. I MADE HER AWARE OF THE OPTIONS, SELLING, REPAIRING. I EXPLAINED TO HER THE 30/60 PROCESS AND THE PLAN OF ACTION. AGAIN, SHE JUST CONFIRMED THAT SHE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND JUST WANTED TO DEMOLISH IT. IN FACT, SHE STATED SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO SIGN A CONSENT TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE, HOWEVER SHE LEGALLY WAS NOT ABLE TO BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE

DEED TO THE PROPERTY. >> OKAY.

IS THERE A MOTION? >> I THINK THAT BEING SAID, TO GET IT OFF THE CENTER WE TALKED ABOUT.

I MAKE A MOTION, IT'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE -- OKAY.

PROPERTY IS -- DECLARING THE PROPERTY A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOTION , SECOND BY MR. TURNE. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BE DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE IN THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

(ROLL CALL). >> I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER MOTION THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

>> MOTION AND SECOND, THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

(ROLL CALL). >> NEXT CASE HAS BEEN ON THE AGENDA HERE, HAS BEEN SETTLED, SO IT IS MARKED OFF THE AGENDA FOR TODAY. SO THE NEXT CASE IS 1431 SOUTH

[00:25:05]

6TH. PARDON ME?

[B. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 20-004104: 1321 Huckleberry Lane (NORTH PARK ADDN OF S C JONES, BLOCK A, LOT 1) , Owner: SCJ Holdings B LLC]

(INDISCERNIBLE). >> YOU'RE NOT HEARING CASE B?

>> WHY NOT? >> MR. CRAIG, DO YOU WANT TO?

>> YEAH, THE -- THAT CASE HAS BEEN NEGOTIATED AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE HEARD THIS MORNING, IT'S BEEN PULLED FROM THE

AGENDA. >> WHAT IS THE NEGOTIATION?

>> I'M NOT AT LIBERTY TO DISCUSS THAT IN OPEN SESSION RIGHT NOW.

>> STILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CASE?

>> NO, IT'S BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA.

>> I'VE GOT -- THAT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME AND IT'S TURNED -- THE GUY IS MAKING A WRECKING YARD OUT OF IT.

HE BRINGS IN JUNK CARS ALL THE TIME.

THERE'S LIKE A DOZEN, NOW THERE'S TWO RVS HE'S PULLED OUT THERE AND HE'S STARTING -- HE'S MADE NO EFFORT TO

REHABILITATE THE THING AT ALL. >> YES, SIR.

>> MORE AND MORE. >> IT'S BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AFTER THE MEETING, BUT THE BOARD HAS A RIGHT TO PROCEED WITH THE REST OF THE AGENDA. I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU AFTER THE MEETING IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS WITH ME.

[C. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 20-0002280: 1431 S 6th St. (OT ABILENE, BLOCK 124, LOT W5 LTS 1 & 2 E40 LTS 10,11,12 & N150 OF ALLEY), Owner: Smith, Alton & Alicia]

>> MR. MARSH? >> NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 3C, 20-000-2280, LOCATED AT 1431 SOUTH 6TH STREET.

THE CHECK LIST FOR RECORDS SEARCH SHOWS COUNTY RECORDS WITH WARRANTY DEED NAMING ALTON AND ALICIA SMITH AS THE OWNERS.

SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME.

TAX RECORDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS IN THIS SHOWS INACTIVE SINCE JULY 2019. RESEARCH SHOWS ALTON AND ALICIA TO BE THE OWNER. THIS WAS THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S HEARING.

THIS IS LISTED AS A DUPLEX, HOWEVER ACCORDING TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, THE ADDRESS IS 1431 SOUTH 6TH.

THERE'S THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

AND THERE'S THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXTERIOR.

THAT'S THE REAR SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXTERIOR.

AND THAT IS THE EAST SIDE OF THE EXTERIOR.

YOU SEE THERE'S SOME EXTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES.

AND THE EXTERIOR BULGING OUT. YOU SEE MAKING CONTACT WITH THE TREE THERE A LITTLE BIT. EXTERIOR CRACKING AND DETERIORATING. THIS IS INTERIOR CEILING WORK THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT PERMITS ON RECORD.

THIS IS THE INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE. AND THIS IS MORE INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES. AND INTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE. AND THERE'S SOME INTERIOR DAMAGE DONE THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE. TIMELINE OF EVENTS ON MAY 26TH, THE PROPERTY WAS INITIALLY REPORTED FROM A CITIZEN FOR A DILAPIDATED BUILDING.

THE PROPERTY WAS INSPECTED. A DECISION WAS MADE TO CONDEMN.

THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED AND INITIAL NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE OWNER. DECEMBER 14TH, 2020, RECORDS SHOW A ROOFING PERMIT WAS PULLED.

THE LEGAL ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY IS 1431 AND THE OWNER IS REQUIRED TO PULL A FULL BUILDING PERMIT TO REPAIR THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. JANUARY 6TH, 2021, THE DECISION LETTERS WERE MAILED TO THE OWNER.

ON MARCH 11TH, 2021, THERE WAS NO CONTACT SINCE THE JANUARY MEETING AND NO PERMITS OR PLAN OF ACTION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.

MARCH 16TH, A NOTICE WAS SENT. DUE TO THE ORDER OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND HOWEVER NOW ACTION BEING TAKEN, AT THIS TIME WE RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IT'S A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE.

PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST.

STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS WIRING, PLUMBING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH

[00:30:04]

OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY

MAY DEMOLISH. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MARSH? THANK YOU, MR. MARSH. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20-002280.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> ALICIA SMITH. >> OKAY.

>> SOME OF THIS IS FALSE INFORMATION.

FOR INSTANCE, THE UTILITIES HAVEN'T BEEN ON SINCE 2018.

UNDER THAT ADDRESS THAT MIGHT BE TRUE AND CORRECT, BUT UNDER 1433, THEY'RE ACTUALLY STILL ON TODAY.

AND LEGALLY, LIKE IF YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ADDRESSES, THEN LEGALLY THEN THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT PLACES.

IF I GET MY MAIL, IF IT'S A DUPLEX AND I'M GETTING MY MAIL AT THIS ONE AND I GO TO COURT AND SAY LIKE I FILED EVICTION ON THAT PERSON AND TRY TO GET THEM OUT I HAVE TO GO FOR THAT PARTICULAR UNIT. AND I FILED A DEAL WITH DISTRICT TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CONDEMNATION BECAUSE I SAID IT WAS NOT A NUISANCE. I FOLLOWED THE GUIDELINES OF DALLAS VERSUS STEWART WITHIN THE 30 DAYS.% SO THE JURISDICTION FOR THIS CASE IS NOT HERE.

AND I INFORMED HIM, HE TOLD ME I NEED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY SPEAK.

AND I FEEL LIKE THAT I'M JUST BEING TREATED LIKE Y'ALL ARE JUST COMING AFTER ME AND NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.

FOR INSTANCE, ON THE LAST CASE, I THOUGHT THAT Y'ALL SHOULD LIKE PUBLISH A PUBLIC NOTICE IN A NEWSPAPER.

I THOUGHT THAT'S PART OF FINDING HEIRS.

I GUESS THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE.

I'M -- I'M JUST KIND OF FRUSTRATED.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO TEAR DOWN THE PLACE.

WE'RE GOING TO FIX IT UP. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHEN.

I TOLD YOU LAST TIME I WOULD GO AND GET THE STUFF AND THE MORE I THOUGHT IT OVER, WELL YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M BEING LIKE PUSHED TO DO IT ON A CERTAIN TIME AND GET IT DONE. WHENEVER I HAVE OTHER PROJECTS -- FOR INSTANCE THAT QUADRUPLEX Y'ALL CONDEMNED AND THE CITY SAID WOULD NOT BE REPAIRABLE AND THIS AND THAT, THE FINAL FOR IT IS TODAY. WE'VE GOT ALL THE OTHER INSPECTIONS. I GOT ELECTRICAL, I GOT PLUMBING, I GOT GAS TESTS. I GOT ALL THE OTHER INSPECTIONS.

TODAY IS THE FINAL AND QUADRUPLEX WILL NO LONGER BE CONDEMNED. THAT WAS FIRE DAMAGE.

AND WE DID IT FROM THE GROUND UP, TOTALLY REMODELED IT.

LOOKED BRAND-NEW. EVERYTHING, ALL THE FIXTURES.

WHENEVER WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE, I BELIEVE WE BOUGHT IT IN 2018.

IT HAD -- LOOKED A LOT WORSE THAN IT DID NOW.

I WENT AND GOT A ROOFING PERMIT. I CAME BEFORE Y'ALL LAST TIME AND Y'ALL TOLD ME YOU ONLY DO ONE PERMIT NOW AND THAT COVERED EVERYTHING. ONE PERMIT.

MY LOGIC IS IF YOU ONLY NEED ONE PERMIT THEN THE ROOFING PERMIT SHOULD CARRY IT. IF YOU'RE SAYING ONE PERMIT WILL DO IT OR I HAVE TO GO SPEND -- A LOT OF MONEY, WHICH TO ME IS A TANKING TO SPEND $1,200 ON A PERMIT AND THAT WAY IT INCLUDES EVERYTHING. IN MY OPINION.

I HAVE -- I TALKED TO OUR ATTORNEY, CHARLES SELF.

I'M GOING TO SEE CLAUDIA CLINTON AND HAVE HER REPRESENT ON THE APPEAL I DID TO THE DISTRICT. I ADAMANTLY ASK THIS MEETING NOT BE HELD BECAUSE EYE I DID NOT TK IT WAS LEGAL BECAUSE THE JURISDICTION IS NO LONGER IN THIS -- BECAUSE IT'S UP TO A JUDGE AT THIS POINT TO DECIDE IF IT IS, IND INDEED A CONDEMNATION CASE. IF IT'S NOT CONDEMNED, THEN THIS WHOLE MEETING IS IRRELEVANT. AND THE CART IS BEFORE THE

HORSE. >> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF MS?

>> CAN YOU BACK UP THE SLIDE? HAVE YOU TALKED TO STAFF? IT SAYS HERE NO CONTACT, NO CONTACT.

>> MY CELL PHONE NUMBER, IF YOU GOOGLE ALICIA SMITH --

>> CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, PLEASE, DID YOU CONTACT THE

STAFF? >> THIS GUY, NO, I HAVE TALKED

TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS DOWN THERE. >> OKAY.

BUT THEY NEED TO BE IN THE LOOP, THEY SENT YOU A LETTER, RIGHT?

>> I UNDERSTAND AND ON THE LAST DEAL ON THE NOTICES WHERE HE SAID -- TO ME, NOWHERE IN RECORD DOES IT SAY THAT ON THE LAST CASE Y'ALL JUST HEARD THAT HE TOLD HER THAT SHE COULD SELL THE HOUSE. SO TO ME IF I WAS -- THERE'S

NOWHERE IN WRITING -- >> ARE YOU TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, ARE YOU --

>> I'M JUST MENTIONING THE PREVIOUS CASE.

>> CAN YOU STAY SPECIFIC TO THIS PROPERTY, PLEASE?

>> YES, SIR. >> I HELPED YOU OUT LAST TIME.

>> YES, SIR. I --

>> STICK TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> YES, SIR. AND HAVE NEVER -- I HAVE TEN --

[00:35:05]

>> DID YOU CONTACT THEM? >> HAVE I CONTACTED HIM IN PARTICULAR? NO. NO.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

THAT WAS THE QUESTION I HAD. >> I'M SORRY.

>> BECAUSE THERE'S A LEGAL -- PUT ALL THIS FLUFF UP, NOBODY CAN SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> OKAY. >> HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?

>> WELL, LIKE I SAID, I'M GOING TO FIX THAT HOUSE.

NOW, I HAD OTHER PROJECTS. I HAD A FIRE AT 32 --

>> IT'S IN LEGAL RIGHT NOW? >> WELL, YES, I FILED WITHIN THE

30 DAYS. >> AND SO THE LEGAL -- DO I GET

TO ASK MR. CHASE NOW WHAT THE -- >> THAT'S FINE IF YOU WANT TO.

>> SO WHAT'S -- COULD YOU WEIGH IN HERE?

>> YEAH. I CAN'T COMMENT ON THE CITY'S LITIGATION STRATEGY IN OPEN SESSION REGARDING THE SPOKEN OF LITIGATION BY MS. SMITH, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE.

MY ADVICE TO THE BOARD -- >> EXCUSE ME, WE'VE STILL GOT THE OPENING HERE. LET ME --

>> GO AHEAD. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS

OF MS. SMITH? >> I HAVE ONE.

I HAD A QUESTION. DID YOU PULL A BUILDING PERMIT

SINCE THE LAST MEETING? >> I HAVE NOT PULLED A BUILDING PERMIT SINCE LAST MEETING. THERE AGAIN, I WAS TOLD AT THE LAST MEETING THAT I JUST NEEDED ONE PERMIT TO COVER EVERYTHING.

>> THAT IS THE GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT, NOT A ROOFING PERMIT.

IT ALL FALLS UNDER ONE UMBRELLA. I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS.

THERE IS ONE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT THAT YOU PULL AND EVERYTHING FALLS UNDER THAT.

SO THE ROOFING PERMIT THAT YOU PULLED PRIOR DOES NOT WEIGH IN

FOR WHAT IS REQUIRED. >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT, BECAUSE I'M NOT A CONTRACTOR AND I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT. TO ME, MY LOGIC WAS --

>> Y'ALL HAVE BEEN DOING THIS. THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN Y'ALL. Y'ALL HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR

YEARS, CORRECT? >> YES.

>> SO YOU WOULD QUANTIFY AS A CONTRACTOR BECAUSE YOU'VE DONE THIS FOR YEARS. SO THIS IS NOT NEW, THIS IS REGULAR ROUTINE BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF ABILENE.

>> YES, BUT THERE IS THINGS THAT ALALTON IS GOOD AT.

LAST TIME I TALKED TO HIM HE SAID THERE IS ONE PERMIT Y'ALL DO NOW. IT WASN'T CLARIFIED IT WAS LIKE -- WHAT DID YOU CALL IT AGAIN?

ONE PERMIT? >> GENERAL BUL BUILDING PERMIT.

>> WHEN I WAS TOLD YOU JUST NEED ONE PERMIT, IF I GET THIS PERMIT -- DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING --

>> IF YOU WERE JUST GOING TO REROOF THE HOUSE, AND THAT WAS IT YOU WOULD GET A ROOFING PERMIT.

WHAWLTWHAT YOUR DOING REQUIRES A GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT.

I WANT TO CLARIFY IT'S NOT JUST ONE PERMIT, IT DEPENDS SPECIFICALLY ON WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

DO YOU WANT TO CORRECT ME ON THAT?

>> GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT. >> IN THIS CASE, WHAT YOU WOULD BE DOING IS GET A BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN YOUR MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL WOULD FALL UNDER THAT PERMIT.

THEN THERE'S SPECIFIC PERMITS. FOR INSTANCE, YOU GO IN AND ADD A LIGHT, THEN YOU WOULD GET AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT.

YOU WOULDN'T GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

SO THERE ARE SPECIFIC PERMITS YOU'RE GOING TO OBTAIN.

LIKE YOUR ROOFING PERMIT, FOR INSTANCE, THAT'S ALL YOU WANTED TO OBTAIN SO THAT'S WHAT YOU GOT.

>> SO THE BUILDING PERMIT -- SORRY I HAVE ACID REFLUX SO IT TEARS UP MY THROAT. THE BUILDING PERMIT COVERED MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, ALL OF THAT?

>> YES, WHEN WE DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING, YEAH.

IN THIS INSTANCE, YES, IT WOULD. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MS. SMITH?

THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. >> LET MOO E ME CLARIFY ONE THI.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND UNDER A BUILDING PERMIT, WE HAVE A CONTRACTOR. WE HAVE AN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, LICENSED. WE HAVE A MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, LICENSED. WE HAVE A PLUMBING CONTRACTOR,

LICENSED. >> YES.

>> YOU DON'T TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL OF THAT.

>> YES, BUT ANYTHING STRUCTURAL WE CAN DO.

OKAY. LIKE I SAID I WANT TO MAKE THIS HOUSE PRETTY. I DON'T KNOW -- BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ON OTHER PROJECTS AND I HAD OTHER STUFF COME UP.

FOR INSTANCE WE HAD A FIRE AT 3201, BRIERWOOD PARTICIPATES AN.

[00:40:03]

IT'S HARD WORK TO GET THIS STUFF OFF THE FOUNDATION AND EVERYTHING AND GET THAT CLEARED OFF.

IT TOOK I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DUMPSTERS FULL OF DEBRIS TO CLEAR THOSE 24 UNITS. THEN I WAS CONTACTED BY THE CITY AFTER IT WAS CLEAR BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TORE IT DOWN THAT I NEEDED NEEDED TO GET A DEMOLITION PERMIT AFTER IT WAS ALREADY DONE AND THE DEMOLITION WAS DONE BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

SO ON THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE, I WANT TO GET IT DONE, BUT LIKE I SAID I DON'T BELIEVE THE JURISDICTION IS RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT HAS TO GO AT THIS POINT BEFORE A JUDGE AND THE JUDGE HEAR A CASE AND SEE IF IT IS IN FACT A NUISANCE.

THEN I BELIEVE WE'D COME BACK HERE.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> I DO WANT TO TRY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE ON THIS AS WELL. MS. WATSON, SHE'S GOT -- BECAUSE IT IS A DUPLEX AND DIFFERENT ADDRESSES OR WHATNOT, HOWEVER, DUE TO IT BEING ONE STRUCTURE AND ALL IN THE SAME BUILDING, THAT ENTIRE STRUCTURE WOULD NEED TO BE REPAIRED UP TO CODE BEFORE EITHER SIDE COULD BE OCCUPIED, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THANK YOU, MS. SMITH. >> ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD --

>> THAT WAS A QUESTION FOR MR. WATSON, SORRY.

>> DEMOLITION CASE. THAT'S KIND OF A TRICKY ONE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE A DUPLEX AND WE CAN GO IN BECAUSE IT HAS ITS OWN WATER AND ITS OWN ELECTRIC AND REPAIR THAT ONE SIDE AND THEN MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE.

I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DEMOLITION ASPECT OF IT.

>> NO, THIS ISN'T FOR THE DEMOLITION, IS THIS JUST FOR

OCCUPATION. >> WE CAN ACTUALLY DO THAT.

THAT'S BEEN DONE. >> OKAY.

BUT SO THEN AT WHAT POINT -- COULD WE REMOVE IT FROM CONDEMNATION -- BECAUSE THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE IS CONDEMNED.

>> HOLD UP HERE A MINUTE ON THE DISCUSSION TILL WE GET THE HEARING. ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20-002280.

AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.

YOU GOT ANY COMMENTS? GO AHEAD.

>> MR. CRAIG. >> WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION?

>> COULD YOU FINISH? >> YES.

THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT AS TO MS. SMITH'S ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SOME FORM OF PENDING LITIGATION, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, IT'S MY ADVICE TO THE BOARD THAT THE STATUS OF THAT ALLEGED LITIGATION DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE BOARD FROM FINDING THE PROPERTY AT TODAY'S MEETING TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE OR ORDERING DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTY AT TODAY'S MEETING. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR

QUESTION. >> IT DOES.

>> YOU GOT ANY COMMENTS, MR. MARSH?

>> NO, SIR. >> SO THE CONFUSION ABOUT THE ADDRESS MAY BE BECAUSE IT'S A DUPLEX?

>> I JUST WANTED TO CLEAR UP A FEW THINGS SHE HAD BROUGHT UP.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF CONFUSION WITH THIS ONE SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE SO --

>> THAT CAN BE 1431 THE OTHER UNIT CAN BE 1433?

>> AGAIN, AS FAR AS THIS PROPERTY GOES, PROPERTY RECORDS, THE ONLY RECORD SHOWING IS 1431. THERE'S ONLY ONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING MR. WATSON IF IN ORDER TO OCCUPY, TO HAVE IT LISTED AS A DUPLEX, IN ORDER TO OCCUPY EITHER SIDE DOES THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE NEED TO BE REMOVED OR CAN THEY REPAIR ONE SIDE.

>> WHEN WE SAY 1431 WE MEAN THE WHOLE BUILDING?

>> YES, SIR. >> I'D LIKE TO CLEAR UP ONE CONFUSION OR QUESTION OF HER STATEMENT ON WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER CONDEMNATION ON A PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF

ABILENE. >> SO THE CITY OF ABILENE BUILDING OFFICIAL ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 8 OF CITY ORDINANCES HAS

[00:45:01]

THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER AND FIND A BUILDING OR PROPERTY IS CONDEMNABLE AND NOTICE IS FILED ON THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS.

THAT MAY BE APPEALED TO THIS ADMINISTRATIVE BODY TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION OF WHETHER IT IS CONDEMNABLE OR NOT.

>> IT WOULDN'T BE -- THE CITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A JUDGE

TO DECLARE THAT? >> WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION OF LITIGATION STRATEGY IN OPEN SESSION I WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT THE CITY OF ABILENE BUILDING OFFICIAL DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE STATEMENT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES AND LAWS TO FIND A PROPERTY TO BE CONDEMNABLE.

>> THANK YOU. >> THAT MAY BE APPEALED TO THIS

ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. >> THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT

UP. >> COULD YOU PUT THE TIMELINE BACK UP, PLEASE, MR. MARSH. JANUARY WAS INFIR THE FIRST TIMT

WAS BEFORE THIS BOARD, JANUARY? >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION CONCERNING OPPONENTS TAKING IT TO A DIFFERENT COURT OR JUDGE.

DOES THAT NOT TIE THIS THING UP WHERE SHE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO -- THAT SHOULD HAVE FROZEN THINGS IN TIME WHERE SHE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PULL PERMITS OR ESTABLISH ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ON THE SITE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF SHE'S DONE SOMETHING TO STOP THINGS WITH LITIGATION, THEN ONE SIDE OF IS IS THAT. BUT THIS BOARD IS DISCUSSING THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SHE DOES, WE STILL CAN DO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH RESPECT TO FOLLOWING THE CITY'S REGULATORY PROCESS. SO I AM CONFUSED AT THE ALLEGED CORE CHALLENGE TO TAKE IT OUT OF CONDEMNATION OR TO SAY IT'S NOT CONDEMNABLE THAT SAY TIE THINGS UP IN MY OPINION.

BUT ALL OF THIS JUST MAYBE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE IT TO THIS STEP TODAY UNTIL ALL THAT GOT SETTLED.

I'VE SEEN WORSE PLACES BE MORE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND CONDEMNED THIS DOES LOOK LIKE, TO ME, A STRUCTURE THAT HAS POTENTIAL REHAB IN IT. SO I'M HESITANT TO DECLARE IT A NUISANCE, IF I WERE TO BE ASKED TO MAKE A MOTION.

I MEAN, OUT OF THIS WHOLE CONFUSING MESS, LET'S HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION ON THAT AND THEN POSSIBLY WE'LL BE TABLING

THIS THING. >> JUST SO -- NOT GETTING TO -- MR. CRAIG HANDLED ALL THE LEGAL ASPECTS, BUT I WILL SAY THAT AS FAR AS THE CITY GOES AND BUILDING -- COMMUNITY HAZARD DIVISION WE DON'T OPR PROCEED WH ANYTHING UNTIL WE KNOW WE'RE IN

LEGAL STANDING. >> I DO BELIEVE THAT.

>> AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, I MEAN, MANY PROPERTIES HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE REHABBED.

THE REASON THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD IS, AGAIN, IT WAS CONDEMNED JULY 9TH, AND AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT REALLY RECEIVED ANY CONTACT OR -- OTHER THAN THAT ROOFING PERMIT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PULLED BECAUSE IT IS CONDEMNED.

A GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PULLED INSTEAD.

WE'VE NOT RECEIVED ANY CONTACT FROM MR. AND MRS. SMITH AND IT'S THE LACK OF ACTION THAT'S BEING BROUGHT FORTH.

THAT'S WHY I WAS BROUGHT IN JANUARY AND THE OPPORTUNITY OF 30/60 WAS GIVEN TO ALLOW THE OWNER TO PERFORM AN ACTION.

AGAIN, NO CONTACT WAS MADE AND THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT TO YOU

[00:50:06]

GUYS TO RECOMMEND DEMOLITION. >> I CAN APPRECIATE EVERY BIT OF

THAT. >> SHE SAID EXHE SAID WHAT I WAO SAY. WE MET AND REVIEWED THIS CASE.

IT DOES HAVE A TIMELINE. WE DON'T WANT TO WASTE THIS BOARD'S TIME, NOR DO WE WANT TO RUSH ON ANY ACTION.

IF IT'S NOT WARRANTED, WE HAVE TO TRUST IN STAFF'S ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE BASE, GOING BY THE ORDINANCES THEY'RE BRINGING THESE CASES TO US IN A TIMELY FASHION WHICH IS SOMETHING WE'VE REQUESTED THROUGH THE YEARS. SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THESE THREE YEAR OLD CASES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS RUN DOWN OR MOVING WITH THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AROUND THEM.

IT'S A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY. I JUST SEE THE INACTION IN THIS CASE AND THEY'RE VERY WELL KNOWLEDGED OF WHAT HAS TO BE DONE. THIS ISN'T THEIR FIRST TIME TO BUY PROPERTY TO FIX UP. THOSE ARE CONCERNS I'VE GOT.

MR. CRAIG HAS INDICATED THE BOARD CAN MOVE FORWARD, EVEN WITH THE WHATEVER LITIGATION MAY BE PENDING AND THAT'S WHERE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL 30 DAYS TO DISTRICT COURT.

IN ESSENCE OF A TIMELINE, I THINK STAFF HAS DONE THEIR JOB IN BRING BRINGING THIS TO US AE OWNER HAS NOT FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH THE BOARD'S ORDER FROM JANUARY.

>> UNDERSTOOD. DOES THAT LEAD TO A MOTION?

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> CAN YOU FLIP TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE? I FEEL THAT IF WE -- DISCUSSION, NOT A MOTION -- IF WE ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN THE INTEREST OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND GETTING ALL THE DUCKS IN A ROW IN ORDER TO HELP THE OWNER AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY AND DO THINGS RIGHT BY EVERYBODY BY DOING WHAT'S LEGAL, I THINK IT WILL BE IN THE HOMEOWNER'S BEST INTEREST IF WE ACCEPTED THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND FOLLOWED UP WITH A MOTION TO DO THIS SO THAT IT GIVES THE HOMEOWNER AND THE CITY A LEGAL PRECEDENCE AND THE RIGHT SEQUENCE OF EVENTS TO GET THINGS DONE. THAT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION YOUR POINT OF PROTECTING THE HOMEOWNER AS I THINK WE SHOULD.

IT WOULD CLEAR UP SOME OF THIS FUZZY LEGAL STUFF LIKE PULLING A PERMIT FOR AN ADDRESS THAT ISN'T REALLY THE HOUSE, THE LEGAL ADDRESS IS 1 1431, NOT 1433. LET'S GET SQUARED AWAY ON THIS AND SET UP. LET'S BUILD A FIRM FOUNDATION IN THE FIRST PLACE TO GET THIS THING TAKEN CARE OF.

AND HELP THE HOMEOWNER AS WELL AS PROTECT THE CITY.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING OUT OF THIS HAS BEEN THERE HAS BEEN SOME LACK OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE OWNER TO COOPERATE WITH THESE DIRECTIVES FROM THE CITY.

AND IF THAT'S THE ISSUE, WE REACH A POINT THAT WE'LL DECLARE IT A NUISANCE AND THAT IS A TOOL THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO CONSIDER WE'RE ABUSING WITH THAT.

IF IT'S A NUISANCE TO THE HEALTH AND HAZARD AND PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THEN IT'S ONE WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS. IF SHE WANTS TO GET ENGAGED AND DEAL WITH IT, IT KIND OF PUTS HER BACK INTO HER COURT TO EITHER DO IT OR IT GETS TORN DOWN.

>> WE HAVE ANOTHER TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX AND WE HAVEN'T USED IT

IN SOME TIME. >> WHICH IS?

>> WHEN THERE'S A DELAY AND THEY DON'T GO BY THE BOARD'S ORDER, WE DO HAVE A TOOL OF CIVIL PENALTIES WE HAVE NOT

INCORPORATED IN OVER A YEAR. >> TRUE.

>> TALKING ABOUT MAKING MOTIVATION HAPPEN.

MR. WEBB WAS VERY GENEROUS WITH HER IN JANUARY AND WE GAVE THEM THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO COME OUT WITH A PLAN OF ACTION.

[00:55:03]

>> WE GAVE THE HOMEOWNER WHAT THE HOMEOWNER WANTED.

>> CORRECT. >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION IF THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME, THAT THE PROPERTY'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IT'S A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH, WELFARE AND REPAIR WOULD BE

UNREASONABLE. >> MOTION AND SECOND THAT THE PROPERTY BE DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE IN THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

(ROLL CALL). >> I WILL HAVE TO ABSTAIN WHEN THIS CASE WAS SUBMITTED IN JANUARY I HAVE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. (ROLL CALL).

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

>> MOTION BY MR. ALLRED -- SORRY, BY MR. WEBB.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. MCCALLUM THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE. (ROLL CALL).

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> GOOD LUCK, MS. SMITH.

>> I ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL IN DISTRICT COURT.

[D. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 11-044: 2926 Beech (NORTH PARK ADDN, BLOCK 15, LOT S75 N319 OF E138.5), Owner: Flores, Joel]

NEXT CASE, PLEASE. >> FINAL ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 3D, CASE NUMBER 11-044. LOCATED AT 2926 BEECH STREET.

CHECK LIST FOR RECORDS SEARCH SHOWS COUNTY RECORDS OF QUIT CLAIM DEEM NAMING JOEL F FLORESO BE THE OWNER.

TAX RECORDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY ARE INACTIVE SINCE AUGUST 26, 2016.

THIS WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND THERE ARE TWO STRUCTURES ON THIS PROPERTY THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE PROPERTY WAS MOVED TO ITS ORIGINAL SETBACK LINES. WEST SIDE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.

IT'S THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

I'M GOING TO PRESENT A TIMELINE ON THE EXE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUE THROUGH TIME SINCE MR. FLORES HAS OWNED THIS PROPERTY.

THE TOP LEFT PHOTO, THAT'S THE CONDITION WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY A MONTH AFTER MR. FLORES BOUGHT IT.

KEEP GOING DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LEFT.

FROM 2014, THE TOP RIGHT PHOTO IS 2015, THE BOTTOM LEFT IS DECEMBER 2017, AND THE -- AGAIN, DECEMBER 2017, BOTTOM RIGHT.

AND, AGAIN, STARTING FROM 2017 AND THEN ON THE TOP RIGHT IS 2018. THE BOTTOM LEFT IS 2019.

AUGUST OF 2020 IS THE BOTTOM RIGHT PHOTO.

YOU CAN SEE IT'S ALMOST -- THERE'S NOT REALLY MUCH PROGRESSION. THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT AT PROGRESSION BEING MADE, BUT IT GETS AT A STANDSTILL THE EXTERIOR BEGINS TO START ROTTING AND DETERIORATING.

THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE FOUNDATION.

TOP RIGHT LEFT PHOTO IS 2017. BOTTOM LEFT IS 2017 AS WELL.

BOTH PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT ARE AS OF 2021.

AGAIN, THIS WAS MOVED OVER BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SETBACK LINES.

THIS IS THE EXTERIOR PLUMBING. INCOMPLETE PLUMBING, IT'S BEEN DUG UP AND JUST LEFT LIKE THAT SINCE 2017.

PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT ARE CURRENT AS OF 2021.

THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

WE HAVE -- YOUR TWO LEFT PHOTOS ARE 2017.

OVER TIME, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE THOSE BOTTOM FLOOR JOISTS, THE WOOD SEEMS TO BE JUST AGING AND DETERIORATING.

[01:00:01]

THESE ARE CURRENT AS OF 2021. INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE THAT'S INCOMPLETE. THIS IS THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE.

REMAINS THE SAME CONDITION AS OF THE LAST MEETING.

WE HAVE LECFORKINGAL ISSUES GOING ON AS YOU CAN SEE.

POWER IS BEING RUN THROUGH THE BOX -- THE CORD IS BEING RUN FROM THE METER BOX INTO THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE AND BEING USED TO POWER THE MAIN STRUCTURE.

DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE TIMELINE I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT CERTAIN DATES THIS WAS CONDEMNED IN 2011. IT WAS PRESENTED ONCE UNDER THE PREVIOUS OWNER. HOWEVER, SINCE MR. FLORES PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2014, HE WAS SENT CONDEMNATION LETTERS ON OCTOBER 2014. ON APRIL 5TH, 2015, CITATION WAS ISSUED DUE TO LACK OF ACTION FROM MR. FLORES.

PLAN OF ACTION WAS PROVIDED AND BUILDING PERMIT WAS OBTAINED.

2017, THE OWNER WAS SENT A NEW NOTICE, THUS GIVING HIM A FRESH NEW TIMELINE. MAY 3, 2017, THE DECISION LETTER WAS SENT AND HAD 90 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS.

AUGUST 31 THE PERMITS WERE CLOSED DUE TO INSPECTIONS SHOWING TO BE INCOMPLETE. FEBRUARY 19, 2019, PERMITS WERE EXTENTEND SIX MORE MONTHS. APPROXIMATELY A YEAR LETTER, THE PERMITS WERE ALLOWED TO EXTEND ANOTHER SIX MONTHS AND EXPIRED AUGUST OF 2020. DECEMBER 2, BOBS ORDER, 60 DAYS TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE TO SETBACK LINES, WHICH HE DID COMPLETE. FEBRUARY 8, 2021, CODE OFFICER INSPECTED THE PROPERTY AND CONFIRMED THE STRUCTURE WAS MOVED. MARCH 16TH, 2021, WE SENT HIM NOTICE FOR TODAY'S MEETING. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THERE ARE NO PERMITS OR ANYTHING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY ON HOLD PENDING THE BOARD'S DECISION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTE 8 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST. INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. STAFF RECOMMENDS TO ORDER THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR

THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MARSH? WHAT COMMUNICATIONS HAVE YOU HAD SINCE THE LAST TIME IT WAS

BEFORE THE BOARD? >> I P MET WITH MR. FLORES AT TE PROPERTY AND HE SHOWED WHERE HE DID MOVE IT BACK TO THE SETBACK LINES. I INFORMED HIM RIGHT NOW TO HOLD ANY ADDITIONAL WORK OR REPAIR TO THE STRUCTURE UNTIL WE HAD THE

BOARD MEETING TODAY. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> WAS OUR DECEMBER ORDER TO HIM TO ONLY MOVE THE PROPERTY BACK

TO THE PROPERTY -- SETBACK LINE? >> YES, SIR.

THAT'S RIGHT. HE DID ACCOMPLISH THAT WITHIN THE 60 DAYS. THAT WAS CONFIRMED IN FEBRUARY.

>> HE WAS UNDER NO DIRECTION TO PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION OR

ANYTHING LIKE THAT AFTER THAT? >> NO, SIR.

I BELIEVE THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS HE GAVE AS TO WHAT WAS HALTING HIM FROM FURTHER PROGRESSING.

AT THAT TIME THAT'S WHY THE BOARD ORDERED FOR HIM TO MOVE IT BACK TO THE SETBACK LINES AND PENDING ANY STATUSES OF THE

PROPERTY. >> SO HE'S COMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS WE'VE GIVEN HIM TO DATE THEN, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> FOR THE DECEMBER MEETING, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT AS FAR AS THE PREVIOUS MEETING THAT WAS HELD BEFORE THAT, SO COMPLETE THE ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS IN 90 DAYS THAT WASN'T COMPLIED WITH. AND, AGAIN, I'LL KIND OF LET HIM EXPLAIN WHY ARE WHERE WE ARE NOW.

BUT AS FAR AS THE DECEMBER MEETING, HE DID COMPLY WITH

THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> MR. TURNER, I WAS THE ONE THAT MADE THE MOTION ABOUT HIM TO MOVE THE PROPERTY BACK BECAUSE THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS EVEN SOUND ENOUGH TO DO THAT WAS A SERIOUS QUESTION AT THAT TIME. AND SO I DON'T REMEMBER THAT IT

[01:05:04]

WAS REQUIRED OF HIM TO SEEK PERMITS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BECAUSE THE TASK OF MOVING THE BUILDING WAS SO SIGNIFICANT.

AND THAT HE NEEDED TO DO THAT TO SHOW TO US THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY WILLING TO DO THE WORK BECAUSE THE NUMBER WE WERE GIVEN AT THAT TIME WAS IN THE $30,000 RANGE THAT HE WOULD LOSE IF WE WENT AHEAD WITH THE DEMOLITION. AND SO MOVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY WAS THE PRIMARY ISSUE AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.

THEN IT WAS TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD IF I REMEMBER TOTALLY CORRECTLY. I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES TO BE SURE BUT I THINK IT WAS SUPPOSED TODAY COME BACK HERE WITHIN 60 DAYS. I HOPE THAT HELPS.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO MR. MARSH? THANK YOU, MR. MARSH. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 11-044. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PO PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR

THE RECORD. >> JOEL FLORES.

BACK WHEN I WAS ASKED TO MOVE THE PROPERTY BACK TO ITS PROPER LOCATION, THE HOUSE'S STRUCTURE, WE DID.

I DON'T REMEMBER THEM -- THE BOARD SAYING I WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK. I HAD WAS TELL MR. MOR MARSH THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN MOVED. THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT, AND I

COULD BE WRONG. >> CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC, WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.

>> SORRY. THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS I WAS GOING TO CONTINUE AND I HAD SIX MONTHS BECAUSE I COMPLIED.

SIX MONTHS IF I DIDN'T COME UP WITH ANY PERMITS -- I'M SORRY.

ANY INSPECTIONS THEN WE'D COME BACK HERE AND PROBABLY ORDER IT TO BE DEMOLISHED. I MET MR. MARSH ON THE PROPERTY.

HE TOLD ME I HAD TO START ALL OVER.

THE WAY I TOOK IT WAS THE -- PULL THE STRUCTURE DOWN.

THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY. IF I DO HAVE TO RENEW MY PERMITS, THAT'S FINE, I'VE GOT NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

AS MR. MARSH SHOWED YOU THE PICTURES, MY OTHER PROBLEM WAS HE CONDEMNED THE PROPERTY AGAIN. THAT POWER POLE THAT'S THERE, IF THAT'S WHAT IT'S USED FOR, TO UTILIZE IT FOR ELECTRICITY ANYWHERE ON THAT PROPERTY THAT I NEED IT TO BE.

THAT WASN'T A VIOLATION, SIR. HAD THE PROPERTY RECONDEMNED.

THEY PULLED THE POWER DOWN SO NOW I'VE GOT TO DO THAT AGAIN WHICH I CHOOSE AT THIS TIME NOT TO DO.

BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE JUST KEEP COMING UP WITH NEW EXCUSES OF WHY I CAN'T MOVE FORWARD. THE BACK OF THAT STRUCTURE WAS -- THE WAY I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, ALL I HAD TO DO WAS MAKE SURE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IT D RUNNING WATER.

EVERY TIME I TRY TO GET AN INSPECTION, I GET THESE SETBACKS. I FOUND NO GROUNDS LOOKING AT SOME OF THE CODES THEY GAVE ME, ESPECIALLY ONE WHERE THE CEILING WAS TOO LOW. SCEUM SEXCUSE ME.

THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOM CAN BE '71.

THAT'S WHY I WAS DENIED THE ELECTRICAL THAT'S WHY IT DIDN'T PASS MY INSPECTION. I HAD TO PULL THE STRUCTURE DOWN, REDO IT, PUT IT UP 11 FEET, AND THEN THAT'S WHEN IT STARTED GETTING EVEN WORSE. I COULDN'T GET A PLUMBING INSPECTION BECAUSE THEY TOLD ME I HAD TO HAVE STACK OUT.

THE WAY I UNDERSTAND ROUGH IN IS TO GET THE SEWAGE UP INSIDE THE PROPERTY AND THEN ONCE WE WATER SEAL IT, RAIN CAN'T GET IN IT THEN WE GO AHEAD AND STACK OUT AND THEN IT WILL BE THE FINAL ONCE OUR SI SINKS AND TOILETS AE PUT IN, MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS WORKING PROPERLY. THAT HASN'T HAPPENED.

I GET PUSHED BACK NOW WE HAVE TO REBUILD THE WHOLE PROPERTY.

[01:10:04]

I HAVE NO OTHER CHASE. THE DEEPER WE'RE DUG THE MORE WE HAVE TO DO. I SHOULD HAVE HAD TO REWIRE IT, PLUMB IT, AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LAST TIME YOU'D SEEN ME UP HERE. THE LAST TIME THE TORNADO CAME, BLEW THE STRUCTURE OVER. I PUT IT BACK WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. AS MR. MARSH HAS SHOWN YOU, THE SEWER HAS BEEN THERE YEARS. CAN'T GET AN INSPECTION BECAUSE THEY TELL ME I HAVE TO HAVE A STACK OUT OR THEY TELL ME I CAN'T GET A YARD INSPECTION WHICH DIDN'T MAKE NO SENSE TO ME. INSPECTIONS ARE AN INSPECTION.

I NEED THAT COVERED UP SO I CAN WORK AROUND THE PROPERTY.

I STATED THAT, THE GAS LINE, THE WATER LINE IS RUN.

I KEEP GETTING THESE SETBACKS. HE TOLD ME I WAS GOING TO START OVER AND I WASN'T WILLING TO KNOCK THE STRUCTURE DOWN AND START ALL OVER. I MIGHT HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD HIM BUT THAT'S THE WAY I TOOK IT. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY OR WHAT'S NEEDED TO BE DONE.

I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS PROPERTY.

IF I NEED TO PULL ANOTHER PERMIT, THAT'S FINE.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I REALLY AM TIRED OF HAVING TO BE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD ABOUT THIS PROPERTY THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EASILY DONE YEARS AGO. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.

>> MR. FLORES, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT YOUR INSPECTIONS, THERE'S THREE INSPECTIONS ON PLUMBING. YOU HAVE YOUR ROUGH IN, YOU BROUGHT UP YOU COULDN'T COVER THE DITCH UP.

IF THEY DO THE ROUGH IN INSPECTION, THAT'S THE SEWER AND WATER LINES. THEN YOU CAN COVER THAT DITCH UP. THEY'LL DO A WATER TEST ON IT AND MAKE SURE IT'S HOLDING AND NOT LEAKING.

YOUR NEXT ONE GOING TO BE THE STACK OUT THAT'S NUMBER TWO.

BUT YOU CAN GET YOUR ROUGH IN AND COVER YOUR DITCHES TO PROCEED. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE

MISCOMMUNICATION -- >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

BUT I WAS TOLD I COULDN'T BECAUSE THEY NEEDED TO BE STACKED OUT. I WAS DOING THE ROUGH IN SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PUT A ROUGH IN AND THEN STAFF CAN COME OUT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THEN STAGE TWO.

JUST LIKE THE LECFOR ELECTRICALT THE SAME THING WITH THE --

>> THOSE ARE DIFFERENT INSPECTIONS.

>> IT'S STILL INSPECTIONS, I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE DIFFERENT INSPECTIONS, SIR. TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.

>> YOU CAN DO YOUR PLUMBING ROUGH IN ASK THEN YOUR LECYOURLECFO ELECTRICAL IS A SECOND ONE.

YOU CAN COVER THOSE DITCHES -- >> THE INSPECTOR HASN'T COME OUT

AND INSPECT THAT. >> HAS YOUR PLUMME PLUMBER CALLR

THE INSPECTION? >> THAT WAS THE ISSUE.

THAT THEY HAD TO BE STACKED OUT. >> I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT.

THAT WOULD BE UP TO BUILDING INSPECTION AS TO INTERACT ON

THAT. >> THIS CASE IS SEVEN YEARS OLD, SO I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT UNTIL I'M ABLE TO LOOK INTO WHAT'S GOING ON. WE CAN LOOK AT AN OPEN DITCH INSPECTION. IF YOU WERE TOLD YOU COULDN'T, A COUPLE OF THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED.

ONE WE DON'T HAVE A PLUMBER, ONE WE DON'T HAVE A PERMIT.

I DON'T WANT WHAT THE INSTANCE AND REASON IS.

BUT WE CAN -- LET ME LOOK INTO THIS.

I'D RATHER GET THE DITCH COVERED UP THAN OPEN.

WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS EVERY DAY.

LET ME LOOK INTO THAT. >> MR. FLORES? INSTEAD OF -- NOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DEMOLITION, ET CETERA, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS AN ORDER TO REPAIR AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN YOUR PERMITS AND GET A PLAN OF ACTION TO THE CITY. THEN YOU HAVE 60 DAYS FOR A ROUGH INSPECTION. IF IT'S DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS WILL BE COMPLETED. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU'RE INVESTING THE TIME AND ENERGY. SO LET'S DRIVE A STAKE IN THE GROUND AND MAKE A PLAN OF ACTION AND GET THIS THING DONE.

>> SOUNDS GREAT TO ME. >> YOUR INTENTION IS TO FIX THIS

PROPERTY UP? >> YES, SIR.

>> AND THE SETBACK IS CORRECT NOW?

OFF THE PROPERTY LINE? >> YES, SIR.

IT'S SETBACK TO WHERE -- >> THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION TO TRY TO CLEAR UP THE CONFUSION WHICH STAFF WILL HELP YOU OUT ON THAT IS JUST THE PLAN OF ACTION AND THE TIMELINE THAT'S

[01:15:05]

TIMING -- THIS HAS BEEN SEVEN YEARS.

I KNOW YOU'VE GOT THROUGH ISSUES BUT YOU'RE SHOWING YOU'RE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD BUT IT'S IMPERATIVE YOU MOVE FORWARD IN A TIMELY FASHION. THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING YOU CAN DO. IS THERE ANY ROADBLOCK PREVENTING YOU FROM MOVING FORWARD TO GI GETTING THE ROOF N IT AND THE FOLLOWING SUBSEQUENT INSPECTIONS THAT WOULD NEED TO

BE DONE? >> MR. MARSH EXPLAINED BEFORE TO ME ONCE I GET MY ROUGH IN ON THE PLUMBING I GOT SIX MONTHS --

>> AS LONG AS I KEEP SHOWING EFFORT.

>> RIGHT. >> BUT --

>> I'M SORRY, I'M TIRED OF SEEING THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSE, I'M UP TO HERE. I'M READY TO GET THIS --

>> WE WANT TO SUPPORT YOU IN YOUR EFFORT TO GET THIS COMPLETED SO THAT YOU DON'T LOSE MONEY.

YOU MAKE GOOD STEPS BY MOVING THE HOUSE BACK, BUT GRANTED IT HAS BEEN SEVEN YEARS WITH DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HAS HAPPENED. WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT GET FINISHED AND BRING IT OUT OF CONDEMNATION.

>> YES, SIR. >> THIS OWNER, THIS RECOMMENDATION REQUEST FOR OWNER TO REPAIR, IT DOESN'T MENTION SIX MONTHS. IT SAYS 30 DAYS TO GET YOUR PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION.

AND THEN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN YOUR ROUGH IN AND IF IT'S DONE, SO THAT'S CONTINUOUS INTERACTION WITH THE STAFF AND MEETING THE TIMELINES. DOESN'T SAY SIX MONTHS, IT SAYS 30/60.

>> JUST TO CLEAR UP WHAT MR. FLORES IS TALKING ABOUT.

THE SIX MONTHS HE'S REFERRING TO I WAS REFERRING TO THE SIX MONTH EXTENSION OF THE PERMITS AFTER HE PASSES AN INSPECTION.

HOWEVER, WITH A 30/60 THAT WOULD REQUIRE AGAIN, AS A CHANCE FOR YOU TO REPAIR IT, A 30/60 WOULD REQUIRE TO HAVE ALL YOUR ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS DONE IN 60 DAYS. THAT VOIDS ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU AND I SPOKE ABOUT. THAT'S WHY I TOLD YOU NOT TO REPAIR OR DO ANY FURTHER REPAIRS UNTIL WE HEARD FROM THIS BOARD.

SO IF THEY ORDER A 30/60, MR. WEBB IS CORRECT YOU'LL HAVE TO GET YOUR PLAN OF ACTION AND PERMITS PULLED WITHIN 30 DAYS AND HAVE ALL OF YOUR ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS DONE WITHIN SIXTY DAYS. THAT INCLUDES PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL AND STRUCTURAL.

>> I'M SUPPOSED TO GET A ROOF ON IT AND HAVE IT ALL WIRED UP AND ALL THE WATER AND SEWAGE WORKING WITHIN 60 DAYS, IS THAT WHAT

YOU'RE TELLING ME? >> FOR YOUR ROUGH INSPECTIONS TO

PASS, YES. >> 60 DAYS IS AFTER THE INITIAL

30 SO YOU'LL HAVE 90 DAYS. >> LET ME ASK UNDER THE CURRENT PLAN OF ACTION, DISREGARDING THE TIME AND HE ALSO COMPLIED WITH MOVING THE STRUCTURE PROPERLY AND THERE'S LOTS OF CONDITIONS THAT THE LAST TIME WE MET WAS JANUARY DUE TO COVID AND WEATHER AND ALL THIS STUFF, WHERE IS HE IN THE CURRENT PLAN OF ACTION? REALLY, ARE WE STARTING ALL OVER TO GRANT HIM ANOTHER 30 AND A NEW PLAN OF ACTION? OR DO WE NEED TO MODIFY THE CURRENT PLAN OF ACTION? WHICH IS MAYBE SAYING THE SAME THING. BUT I WOULD EITHER -- IF WE RECOGNIZED HIS EFFORT, I WOULD BE ALSO UNDERSTANDING TO KIND OF BUILD THE MOTION IN TO MODIFY THE EXISTING PLAN OF ACTION BECAUSE HE SHOULD HAVE HAD ONE. HE HAS ONE TO GET FINISHED, BUT PART OF THAT PLAN OF ACTION WAS GETTING PERMITS AND THERE'S EVIDENTLY BEEN CONFUSION ON THE PERMITTING SEQUENCE AND THE INSPECTIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THE PERMITS TO GET THEM CLOSED OUT. IF THAT CAN GET EXPLAINED TO HIM MORE CLEARLY, WE'RE CURRENTLY IN ONE OF THESE PLANS OF ACTION.

WE'VE GOT TO BE. >> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AS FAR AS WHERE HE IS, THE LAST PLAN OF ACTION HE SUBMITTED WAS JULY 2015 ACCORDING TO THE TIMELINE.

>> SIX YEARS AGO. >> ACCORDING TO THE TIMELINE, SINCE THE PLAN OF ACTION WAS SUBMITTED, HE HAS HAD HIS PERMITS RENEWED THREE TIMES. SO ANYTIME A PERMIT HAS TO BE

[01:20:06]

RENEWED THERE WAS SIX MONTHS OF NO ACTION.

>> OKAY, BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE TERM PLAN OF ACTION, THAT'S ESTABLISHING WHAT HE IS TO BE DOING TO HELP HIM ON A TIMELINE. AS I STA STARTED MY QUESTION, DISREGARDING TIMELINE, WHERE IS HE IN HIS PLAN OF ACTION? HE'S HAD HIS PERMITS RENEWED TWO OR THREE TIMES THEN.

SO WE CAN REESTABLISH HIS PLAN OF ACTION AND REESTABLISH IT TO COVER UP DITCHES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE, IF THAT'S LEGITIMATELY WATT WE NEED TO DO AND LET HIM PROCEED ON AND MAYBE IF HE'S WORKING OR AT THIS POINT HAS NO OPEN PERMITS BECAUSE THEY'VE EXPIRED, GET HIM ON THIS PLAN OF ACTION AND THAT WE CAN TIE SOME TIME TO IT. MAN, IT WAS A BIG DEAL MOVING THE STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY. I'M TICKLED TO DEATH ABOUT THAT.

THAT SHOWS THE SERIOUSNESS OF HIM PROCEEDING.

IT DOES SEEM LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE JANUARY INEVERYTH?EVERYTHING IN THE WORS HAPPENED TO ANYBODY.

WE CAN ROLL THIS THING BACK. SINCE HE FINISHED THE MOVING THE STRUCTURE, WE NEED TO JUST KEEP MOVING FORWARD AND HELP HIM GET

FINISHED. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN REGARDING JANUARY AND THE SERIES OF EVENTS THROUGH THE WORLD.

BUT, AGAIN, AS I STATED TO OTHERS AS WELL, THE CITY NEVER CLOSED, NEVER STOPPED WORKING. THERE REALLY HASN'T BEEN ANY DETERRENTS IN THAT. AS FAR AS THE PLAN OF ACTION, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY YOU'D LIKE FOR US TO SPECIFY CERTAIN THINGS FOR HIM TO PASS THOSE ROUGH INS.

I MYSELF TRY TO REFRAIN FROM DOING THAT AT THE RISK OF THE CITY BEING HELD LIABLE FOR THE OWNER TO STATE THIS IS HOW I WAS TOLD TO DO IT SO NOW IT'S INCORRECT.

WHICH IS WHAT MR. FLORES HAS STATED SEVERAL TIMES.

WHICH IS WHY HE'S BEEN ALLOWED TO RENEW HIS PERMITS THREE DIFFERENT TIMES. I KNOW BASED ON EXPERIENCE AND WORKING WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTORS AND THE PERMIT TECHNICIANS THAT ANY TIME IT'S RENEWED THEY EXPLAIN WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE WE WOULD NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO GET MR. FLORES TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE REPAIRS HE NEEDS TO MAKE AND JUST TO ALSO KNOW HE IS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR ALSO, HIMSELF.

AGAIN, AS FAR AS THE PLAN OF ACTION, WE WON'T STATE WHAT

NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. >> LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET BACK ON TRACK HERE. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. FLORES? THANK YOU, MR. FLORES.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 11-044 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR MORE DISCUSSION.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? IS THERE A MOTION?

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT IF I MAY.

I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE MR. FLORES MOVING THE BUILDING BACK. THAT WAS A BIG ISSUE.

AS I RAISED AT THE LAST MEETING, IS THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS HERE OF CONTINUING REPORTS OF MISCOMMUNICATION, MISUNDERSTANDING, AND IF WE UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY AT THE LAST MEETING MR. FLORES IS A LICENSED CONTRACTOR.

I DON'T SEE HOW THERE COULD BE THAT MUCH CONFUSION OF ONGOING CONFUSION OF A LICENSED CONTRACTOR WHEN YOU HAVE THE PERIOD OF SEVEN YEARS OF ONGOING CONTACT WITH THIS BOARD AND CITY INSPECTORS. THAT JUST IS BEYOND BELIEF TO ME. I WOULD MAKE THE COMMENT THAT I

[01:25:01]

FOR ONE REMAIN FRUSTRATED ABOUT THIS CASE.

I'M GLAD TO SEE SOME MOVEMENT, BUT FRANKLY I MEAN, WE'RE STILL GETTING QUESTIONS I DON'T UNDERSTAND AND MISCOMMUNICATION SEVEN YEARS INTO IT WITH A LICENSED CONTRACTOR.

I THINK AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION THAT WE'LL EITHER ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT OR WE WON'T.

>> WELL, TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WHEN THE TORNADO MOVED THAT BUILDING, ALL PERMITS, ALL PLAN OF ACTIONS BECAME NULL AND VOID. TECHNICALLY.

IT DOES SOUND LIKE THE CITY STAFF TO ME WAS SOMEWHAT BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO WORK WITH THAT ISSUE AND ALLOWING HIM TO DO SOME WORK AFTER HE GOT IT MOVED BACK WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. I THINK HE'S OBVIOUSLY EXPRESSED AN INTENT TO MOVE THIS PROPERTY FORWARD AND GET IT OUT OF CONDEMNATION. WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE OBVIOUSLY FASTER THAN IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST.

AND MAYBE THAT CAN HAPPEN. TO REESTABLISH A NEW PLAN OF ACTION IS -- CAN BE IF THE CITY STAFF WANTS THAT.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE KIND OF BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT LENIENT ABOUT THAT. BUT LIKE EVERYBODY'S RECOGNIZED, MOVING THAT BUILDING BACK TO WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE WAS A BIG ENDEAVOR BY THE SHEER SIZE OF IT.

AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE PROBABLY NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.

TRY TO HELP HIM. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THEN TO REESTABLISH THE PLAN OF ACTION 30 DAYS TO GET THIS PLAN OF ACTION GOING. I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION FOR 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE THE PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES.

IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN THE ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS AND THEN IF THAT IS DONE, THE FINAL INSPECTION SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL THE PERMITS.

THERE IS A SEQUENCE THAT YOU HAVE TO STAY ON TRACK WITH.

IF YOU MISS ANY ONE OF THOSE STEPS, IT FOULS EVERYTHING UP.

SO THAT MOTION IS OUR STANDARD 30/60.

THAT SHOULD REACH THE POINT TO GET IT OUT OF CONDEMNATION, YOU'VE SUCCESSFULLY MOVED THE STRUCTURE, I APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT. IF STAFF WILL WORK WITH HIM, WE'LL GET THIS OUT OF CONDEMNATION.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> MOTION BY MR. SCHRADER, SECOND BY MR. ALLRED THAT WE ORDER THE OWNER 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION.

INCLUDING A TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES.

IF THIS IS DONE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS.

IF THIS IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE. (ROLL CA CALL).

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> GOOD LUCK, MR. FLORES.

>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE ADJOURN, WE'VE HAD A

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

REQUEST TO GO INTO -- WE'VE HAD A REQUEST TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE ISSUES WE'VE CROSSED TODAY.

[01:30:06]

DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT?

>> NO, YOU JUST NEED TO STATE THE TIME OF WHAT TIME IT IS WHEN WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IN OPEN SESSION AND THAT IT'S FOR

CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY. >> IT IS NOW 845 --

>> 9:45. >> SORRY, WE NEED TO FIX THAT CLOCK. DO WE NEED TO GO IN THE OTHER

ROOM? >> YEAH, LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE A ROOM. MR. MARSH CAN YOU CHECK TO SEE IF THE CONFERENCE ROOM THERE IS AVAILABLE?

>> I WILL RECONVENE THE MEETING AT 10:20.

EXECUTIVE SESSION IS OVER. AT THIS TIME

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.