A. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 20-003187: 342 Hawthorne St. (ELMWOOD WEST SEC H, BLOCK 5, LOT 1 & S30 OF 2), Owner: Brashear, Carole J.

[A. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 20-003187: 342 Hawthorne St. (ELMWOOD WEST SEC H, BLOCK 5, LOT 1 & S30 OF 2), Owner: Brashear, Carole J.]

WAS CASE NUMBER 20 ? 003187, LEGAL DIVISION OF THE CITY IT HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA SO WE WILL NOT BE PRESENTING ANYTHING REGARDING THIS CASE.

SO I WILL MOVE ONTO THE NEXT ONE ON THE AGENDA. THE FIRST CASE TO BE PRESENTED

[B. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 20-003772: 1534 Park Ave. (ARTHEL HENSON OUTLOT 33, BLOCK N, LOT 14), Owner: Joan Wood Cook]

IS CASE NUMBER 20 ? 003772, 1534 PARK AVENUE. THE RECORD RESEARCH SHOWS COUNTY RECORDS HAS A GENERAL WARRANTY DEEMING JOAN WOULD COOK AS THE OWNER.

TENANT COUNTY SHOWS JOAN WOULD COOK TO THE OWNER, THE STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY UNDER THE SAME.

UTILITY RECORDS AND MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD BE INACTIVE SINCE DECEMBER 9, 2020. SEARCH REVEALS JOAN WOULD COOK TO BE THE OWNER.

THIS IS A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING.

THIS IS THE FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE REAR WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO YOU CAN TELL YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A LARGE TARP THAT'S CATCHING UP WITH COULD POSSIBLY BE A HOLE IN THE ROOF OR JUST RIP THE SHINGLES THUS INDICATING SOME EXTERIOR ROOFING ISSUES. THERE ARE SOME EXTERIOR ROTTING AND DILAPIDATION THROUGHOUT THE

[00:05:05]

STRUCTURE. PHOTO ON THE RIGHT SHOWS A LARGE HOLE THAT COULD BE AN ENTRYWAY FOR RODENTS . THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE INTERIOR OF THE GARAGE WE SEE SOME CEILING ISSUES SOME OF THE TILES HAVE ROTTED AND COLLAPSED THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE WITH SOME CEILING ISSUES, AS WELL. YOU SEE MOLDING AND ROTTING THROUGHOUT. THERE'S ANOTHER IMAGE OF SOME OTHER ROOMS ON THE PROPERTY OF A SIMILAR INTERIOR MOLDING ISSUES. SOME INTERIOR SANITATION ISSUE , SOME AREAS IN THE KITCHEN AND THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY WE DISCOVERED RAT FECAL MATTER.

THERE ARE SOME INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES. SO THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS IS NOVEMBER 13, 2020 THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED. THE INITIAL NOTICE IN A 30 TO 60 DAYS WERE SENT DECEMBER 1, DECEMBER 7 THEY WERE RETURNED TO CENTER.

THEY WERE LABELED RETURN TO SENDER DO TO BE DECEASED. JULY 14, 2021, THE PROPERTY WAS MOWED BY THE CITY AUGUST 9, 2021 NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN PULLED, ON AUGUST 11 THE NOTICE OF HIS SEPTEMBER BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS WAS SENT. UGUST 12, THE NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE. AUGUST 23, 2021 THE PROPERTY WAS SECURED BY THE CITY DUE TO HAVING OPEN ACCESS IN THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE. SO PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST, INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARDS, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING AND PLUMBING, AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION.

STAFFRECOMMENDATIONS IS TO ORDER THE OWNER TO REPAIR , 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE PLAN OF ACTION AND COST ESTIMATES AND IF THIS IS DONE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGHENED INSPECTIONS AND IF THIS IS DONE ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS.

>> SO IS THE OWNER DECEASED?

>> YES, SIR. THAT WAS CONFIRMED THROUGH COUNTY RECORDS THAT THE OWNER IS DECEASED.

>> NO RECORD OFANY ERRORS ?

>> THERE WAS A SON OR SOMEONE WHO CLAIMED TO BE A SON WHO WAS CONTACTED.

HOWEVER, HE CLAIMED HE HAS NO RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY AND WHEN HE WAS INFORMED AND I'M SORRY I FAILED TO MENTION THAT DATE THE TIMELINE. HE WAS INFORMED OF THE CONDITION AND THE FACT THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS UNSECURED HE SAID HE WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH IT BECAUSE FOR HIM IT FELT UNSAFE TO RETURN TO THE STRUCTURE. I ASKED HIM IF HE HAD ANY INTEREST OF TRYING TO GET OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY HE SAID HE HAD NO FUNDING OR REALLY MEANS OR INTEREST TO DO SO. SO AS OF RIGHT NOW THAT IS THE ONLY CONTACT INFORMATION WE HAVE.

>> AN UNUSUAL CASE THAT WE HAVE A DECEASED PERSON AS THE OWNER OF RECORD.

AND NO HEIRS.

>> AND AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED TO THE COUNTY CLERK RECORDS TO SEE IF THERE WAS A WILL OR PROBATE LEFT BEHIND BUT THERE WAS NOTHING FOUND.

>> DO WE KNOW WHEN THIS OWNER PASSED AWAY?

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 2016.

>> REALLY?

>> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE.

20 ? 003-1772 IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO IT PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEE NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE ONE OF THE THINGS WE LEARNED LAST MONTH IS THAT WHEN WE DEMOLISH WHEN THE CITY DEMOLISHES THE PROPERTY WE DON'T GET IN THE WAY OF INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE I WOULD, I WILL BE PROPOSING THAT WE FIND THE PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE BECAUSE THERE ARE NO HEIRS BUT IF AN AIR WOULD SHOW UP THEY WOULD STILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AND TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP, ETC. BUT TO ME THERE IS NO REASON FOR US TO GIVE THE 30, 60, 90 DAYS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

I JUST THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND DECLARE IT'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

[00:10:06]

>> CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? I AGREE WITH YOU. IT'S A QUESTION FOR LEGAL, JUST BECAUSE AN AIR VERBALLY SAYS I DON'T WANT RESPONSIBILITY DOES NOT ABSOLVE HIM OF RESPONSIBILITY. IS THIS GOING TO BE A STICKY LEGAL?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS RESPONSIBLY OR NOT. WE NEED TO LOOK AT IS WHETHER THE STRUCTURE IS A NUISANCE OR NOT.

>> IT COMES DOWN TO OWNERSHIP DOES IT NOT? JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS I DON'T WANT TO OWN IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU DON'T OWN IT. BUT THE LAW SAYS.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE KNOW REALLY WHAT THE STATUS IS SO JUST TO DETERMINE IS THAT THIS IS STRUCTURE THAT'S STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND AND NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED OR IS IT NOT TO THAT POINT YET?

>> GARY, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS GETS TO YOUR POINT OR NOT BUT LAST MONTH I ASKED A QUESTION BECAUSE WE HAD A POTENTIAL OWNER BUT SHE HAD NOT GONE THROUGH THE LEGAL STEPS TO ESTABLISH OWNERSHIP AND I WANTED TO KNOW IF THE DEMOLITION ORDER AND CONDEMNATION WOULD STAND IN THE WAY OF HER BECAUSE IT WAS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT MAY AT SOME POINT HAVE SOME VALUE. AND I WAS TOLD BY LEGAL THAT NOAH DOES NOT STAND IN THE WAY IF THEY DECIDE LATER THAT THEY DO WANT TO ESTABLISH OWNERSHIP. SO WE ARE NOT STANDING IN THE WAY, THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE DOING IF MY MOTION GETS A SECOND AND PASSES IS THAT WE GET RID OF A STRUCTURE THAT IS UNSAFE AND AN EYESORE FOR THE NEIGHBORS.

AND BASICALLY ABSOLVE A POTENTIAL OWNER OF RESPONSIBILITY.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE MAY HAVE DIED AND NOTHING EVER HAPPENED WITH THE PROPERTY AND IF IN HEIR EVER DID RECEIVE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY THEIR EVE ARE GONNA RECEIVE THE PROPERTY WITH PTHE STRUCTURE ON IT OR THE LOT IF WE HAVE ALREADY DEMOLISHED IT.

>> MR. WEBB, TO HELP YOU CLEAR UP AN ANSWER FOR YOU AS WELL, AS FAR AS THE CODE AND THE BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION IS CONCERNED THE MAIN REASON WE TRY TO FIND OWNERSHIP OR RESPONSE WILL PARTY IS IT BECAUSE LEGALLY WE CANNOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO PULL PERMITS UNLESS THEY HAVE RIGHTFUL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. SO THAT IS WHERE OUR CONCERN COMES IN.

>> DID YOU MAKE THE FULL MOTIO ?

>> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, YES. MY MOTION IS THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE.

>> SECOND.

>> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ORDER THAT THE OWNER.

>> WE WILL HAVE TO PASS THIS FIRST. NEXT WE HAVE A MOTION FROM DR.

PARIS AND A SECOND FROM MR. SCHRADER. TO DECLARE THIS PROPERTY PUBLIC NUISANCE. IT AFFECTS HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.

>> MR. SCHRADER, YES >> MR. MCCOLUMM

>> YES >> MOTION PASSES.

I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER PROPOSE THAT THE OWNER 'S ORDER TO DEMOLISH WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

>> SECOND.

>> WE'VE A MOTION TO ORDER DEMOLITION ON THIS PROPERTYHERE .

BY DR. PARIS AND A SECOND BY MR. SCHRADER AND MR. ALLRED. ROLL CALL PLEASE.

>> DR. PARIS >> YES

>> MR. ALLRED >> YES

>> SCHRADER >> YES

>> MR. MCCOLUMM >> YES

>> MOTION PASSES.

[C. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-000749: 1310 Hickory St. (LT 4 204 3 D STEFFENS & LOWDEN OT ABL), Owner: Blancq, Elizabeth]

>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER 21 ? 000749 LOCATED AT 1310 HICKORY STREET.

CHECK THE RECORDS SEARCH SHOWS A QUITCLAIM DEED NAMING ELIZABETH BLANCQ AS THE OWNER.

[00:15:09]

THE TITLE COUNTY SHOWS ELIZABETH BLANCQ TO BE THE OWNER, SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME. TAX RECORDS AND ME TO SPELL THE ARENOT APPLICABLE.

UTILITY RECORDS AND THAT SPELLING SHOW INACTIVE SINCE MARCH 30, 2016 .EARCH FOR ELIZABETH BLANCQ TO BE THE OWNER. SO THIS IS A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING. THIS IS A FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE REAR WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE THERE SOME EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED THERE'S NO METER BOX BUT THERE IS A LOOSE WIRING HANGING ON THE STRUCTURE. SOME EXTERIOR ROTTING AND DILAPIDATION IDENTIFIED THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE . EXTERIOR ROTTING ISSUES.

HERE IS SOME INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES. YOU SEE THERE IS NO TOILETS AND NO FAUCETS IN THE BATHTUB. SO THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS IS ON APRIL 9, 2021, THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED INITIAL MOTIVES WAS SENT, APRIL 16, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM MR. JAMES BLANC WHO CLAIMED TO BE THE WINNER OF THE OWNER AND HE SAID WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO COMPLY AND EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT NOT HAVING FUNDS TO BRING THE PROPERTY UP TO CODE.

WE SET UP A TIMEFRAME TO COME IN AND MEET WITH US AND AT THAT TIME HE DID COME IN AND MEET WITH US ON APRIL 23. AND MYSELF AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL MR. LITTLEJOHN MET WITH HIM REGARDING THIS CASE. WE INFORMED HIM THAT HE CANNOT PULL PERMITS OR REPAIR THE STRUCTURE LISTED LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND HE STATED HE WAS TRYING TO GET OWNERSHIP AND HE WANTED TO PSOMEONE FOR GUIDANCE.

WE INFORMED HER THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM SOME TIME TO GET THE PROCESS COMPLETED AND INSTRUCTED HIM TO STAY IN CONTACT WITH US WITH ANY UPDATES.

ON AUGUST 7, 2020 WHEN THE PROPERTY HAD TO BE MOWED BY THE CITY ON AUGUST 9, 20/20 ONE, WE HAD NOT HEARD ANY FURTHER CONTACT FROM THE OWNER OR MR. BLANC.

ON AUGUST 11, WE SENT NOTICE OF THE SEPTEMBER BOARD OF THE BUILDIN STANDARDS MEETING, AUGUST 12 THE NOTICE WAS POSTED FOR THE MEETING. IDID RECEIVE A PHONE CALL FROM MR. BLANC ON AUGUST 4 , A VOICE MESSAGE WAS LEFT AND HE STATED HE STILL HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH FINANCIAL MEANS TO TRY AND REPAIR THE PROPERTY AND YOU STILL TRY TO WORK ON GETTING OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY BUT HE HAS EXPERIENCED A FEW SETBACKS SO THAT WAS AUGUST 24, LAST CONTACT WE HAD WITH HIM. SO PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST, INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARDS, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS AND LOGICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ORDER THE OWNER TO REPAIR 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES AND IF THIS IS DONE 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGHENED INSPECTIONS AND IF THIS IS DONE ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COLLATED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MORRIS?

>> WOULD YOU REMIND ME AGAIN OF HOW LONG IS IT THE TAX RECORDS OR THE UTILITIES SINCE 2016?

>> THERE HAS BEEN NO UTILITIES SINCE MARCH 30, 2016.

>> CAN WE ASSUME THAT NO ONE HAS LIVED THERE SINCE THEN?

>> WE CAN ONLYASSUME .

>> WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING IS MR. BLANCQ IS NOT NECESSARILY, MR. JAMES BLANCQ HE IS THE WOODWARD. IS HE NOT THEN COME THE LEGAL OWNER?

>> I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS SO I CANNOT REALLY SPEAKING ONLY TO WHAT MR. MORRIS SAID. NOTHING HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO HIS NAME.

IT HAS TO GO THROUGH SOME KIND OF PROBATE OR PROCESS FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE TRANSFERRED.

[00:20:05]

I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY IN HER NAME AND IF IT WAS BOTH OF THEIR NAMES THEN I THINK THIS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE. BUT WHAT I UNDERSTAND YOU TO BE SAYING IS THAT IT WAS ONLY IN HER NAME. AND SO, YOUR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO GIVE HIM TIME TO OBTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT HE CAN PULL PERMITS.

>> YES, MA'AM, THAT'S CORRECT. IT ALLOWS 30 DAYS TO TRY TO GET THE PROCESS COMPLETED SO HE CAN PULL PERMITS OR IF HE CHOSE TO DEMOLISH IT HE COULD DEMOLISH IT, ALSO.

BUT YOU ARE CORRECT. ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY RECORDS THE ONLY ONE LISTED ON THE DEED IS MISS ELIZABETH BLANCQ.

>> IT SEEMS TO ME WE CAN'T REALLY START THE BALL ROLLING ON A 30, 60 STANDARD PROCESS IF WE DON'T HAVE AN OWNER. AM I CORRECT IN THAT? HOW CAN WE ESTABLISH GIVING AN ORDER OF IT DOING ANY OF THE 30 DAYS, WE CANNOT START THE CLOCK FOR HIM TO START GETTING PERMITS IF HE IS NOT THE OWNER. I THINK WHERE THIS THING IS HEADED IS TO BE TABLED.

WE CAN GO THROUGH THE.

>> AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE 30,60 IS TO ESTABLISH A LITTLE TIME , NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTLY TO HIM BUT NOTICE DOES HAVE TO BE SENT OUT AND THERE HAS TO BE RECORD OF A NOTICE IS BEING SENT OUT AND PUBLIC RECORD AS WELL NEEDS TO BE MADE WHICH IS WHY 30, 60 WAS GRANTED THIS WILL BE A PUBLIC RECORD FILED IN THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. HOWEVER, AS DR. PARIS PREVIOUSLY STATED ALSO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BEING IN THE MIDDLE OF OWNERSHIP OF A PROPERTY IS JUST PRIMARILY AGAIN AS A FORMALITY FOR THE CODE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. AS FAR AS THE CASE ITSELF AND AGAIN IT'S A DECISION UP TO THE BOARD TO EITHER DECLARE IT A NUISANCE AGO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

THAT'S WHAT WE PRESENT TO YOU .

>> JOSH, WHEN IT MR. LITTLEJOHN WHEN YOU SAT DOWN WITH HIM HIS CONCERN WAS MONEY BUT DID HE SHOW INTEREST IN ACQUIRING THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY?

>> HE DID. HE DID SAY HE WANTED TO GET OWNERSHIP BECAUSE HE WANTED TO, IF IT WERE TO BE DEMOLISHED IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN HIS WORDS WERE IF IT WERE TO BE DEMOLISHED HE WANTED TO STILL OWN THE LOT. SO AGAIN THE BIGGEST THING IS THAT MR. LITTLEJOHN I STRESSED TO HIM THAT WITHOUT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP THERE WAS REALLY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO STAND ON.

SO THAT WAS THE MAIN THING THAT WE ADVISED HIM TO GET TAKEN CARE OF FIRST.

IS TO GET PROOF OF OWNERSHIP ON THE PROPERTY.

>> DID HE INDICATE HE WOULD DO THAT?

>> HE SAID HE WOULD TRY TO MAKE THE BEST EFFORTS TO GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF.

AND HE IS HERE AS WELL. HE IS PRESENT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS,STAFF ? THANK YOU MR. MORRIS. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE 21 ? 000749, ANYONE WISHING TO PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> MY NAME IS JAMES BLANCQ. I AM THE WIDOWER OF ELIZABETH BLANCQ.

MY MAIN CONCERN IS TO GET THIS SETTLED SOME AWAY. I DON'T WANT TO BE DEMOLISHED BUT IT HAS TO BE I UNDERSTAND. I HAVE THE DEATH CERTIFICATES TO PROVE MY WIFE IS DEAD, SHE KEEPS GETTING IN HER NAME, I GUESS YOU GUYS DID NOT KNOW THAT SHE WAS GONE.

SHE HAS BEEN GONE THREE YEARS TODAY. THREE YEARS TO THE DAY TODAY WHICH IS VERY EERIE. BUT I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW I DO HAVE THE PROOF OF HER DEATH IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEE IT ON THE BOARD HERE. I AM HAVING SOME FINANCIAL ISSUES RIGHT NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO DO WHAT I CAN DO AND BOTHERS ME THAT EVERYBODY THINKS SHE STILL ALIVE AND SHE'S BEEN GONE THREE YEARS NOW.

THE REASON THERE ARE NO UTILITIES RECORDS SINCE THE 2016 IS BECAUSE THE STATE OF TEXAS AND CPS TOOK HER KIDS AWAY AND WE HAD TO MOVE INTO ANOTHER HOUSE, 325 AZUL WHERE I

[00:25:03]

LIVE NOW. SO WE WOULD NOT LOSE HER CHILDREN.

IT'S A LONG STORY, GENTLEMEN, I DON'T WANT TO BORE YOU WITH THAT, IT GETS DOWN TO THIS BASICALLY, SHE IS GONE, SHE STILL THE OWNER BECAUSE IT'S ONLY IN HER NAME.

I WANT TO TRY TO GET PROBATE IF I CAN I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO AFFORD A LAWYER BUT I'M GOING TO TRY TO SEE , I TRIED TO GET LEGAL AID AND THEY SAID THEY ONLY HANDLE FAMILY LAW AND IT DIVORCES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I'M GOING TO TRY TO SEE IF I GET A LAWYER PRO BONO OR WHATEVER IT COULD DO TO GET PROBATE ON THIS.

SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS MAYBE I COULD GET AN AFFIDAVIT TIME TO GET THE LAWYERS AND EVERYTHING.

IF NOT, IF ITNEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED IT'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THERE'S NO WAY OUT , I WOULD LIKE TO LEASE TRY TO KEEP THE LAND AS MR. MORRIS WAS SAYING.

IT'S BEEN A TRAGEDY, ALL THE WAY AROUND FOR MY FAMILY, MY KIDS GOT TAKEN AWAY ANYWAY.

NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING I DID, MY WIFE DIED AND I COULDN'T TAKE CARE OF THEM I GUESS, WHATEVER. IT'S JUST BEEN A TRAGIC THREE YEARS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY BUT IT JUST TO PROVE HERE IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEE THE DEATH CERTIFICATE.

>> WE ARE SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS. JUST TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION YOU MET WITH STAFF BACK IN APRIL AS FAR AS THIS BOARD WE HAVE TO WORK ON THINGS AND A TIMELINE.

FINANCIAL ISSUES I CAN UNDERSTAND BUT WE HAVE TO ACT ON IT CONDEMNATIONS AS THEY COME FORWARD TO US. THE BEST WE CAN DO IS EITHER TABLE IT WHICH WOULD MEAN A 30 DAY EXTENSION OR DECLARE A PUBLIC NUISANCE WHICH IS IN ESSENCE THE SAME THING IT WOULD BE A 30 DAY PERIOD THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME FORWARD WITH A PLAN OF ACTION.

BUT THERE IS A CLOCK WORKING ON THIS AND WE CAN'T JUST SET THIS BACK FOREVER.

YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO DUE DILIGENCE TO TRY TO ACQUIRE THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY.

AS FAR AS THE LAND GOES, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, EVEN IF THE PROPERTY IS DEMOLISHED YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY IF YOU CAN HAVE LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ESTATE.

SO YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO GIVE IT LEGAL TO GET THAT RESOLVED.

>> DO YOU GENTLEMEN AND LADIES HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOMEON CAN DO WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE FINANCIAL , I CAN PROVE THAT I DON'T HAVE MONEY AS AN INDIGENT AS THEY SAY.

AND GET A LAWYER TO REPRESENT ME TO GET PROBATE ON THIS? ANY SUGGESTIONS ON THAT?

>> AS FAR AS THE BOARD GOES THAT IS NOT OF OUR WHEELHOUSE, YOU CAN CHECK WITH STAFF AND SEE IF THEY HAVE ANYONE IN THE CITY TO RECOMMEND. THAT'S NOT WHATTHIS BOARD DOES.

I'M SORRY .

>> CAN YOU FORWARD TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED?

>> IF I CAN GET A LAWYER, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG PROBATE TAKE.

>> THIS STARTED IN APRIL, RIGHT?

>> I NEED TO FIND A LAWYER AND I KNOW IT'S TIME SENSITIVE.I HAVE HAD TIME AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR SIDE OF IT, TOO.

>> WE HAVE TO ESTABLISH THE DATES. SO THIS IS WHAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS .

>> MY MAIN THING IS I WANT TO SEE WHAT I CAN DO AND DO ALL THAT I CAN DO.

WHATEVER THAT IS. LIKE I SAID, IT BOTHERS ME MY WIFE, I'VE GOT A GET IT CHANGED ANYWAY BECAUSE I'M TIRED OF HER GETTING BILLS AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN HER NAME.

I SHOULD'VE HAD IS PUT IN PROBATE A LONG TIME AGO. DURING THE THREE YEARS BUT IT'S KIND OF LIKE KILLING HER TWICE, I HAD TO TAKE HER OFF OF LIFE SUPPORT THAT WAS MY DECISION AFTER FIVE DAYS OF HELL. SHE HAD TWO STROKES IN A ROW AT THE HOSPITAL .

>> THIS RECOMMENDATION GIVES YOU 30 DAYS TO TALK TO THE STAFF AND FIGURE IT OUT.

AND THEN, YOU HAVE ANOTHER 30 DAYS TO START GETTING STUFF DONE.

ONCE YOU START COORDINATING WITH THEM THEN YOUR WORK IN A TIMELINE AND THINGS CAN BE MODIFIED, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YOU NEED TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY BUT WE ARE HERE FOR YOU.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT, TOO.

>> MR. BLANCQ, I WOULD LIKE TO SYMPATHIZE WITH YOUR LOSS AND YOUR SITUATION.

WHAT I AM HEARING YOU SAY AND I WANT TO DOUBLE MAKE SURE THIS IS CORRECT.

THAT YOUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS NOT THE STRUCTURE, YOUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS MAKING SURE THAT YOU DON'T LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP THE LAND, IS THAT CORRECT? DO YOU HAVE ANY PLANS WHATSOEVER TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY? THE BUILDERS AND A FOCUS ON

[00:30:05]

THIS BOARD KNOW MORE ABOUT WHETHER THE STRUCTURE IS EVEN REHABILITATED AS OPTIONS.

BUT YOUR PRIMARY INTEREST IS THE LAND AND NOT THE STRUCTURE, IS THAT CORRECT? X AT THIS POINT, YES, SIR. I CANNOT AFFORD THE REPAIRS AS YOU WOULD SAY ALL THE ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING. BY THE WAY THEOLOGICAL THAT WAS BAD IT WAS STOLEN.

SOMEONE, WE HAD DRUG DEALERS WHATEVER COMING AROUND, THE POLICE COULD TELL YOU THAT.

I DO NOT SECURE IT LIKEI SHOULD HAVE . THEY KICKED IN THE BACK DOOR, CAME IN THERE AND THE REASON WE KNOW AS DRUG DEALERS IS BECAUSE WE WERE INFORMED OF THAT.

THEY WERE COMING IN AND OUT TAKING DRUGS AND THERE IN THE HOUSE, NO ONE WAS LIVING THERE WHICH LIKE I SAID WAS MY FAULT. I SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING SIMILAR ABOUT PROBATE.

I SHOULD'VE HAD THAT PLAY SECURED UNTIL WE COULD AFFORD TO DO SOMETHING.

WE MOVED INTO THIS OTHER HOUSE AND THAT'S MY FAULT, ALSO.

>> WE ARE NOT HERE TO ASSIST BLAME YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN THROUGH AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT AND WE HEAR DO NOT ASSESS BLAME. I THINK I SPEAK FOR ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WHEN I SAY THAT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING OR THE WAY IN WHICH WE THINK OR FEEL.

SO THE PRIMARY ISSUE IS AGAIN TO WHAT WE CAN DO TO HELP YOU BUT MAKE SURE WE PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO GET THE PROPERTY AND TO DO THE PROBATE.

>> I HAVE THREE DAUGHTERS, TOO. I THINK HER MOTHER WOULD HAVE WANTED TO HAVE THEM HAVE THAT LAND AT LEAST. THERE'S PROBABLY NO WAY TO GET AROUND THE BEEN DEMOLISHED BUT I CAN'T AFFORD THE REPAIRS. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT. ONE OF THEM'S 15, WHEN IS 23 AND THE OTHER ONE IS 21. AND THEY HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH ALL THIS THE LAST THREE YEARS, TOO.

>> YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT PROBATE, DO YOU HAVE A WILL?

>> THERE WAS NO WILL LEFT. SHE WAS 51 YEARS OLD, SHE DIDN'T THINK SHE WAS GOING TO DIE, OF COURSE.

>> THEN THERE REALLY IS NO PROBATE TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.

>> NO WILL, I'M TOLD THAT I COULD STILL GET IN PROBATE AS HER WIDOWER.

SURVIVING HUSBAND. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS TRUE OR NOT. I DEFINITELY NEED LEGAL COUNSEL, I NEED TO WORK ON THAT, FOR SURE.

>> YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT. THE TIMELINE IS WHETHER WE TABLE OR GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE GIVE YOU AT LEAST ANOTHER 30 DAYS BEFORE WE COME BACK BEFORE US THAT WOULD BE YOUR TIMELINE TO WORK WITHIN. YOU WOULD NEED TO PURSUE THE LEGAL GROUNDS WHAT YOUR AVENUES WOULD BE BEFORE HE CAME BACK TO US SO WE WOULD KNOW WHAT TO DO FOR THE COMMUNITY. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT?

>> NO, SIR. >> AGAIN, WE ARE SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS AND WE THANK YOU FOR COMING TO FOR US THIS MORNING. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SEE NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS MOTION.

OR COMMENT.

>> I THINK TABLING THIS FOR 30 DAYS TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO SEE WOULD BE THE WAY TO GO SO I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE AND A SECOND GRADE MOTION MADE BY MR. ALLRED SECONDED BY MR. SCHRADER. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

>> DR. PARIS >> AYE

>> MR. ALLRED >> AYE

>> MR. WEBB >> YES

>> MR. SCHRADER X YES >> A MR. MCCOLUMM

>> YES >> MOTION PASSES.

>> NEXT CASE PLEASE.

[D. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-001059: 1734 N. 5th St. (E55 W205 S146 182 1 OT ABL N 300 L 1), Owner: Vivion, Guy & Debra K.]

>> NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER 21 ? 001059 LOCATED AT 1734 NORTH FIFTH STREET.

THE RECORD SEARCH SO THE COUNTY RECORDS WITH THE WARRANTY DEED NAME, VENDORS ELAINE NAMING GUY HEIR AND DEPRECATE VIVION AS OWNERS. AND DOING BUSINESS AS EMC MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO BE THE LIENHOLDER. TAYLOR COUNTY SHOWS GUY AND

[00:35:03]

DEBORAH TO BE THE OWNER, CENTER STATE SHOWS TERRY MCFADDEN TO BE THE REDSHIRT AGENT OF EMC MANAGEMENT COMPANY WHICH IS THE LIENHOLDER. TAX RECORDS AND MEANEST MELODY ARE NOT APPLICABLE UTILITY RECORDS AND MEANEST MELODY AND ACTIVE SINCE AUGUST 9, 2019.

THE SEARCH REVEALS GUY AND DEBRA VIVION TO BE THE OWNER. THIS WAS THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING. WE HAVE THE FRONT SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE REAR NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO THIS IS THE EXTERIOR DAMAGE AND DILAPIDATION THAT WAS DISCOVERED THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE . THE MORE EXTERIOR DAMAGE AND DILAPIDATION.

THIS IS INTERIOR CEILING DAMAG . AND MORE INTERIOR CEILING DAMAGE DISCOVERED THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE. THERE IS A MOLD AND FLOOR DAMAGED FOUND INSIDE THE INTERIOR . AND SOME INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES. AND SOME MORE INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES.

SO THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS, THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED ON MAY 5, 2021.

THIS IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS BACK ON JULY 7 OF 2021 SO I WILL SKIP TO THAT. THIS HAS BEEN PRESENTED ALREADY.

AT THAT DATE, THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS ORDERED A 30, 60.

ON JULY 8 THE DECISION WAS SENT TO THE OWNER AND IT LIENHOLDER'S AS OF AUGUST 10, NO ACTION OR PERMITS WERE PULLED BY THE OWNER. AUGUST 11, 2021, NOTICE OF THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER WAS SENT. N AUGUST 12 THE NOTICE WAS POSTED FOR THE STRUCTURE ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING, AS WELL.

AS OF TODAY, THERE IS NO PERMITS OR CONTACT FROM THE OWNER OR THE LIENHOLDER.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC, HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE AND IT REPAIRED THE STRUCTURE IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST, INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRIC WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. STAFF RECOMMENDS TO ORDER THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAKE

DEMOLISH. >> THANK YOU MR. MORRIS, ANY QUESTIONS? AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ON CASE NUMBER 21 ? 001059, ANYONE WISHING TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> GUY VIVIAN.

>> DID YOU COME IN LATE? >> I CAME IN LATE.

>> YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU SHALL GIVE AT THIS HEARING SHOULD BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU,YOU MAY PROCEED.

>> I AGREE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE DEMOLISHED .

SHOULD HAVE A COMMITMENT THIS WEEK TO HAVE IT DEMOLISHED.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AT THIS POINT.

>> SO YOUR PLAN IS TO PULL A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND HAVE IT DEMOLISHED?

>> YES, SIR.

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. JUST NEED TO GET WITH STAFF AND PULL THE PERMIT AND GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF. AND THAT WILL RESOLVE THE ISSUE FOR US.

ANYTHING ELSE?

>> THAT'S IT.

>> I APPRECIATE YOU COMING FORTH THIS MORNING AND SHARING THAT INFORMATION WITH US.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO THIS CASE PLASE STEP FORWARD. SEE NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. FURTHER DISCUSSION.

>> SEE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS I MOTION TO AGREE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THE REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE IS UNREASONABLE.

>> MOTION IS MADE TO MAKE THE PROPERTY PUBLIC NUISANCE. YOU HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> MR. ALLRED SECONDED. ROLL CALL PLEASE.

[00:40:02]

>> DR. PARIS >> AYE

>> MR. ALLRED >> YES

>> MR. WEBB >> YES

>> MR. SCHRADER >> YES

>> MR. MCCOLUMM >> YES

>> MOTION PASSES.

>> IS THE OWNER 'S ORDER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE COURT DECISION.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND TO ORDER THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL TO THE COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS.

>> MR. SCHRADER >> YES

>> MR. ALLRED >> YES

[E. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-001108: 1725 N. Mockingbird Ln. (CRESCENT HEIGHTS CONT 2, BLOCK 7, LOT 2), Owner: Serrano, Pedro & Josefina]

>> MR. MCCOLUMM >> YES.

>> MOTION PASSES.

>> FINAL CASE IS CASE NUMBER 21 ? 001108 LOCATED AT 1725 NORTH MOCKINGBIRD LANE.

CHECKLIST FOR THE RECORD SEARCH SHOWS THE SHERIFF'S DEED NAMING PEDRO AND JOSEFINA SERRANO AS OWNERS. THE COUNTY SHOWS PEDRO AND JOSEFINA SERRANO TO BE THE OWNERS. SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY UNDER EITHER NAME.

TAX RECORDS AND THE MEANEST BELLY NOT EQUABLE. SHOULD BE AN ACTIVE SINCE DECEMBER 2017. THE SEARCH REVEALS PEDRO AND JOSEFINA SERRANO TO BE THE OWNERS. THIS IS A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS MEETING. THIS IS THE FRONT WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE REAR EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS A SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THERE'S EXTERIOR DAMAGE AND DILAPIDATION DISCOVERED THROUGHOUT THE OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THERE IS SOME MORE INTERIOR DAMAGE AND DILAPIDATION A LITTLE BIT OF ELECTRICAL ISSUES THERE, AS WELL.

THIS IS DAMAGE TO THE INTERIOR, THAT WAS DISCOVERED. AND SOME MORE INTERIOR DAMAGE YOU CAN SEE SOME ELECTRICAL ISSUES THROUGHOUT, AS WELL. AND SOME INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES THAT WERE DISCOVERED. AND THESE CONDITIONS MIGHT I ADD WERE DISCOVERED BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2020 AND YOU WILL SEE WHY I BRING THAT UP HERE ON THIS NEXT SLIDE.

AS OF AUGUST OF THIS YEAR THIS IS THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

THE OWNER DID PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY AT AUCTION AND HAS SINCE CLEANED IT OUT COMPLETELY AND AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S BEEN COMPLETE WE GUTTED . THERE IS STILL UNDERLINED ISSUES AS YOU CAN TELL OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO PLUMBING, NO ELECTRICAL, WE HAVE SOME HOLES IN THE FLOOR, HVAC PROBLEMS. AND WE DID MEET THE OWNER ON SITE AND HE DID GIVE US PERMISSION TO COME IN AND OBTAINED THESE PHOTOS.

SO THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS IS MAY 10, 2021, THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED.

MAY 11, 2021, AFFIDAVIT FILED AND UTILITY SHUT OFF LETTER SENT.

AN 830, 60 LETTER SENT TO THE OWNERS. MAY 22, 2021, ROOFING PERMIT WAS TOLD TO INSTALL A ROOF. JUNE 10, ROOFING PERMIT WAS PLACED ON HOLD DUE TO THE OWNER NEEDING TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF ACTION AND OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT.