A. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition, or Civil Penalities - Case No. 20-004103: 1742 Victoria St. (MITCHELL & KIRBY, LOT 8, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: Villarreal, Jaime

[A. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition, or Civil Penalities - Case No. 20-004103: 1742 Victoria St. (MITCHELL & KIRBY, LOT 8, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: Villarreal, Jaime ]

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> AS A STATEMENT OF POLICY SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE, BUILDINGS MUST BE SECURED THE LOT CLEAN AND MODE BY THE OWNER WITHIN 10 DAYS BY RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF RESULT OF THIS HEARING.

IF THIS IS NOT DONE, THE CITY MAY DO SO AND BUILD THE OWNER.

IN ANY CASE WHERE THE BOARD THE OWNER FAILS TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL BOARD'S ORDER, CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

ANY APPEAL MUST BE FILED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER PARTY RECEIVES NOTICE OF THIS COURT'S DECISION. AT THE HEARING, PREPARED TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE REPAIRS. SPECIFIC SCOPE OF REPAIR WORK TO BE COMPLETED. AND THE COST ESTIMATE FOR THE WORK TO BE DONE BY A LICENSED BONDED CONTRACTOR SUCH AS ELECTRICAL, HEATING, PLUMBING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT YOU AT THE HEARING.

THE RIGHT TO INSPECT FILE AT OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIOR TO HEARING.

IN THE RIGHT TO REQUEST PRESENCE OF CITY STAFF FOR THE PURPOSES OF QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING.

THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK TO ANY CASE TODAY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU SHALL GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, WHOLE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

WITH THAT, MR. MYERS, WE ARE READY FOR THE FIRST CASE.

>> GOOD MORNING. CODE OFFICER FOR THE.

FIRST ONE IS CASE NO. 20-004103.

1742 VICTORIA STREET. THIS IS A PUBLIC KNOWS NOTICE FOR TODAY'S G. IN THE NEWSPAPER FOR TODAY'S MEETING. CHECKLIST FOR THE RECORDS SHOWS 74 TWO VICTORIA, THE DEED NAME AS DEANN TO BE THE OWNER.

SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY.

TAX RECORDS MUNICIPALITY NOT APPLICABLE.

UTILITY RECORDS INACTED SINCE AUGUST 2016.

DEANN DEANN IS SAID TO BE THE THIS IS POSTED.

FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

[00:05:04]

THE REAR WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS EXTERIOR THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED.

EXTERIOR TO THAT DILAPIDATION THROUGHOUT AREAS OF THE STRUCTURE. SOME EXTERIOR WALLS CRACKING AND BOLTING OUT A LITTLE BIT. MORE PHOTOS.

THIS IS THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. IDENTIFIED MATERIAL ELECTRICAL ISSUES. THIS IS WALL INTERIOR DAMAGE.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS ON DECEMBER 10, 2020, PROPERTY CAN APPEARED DECEMBER 14, 2020 INITIAL NOTICE OF A 30/60 LETTER WAS SENT. GENDER 22ND 20 JOINT ONE, RECEIVED CALL FROM OWNER FOR QUESTING PLAN OF ACTION.

EXTENSION GRANTED. FEBRUARY 9, SPOKE TO MR. VILLARREAL, GUN PLAN OF ACTION. HAVING TROUBLE FINDING CONTRACTORS. EXTENSION WAS GRANTED.

MARCH 12, 2021, COST ESTIMATES FOR REPAIR SUBMITTED.

HOWEVER, MISSING ESTIMATE FROM PLUMBING CONTRACTOR.

ANOTHER EXTENSION WAS GIVEN TO OBTAIN THE CONTRACTOR.

MARCH 15, 2021, MR. VILLARREAL SAID HAD TROUBLE OBTAINING PLUMBING CONTRACTOR. AS FOR ANOTHER EXTENSION.

MARCH 16, EXTENSION GRANTED RESPONSE TO AN EMAIL.

APRIL 5, SUBMITTED BY MR. JOE NONE, CONTRACTOR, APPROVED.

JUNE 29, 2021, PERMITS OBTAINED TO BEGIN REPAIRS.

DECEMBER 25, 2021, PERMIT EXPIRED NO INSPECTIONS EXPECTED TO PASS. GENERALLY 4, RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM JAIME VILLARREAL, BRING BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY.

JANUARY 12 SENT NOTICE OF REGULAR CERTIFIED MAIL ON TODAY'S HEARING. CHAPTER 8 FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST, AND ADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAD HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. STAFF RECOGNITION ORDER ONLY TO REPAIR 30 DAYS PERMITS AND PROVIDE PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING TIMEFRAME FOR COSTS. 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN INSPECTIONS.

THIS IS DONE, FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETD BY

EXPIRATION OFFER. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. 21-003384. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THE CASE, SPEAK FORWARD AND PRESSURE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR

THE RECORD. >> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS JOEL.

RECORD ON THE TIMELINE. NEXT TO ME IS US MR. JAIME VILLARREAL, TAKE YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

WITH THAT SAID, TIMELINE NOTES A LOT OF THINGS, DOES NOT KNOW ACTUAL EVENTS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WITH THIS LAST YEAR WHAT WE ARE COMING OUT APPEAR BECAUSE OF COVID.

ONE OF THE SITUATIONS WE RAN INTO WAS THE LIMITATION OF RESOURCES AS FAR AS BUILDING SUPPLIES WENT.

PUT US BACK IN ÃLET'S SAY, MARCH TIMEFRAME.

ALLOTMENT AS FAR AS WINDOWS AND DOORS.

26 WEEKS. BROUGHT US TO WRITE ABOUT THE DECEMBER TIMEFRAME TO WHICH HAS, OBVIOUSLY, NOW EXPIRED OUR TIMELINE AS FAR AS A LOT OF TIME FOR PERMITTING WAS ALLOWED AND BROUGHT US INTO THE SITUATION HERE.

ALONG WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, DEALING WITH VENDORS HOW THEY RAN INTO HEALTH ISSUES WITH THE VIRUS IN THE PANDEMIC.

INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, YOURS TRULY LIMPING AWAY, SUFFERED FRACTURED FOOT. I DO ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE FACT OF EXTENDING THIS. WE DO HAVE TIMELINE NOW THAT IS

[00:10:06]

TRUE OF OUR PLUMBING VENDOR IS ON BOARD WITH TENANT DATE IF ALLOWED THREE YOU GUYS AND APPROVED TO BEGI 21ST OF FEBRUARY. ALSO, THE ELECTRICIAN TO BEGIN MARCH 1. ALONG WITH THAT, WE DID TAKE THE TIME WHEN WE DID BUILD OUR PROGRAM AND OUR PLAN OF EXECUTION EVEN TO DEAL WITH LICENSED ARCHITECT. TO BUILD THE PLANTS UP FOR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO OVER TO THE CITY.

WE HAVE DONE THAT AS WELL. IN REFERENCE TO OUR PLAN OF EXECUTION. THE PLAN IS NOT CHANGED.

OUTSIDE OF THE LINKS, PROBLEMS NOW RESOLVED.

NOW YOU'VE GOT THE ONLY RESTRAINT WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, PERMITS EXPIRE. WE ASK COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER US TO CONTINUE WITH THE ACTUAL PLAN OF PROGRESS AND REINITIATE OR REAPPLY FOR PERMITTING THROUGH THE CITY ONCE AGAIN.

OUR PLANS ARE ESTIMATED TIME FOR US TO COMPLETE PROJECT WOULD BE FROM NOW WITHIN 1 JUNE.

WE ARE ASKING FOR 4 MONTHS. FOR US TO COMPLETELY REHAB THIS

PROPERTY. >> OKAY.

I GUESS WITH THE WORK YOU'VE ALREADY DONE, PROBABLY OKAY WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

>> YES SIR. WE ARE.

COMPLETELY OKAY WITH THAT. ONE THING NOT NOTED ON THERE, A LOT OF THE INTERIOR DAMAGES WITHIN THAT ARE DUE TO AN ACTUAL FAULTY ROOF. NOT ENTIRELY, ONLY FIVE SQUARES OF THAT ROOF. THAT HAS BEEN REPAIRED.

WE DO NOT HAVE WATER INFILTRATING THE ROOF ON THAT.

WE BELIEVE STRUCTURE WILL BE SOUND AND CAN BE REHABBED WITHIN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE AND WHAT HAS BEEN

PRESENTED OVER THE CITY. >> MR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION BACK UP ON THE SCREEN? I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE OKAY WITH THAT.

THERE YOU GO. YOU ARE ALREADY WELL ON YOUR

WAY TO MOST OF THAT. >> CORRECT.

>> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE OKAY WITH THAT.

>> WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT. ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING ALL WE'RE DOING IS REACTIVATING THE PLAN ALREADY IN PLACE.

>> RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> MR. WITH THIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION, YOU HAVE MENTIONED THAT DURING THE DURATION OF ALL OF THIS TIMELINE YOU HAVE GOT STRUCTURAL THINGS WITH ROOF REPAIR, THAT SORT OF THING.

WHAT ABOUT THE BULGING WALLS OR THE FRAMING?

>> THE BULGING ON THE STRUCTURE, ACTUALLY DUE TO STUCCO, THE VENEER AROUND THAT THING.

LOOKING INTO THAT, WHAT WE CAN DO IT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR US TO TEAR OFF THE SIDES ON THAT.

ALL THREE SITES. PERHAPS KEEP THE FRONT.

THAT IS NOT THE CASE, WE WILL TAKE THE WHOLE THING DOWN.

WE ARE NOT SPEAKING ACTUAL STRUCTURE OF THAT PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> THE PROPERTY FOUNDATION SYSTEM, ALL THAT IS IN TACT.

HAZARD IDENTIFIED AS WELL THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, LET ME INFORM THE COMMITTEE THAT HOUSE HAS BEEN BROUGHT OFF THE GRID.

NO ACTIVE POWER SOURCE COMING DOWN TO A. WHAT HAS HAPPENED NO, THE METER, OBVIOUSLY HAD INFILTRATION OF PEOPLE WALKING THAT HAVE ACTUALLY TRIED STRIPPING THE PROPERTY OF ITS CURRENT PRECIOUS METALS. THAT IS THE REASON THAT THING IS DANGLING. OUR TIME WITH THE, BATTLE WITH SECURING THAT. PARTIALLY BECAUSE HOW DARK THAT AREA IS WRITTEN. COUPLE OF THE STREETLIGHTS ARE COMPLETELY OFF. WE WILL DO OUR PART TO CALL THAT PLAN OR HAVE MR. VILLARREAL CALL THE INTO THE CITY AND HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS WELL.

ALSO, LACK OF TRAFFIC COMING ACROSS IT BECAUSE OF WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE BRIDGE. THAT AREA RIGHT THERE HAS BEEN UP TO THIS POINT COMPLETELY ISOLATED REPAIRS ON THE BRIDGE ARE NOW UNDERWAY. IT SHOULD NOT BE LONG BEFORE

[00:15:06]

THAT ENTIRE AREA BEGINS TO REGAIN TRAFFIC FLOW.

THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BECOME ACTIVE AGAIN.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU, GUYS. >> ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. 20-004103. OPEN FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.

>> CAN ASK YOUR QUESTION? FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS THINGS YOU DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH HERE THIS MEETING. I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION THAT PROBABLY FALLS IN THAT CATEGORY.

I WILL APOLOGIZE TO YOU IN ADVANCE.

IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE WE HAVE AN OWNER THAT HAS CLEARLY BEEN VERY MOTIVATED AND TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE, I DON'T KNOW THE CURRENT COST OF PERMITS HE IS TALKING ABOUT, BUT IS THERE EVER AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE THE CITY WOULD REISSUE PERMITS WITHOUT HIM HAVING TO PURCHASE THOSE?

>> WELL, PERMIT FEES ARE SET BY COUNSEL.

THAT WOULD BE ADMINISTRATION DECISION.OT LEGAL DECISION.

NOT A THING WITH THIS BOARD WOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE.>

RIGHT. >> THIS BOARD DECIDES Ã CONSIDERS THE KIND OF THINGS THAT THE OWNER PRESENTS, STRUGGLES HE HAS HAD, FINANCIAL STRUGGLES AND THAT KIND OF THING. IT IS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, YES, OUTSIDE OF THE PARAMETER OF THIS BOARD.

>> RIGHT. >> THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.> SO THAT IS SOMETHING THOUGH WITH THAT BEING LIKE MR. LITTLEJOHN'S AREA OR ABOVE HIS

PAY GRADE? >> THAT IS NOT EVEN A QUESTION I CAN ANSWER, NOT A LEGAL QUESTION.

>> I APOLOGIZE ASKING QUESTION THAT IS NOT A PART OF OURS, BUT IT IS RATHER UNUSUAL TO HAVE AN OWNER THIS MOTIVATED AND WORKED OBVIOUSLY VERY HARD TO MEET THE TIMELINES AND CLEARLY HAS MET WITH MULTIPLE ISSUES. EVER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO BE NOT REQUIRED TO PURCHASE THE PERMITS AGAIN I WOULD HOPEFULLY SEE SOMEONE SUPPORT HIM IN THAT.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR

MOTION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

>> MOTION BY MR. WEBB. SECOND BY MR. SCHRODER, OWNER REPAIR AND GRANT 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN PERMITS AND PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR COST ESTIMATES.

IF THIS IS DONE IN 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN INSPECTIONS.

AND IF THIS IS DONE, ALL FINAL EXPECTIONS COMPLETE PERMITS.

ROLL CALL. >> AYE.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> GOOD LUCK TO BOTH OF YOU.

[B. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition, or Civil Penalities - Case No. 21-002723: 202 Meander St. (OT ABILENE BLK 207 WISE 2, LOT 6, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: Arevalo Samuel]

THANK YOU.NEXT CASE MR.

>> NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NO. 21-002723 , LOCATED AT 202 MEANDER STREET . RECOGNIZES SAMUEL AREVALO AS THE OWNER. RECORDS SHOW CASE NO. 21-003384 THE OWNER. SECTOR ESTATE SHOWS NO OTHER ENTITY UNDER THE STANDARD TAX RECORDS MUNICIPALITY APPLICABLE.TILITY RECORDS IN ACTIVE SINCE FEBRUARY 2021.

SEARCH REVEALS SAMUEL AREVALO TO BE THE OWNER.

PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED ON INSTRUCTION FOR TODAY'S HEARING. FRONT WESTSIDE OF STRUCTURE.

THE REAR INSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. IN THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. EXTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES IDENTIFIED. EXTERIOR DILAPIDATION THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.

YOU CAN SEE PHOTO ON THE LEFT LOOKS TO BE LIKE AN EXCEPTION.

[00:20:05]

PHOTO ON THE RIGHT SHOWS WHERE EXCISION BEGINS.

YOU CAN SEE AND HE'S GOT A LITTLE BIT OF A TILT TO IT.

NOT EXTENSION, ADDITION TO THE PROPERTY.

INCOMPLETE INTERIOR WORK. INTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES.

INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES. INTERIOR FLOOR MISSING THROUGHOUT THE VARIOUS AREAS OF THE STRUCTURE.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS JULY 24 CODE ENFORCEMENT IDENTIFY BUILDING UNSECURED AT ELECTRICAL HAZARDS.

UNDER RESERVATION OF THE PERMITS, STOPPED WHAT WAS PLACED ON THE STRUCTURE. AUGUST 31, PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDED CONTRACTOR COST ESTIMATES TO OBTAIN PERMITS.

SEPTEMBER 24, PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED DUE TO NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN PULLED. SEPTEMBER 28 NO ACTION TAKEN BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. NO PERMITS PULLED.

AFFIDAVIT OF CONDEMNATION WAS FILED.

DECEMBER 6, INITIAL NOTICES SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

DECEMBER 16, PROPERTY OWNER CAME UP TO THE CODE OFFICER DISCUSS PERMITTING AND CONDEMNATION PROCESS.

DECEMBER TWICE, POTENTIAL PROPERTY PURCHASER MET WITH CODE OFFICER TO DISCUSS PROPERTY ISSUES.

OWNER DID NOT INFORM CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT IF HE DID INTEND TO SELL PROPERTY TO US. JANUARY 11, NO PERMITS PULLED AND NO CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP RECORDED.

GENERALLY 12, WE SENT NOTICES FOR TODAY'S HEARING AND POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE. IN ADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARDS, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING AND FOLDING WEATHER PROTECTION.

ORDER THE OWNER TO PREPARE, 30 DAYS TO RETAIN PERMITS AND PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING TIME FRAME FOR REPAIR COST ESTIMATES.

IF THIS DOES 60 DAYS FOR INSPECTIONS.

THIS IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED

BY EXPIRATION OF ALL. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM?

>> I GET LOST. IT SAYS PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDED CONTRACTOR, WHO IS THE PROPERTY OWNER?

>> MR. AREVALO .EW GUY, NEVER INFORMED US SELL PROPERTY, ANOTHER GENTLEMAN CAME UP TO CITY SAYING HE WAS SPEAKING TO MR. AREVALO ABOUT SELLING THE PROPERTY, NEWS TO

US. >> OKAY.

JANUARY 11, NO CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP REPORTED?

>> NO SIR. NEVER HAS BEEN SO.

MR. AREVALO STILL THE OWNER. > A NONFACTOR?

>> YES SOMETHING WE SEARCH OUT TO BE AWARE.

CHANGE OWNERSHIP, SEND NEW OWNER NOTICES.

>> OKAY. YOU.

>> YES SIR.>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM?

>> I AM STILL CONFUSED.

SO, UNDER COUNTY RECORD, TAYLOR COUNTY SHOWS SAMUEL AREVALO THE OWNER. IS THAT WHO WE ARE DEALING WITH? YES, SIR.

>> THAT IS THE SAME AS THE NEW OWNER?

>> SAMUEL AREVALO'S CURRENT OWNER, DID NOT INFORM US HE WAS

TRYING TO SELL THE PROPERTY. >> OKAY.

>> THE GENTLEMAN THAT CAME UP WITH INTEREST TO BUY THE PROPERTY, HE HAS NOT CONTACTED US AGAIN.

>> HE IS NOT A PART OF IT. >> NO, SIR.

>> WE ARE REALLY GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER ROUND AT THE POTENTIAL 30/60 AS I WILL CALL IT AND MAKE IT OFFICIAL AND RUN THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITH SOMEBODY THAT WE ARE NOT

COMMUNICATING WITH VERY WELL. >> THERE IS COMMUNICATION.

MR. AREVALO DID MEET WITH US. LIKE I SAID, HE DID NOT INFORM US ÃINITIALLY WANTED TO FIX THE PROPERTY.

THEN APPARENTLY WE FOUND OUT THROUGH SECOND PARTY THAT HE

WANTED TO SELL IT. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO, OKAY THAT IS GOOD FOR NOW.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. 21-002723 . ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE

[00:25:01]

RECORD. SEE NOBLE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. 21-002723.

OPEN FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION AND A MOTION.

>> COULD YOU PUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BACKUP, PLEASE? WE HAVE DONE THIS ALREADY, RIGHT? THIS IS THE SECOND TIME WE ARE DOING THIS? THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY CONDEMNED?

>> IT IS ALREADY CONDEMNED. YES.>> WHOLE THING ABOUT SOMEBODY NEW BUYING THE PROPERTY, IT IS A NONFACTOR.

IT DON'T MATTER. IT IS SAME GUY, SAME HOUSE, WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS. IF IT WAS CONDEMNED, PUT A

TIMELINE. >> WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS, HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BEFORE?

>> YES. >> NO COST SIR.

FIRST TIME WE PRESENTED IT TO THE BOARD.

>> OKAY. >> I DO RSTAND THAT ALL THE OTHER PREVIOUS MEETINGS TO EXPLAIN THE CONDEMNATION PROCESS WAS ALL DONE BETWEEN YOU AND SAID OWNER?

>> YES, SIR. >> THAT ALL HAS EXHAUSTED ITSELF. SO WE ARE BRINGING IT TO THE BOARD. AND THIS IS THE TIME WE ARE GOING TO RUN THROUGH ANOTHER 30/60, SUPPOSEDLY.

THEN WE WILL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT.

>> NOT ANOTHER ONE. IT'S THE FIRST ONE.

>> THE FIRST ONE IS GONE. >> THIS IS THE FIRST ONE.

>> WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT IS INITIAL NOTICES WE SEND OUT COMMENT IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE MY DECISION, CODE RECOMMENDATION OR FAST STEP WITH THE NEXT

STEP. >> IS IT SECURED AT THIS TIME? IT DOES NOT SHOW PICTURES OF IT BEING SECURED.

>> NO, SIR. DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE OPENINGS THROUGHOUT THE EXTERIOR, IT WOULD BE A COST ISSUE TO HAVE CITY SECURED WITH THE COST OF PLYWOOD.

>> IS THERE A MOTION? >> OKAY.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO FIND THAT THIS PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE. IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE. AND THE REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE

WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. >> MOTION BY MR. SCHRADER.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> SECOND BY MR. ALLRED.

PUBLIC NUISANCE HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE AND REPAIR TO THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY CLARIFY SOMETSOMETHING BEFORE M BOAT. BASED ON A CITY, BASED ON PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WE HAD AT THIS BOARD THAT PRESIDENT IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE FOR US TO BE CONSISTENT.

AST MONTH I MADE A A MOTION TO GRANT 30/60/92 AN NDIVIDUAL THAT WAS THE FIRST T TIME THAT HAS COME TO THIS HIS WORK AS NORMAL OCCURRENCE, MR. OFFERED 30/60/90 TO THE THE OWNER ONLY AFTER THEY REFUSED TO DO THAT OR NO FOLLOW-UP, THEN IT COMES TO THE BOARD FOR US TO CONSIDER 30/60/90 OR AS MOTION PUBLIC NUISANCE, IS THAT

CORRECT? >> YES, THAT IS ORRECT.

THE THING IS 30/60/90 SOMETHING OFFERED TO THIS OWNER CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS POLICY.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE FIRST TIME THIS COMES TO THE BOARD RATHER THAN BEING CONSISTENT, WE ARE BEING INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS FOR SURE ABOUT GRANTING 30/60/90 THE PERSIMMON CONSTANT

WAR, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> YES. >> I WILL SPEAK TO THAT.

YOU STILL HAVE DISCRETION. YOU STILL HAVE TO LOOK AT

[00:30:02]

THINGS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. NOT EVERYTHING FITS INTO A BOX.

IF YOU DISAGREE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION, YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE YOUR OWN MOTION. A LOT OF THINGS CAN COME INTO THOSE DECISIONS, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE HOW BAD THE STRUCTURE IS AND THAT KIND OF THING. SO.

>> PLUS, THIS IS A BUILDING THAT HAS NOT BEEN SECURED.

I THINK IS CERTAINLY OF CONCERN TO ME IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I CONCUR WITH DOCTOR PARIS.

I THINK STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS GOOD.

BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SECURE, SECOND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

>> ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> AYE.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >>> NEXT CASE.

WOULD LIKE TO PREPARE THIS AS AN ORDER FROM THE SUPPORT.

THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

SECOND MOTION. >> MOTION BY MR. SCHRADER, SECOND BY MR. TRALLRED. THE OWNERS ORDERED TO BUY 30 DAYS OR DEMOLISH. ROLL CALL.

>> AYE. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES.

[C. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition, or Civil Penalities - Case No. 21-003384: 502 Portland Ave. (PARK HEIGHTS ABL, BLOCK 13, LOT 1 & N/2 OF LT 2, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: Davis, James]

>>> NOW, NEXT CASE. THANK YOU.

>> NEXT CASE IS CASE NO. 21-003384, LOCATED 502 PORTLAND AVENUE. RECORDS SHOW JAMES DAVISON.

SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY OTHER NAME.

NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS OF MUNICIPALITY INACTIVE SINCE JANUARY 2020. SEARCH REVEALS JAMES DAVIS TO BE THE OWNER. PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED ON STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S HEARING. FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE REAR WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES THROUGHOUT.

INTERIOR CEILING DAMAGE. INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES.

INTERIOR SANITATION ISSUES. EQUAL MATTER.

INTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES. TIMELINE OF EVENTS, PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BACK ON NOVEMBER 16.

YES, I AM SORRY. PRESENTED TO THE BOARD IN NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER 16, MAILED NOTICE FOR THE DECEMBER HEARING. I AM SORRY, SEPTEMBER 9. I APOLOGIZE. SENT INITIAL NOTICE AND 30/60 LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNER. SEPTEMBER 17, RECEIVED EMAIL FROM POTENTIAL LIENHOLDER THAT THEY ARE NOT LIENHOLDER ON THE ACCOUNT. ONLY ONE OWNER.

ON NOVEMBER 16, 2021, REPORT SHOWING 28 CALLS FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THEY RESPONDED TO THIS PROPERTY.

NOVEMBER 16, MAILED NOTICE THE BOARD'S STANDARD THERAPY DECEMBER 1, BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD, ORDER FOR 30/60.

DECEMBER THERE, BOARD DECISION LETTER SENT BY REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL. JEN RHYTHM, NO PLAN OF ACTION SUBMITTED OR WE HAVE NOT HAD CONTACT FROM THE OWNER.

WE SENT THE NOTICES FOR TODAY'S HEARING AS WELL.

THIS IS A LIST OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CALLS THAT WERE REPORTED. OF COURSE, NOT ALL 20, BUT SIGNIFICANT ONES. RANGE ANYWHERE FROM ACTS OF VIOLENCE, PHYSICAL VIOLENCE, BURGLARIES, BREAKING AND ENTERING, WEAPONS CHARGES. AND DOMESTIC CALLS.

[00:35:01]

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND PROPERTIES PUBLIC NUISANCE, HAZARD TO PUBLIC WELFARE, STRUCTURAL HAZARD.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST: INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, FAULTY WEATHER PRODUCTION.

RESPOND WITHIN 30 DAYS OR CITY MAY DEMOLISH HIS

RECOMMENDATION. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM?

>> THIS IS WHEN WE HAVE DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE CRIME THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON OVER THERE.

THIS WAS DISCUSSED THOROUGHLY, WASN'T IT?

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> DOES ANYONE KNOW THE WHEREABOUTS OF MR. DAVIS?

>> NO, SIR. >> NO ONE SIDE?

>> WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED CONTACT FROM OWNERS OR ERRORS OR FAMILY MEMBERS. NOTICES HAVE BEEN ELIVERED.

>> YOU KNOW WHO IS SIGNING FOR THEM?> NO, SIR A LOT OF TIMES RETURNING THAT SIGNATURE DUE TO COVID.

COVID-19 ON THE CERTIFIED MAIL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. 21-003384. ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEE NO ONE.

I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. 21-003384.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. >> MR., HAIRMAN, DUE TO THE FACT WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS OR SO MUCH OR SO MANY POLICE CALLS, DISTURBANCES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TERRIBLE.

IF YOU ARE READY FOR A MOTION, I AM READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> IF I MAY MAKE A COMMENT FIRST.

>> YES, SIR. >> I HAVE ANALYZED THIS LEASE DEAL. THERE HAS REALLY BEEN NO VIOLENCE OVER THERE SINCE 1 OCTOBER, B1. ABOUT FOUR MONTHS WITHOUT ANY VIOLENCE. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL DELINQUENT TAX HAS ANYBODY HAS CONVERSATION WITH.

SOMETHING THEY INFORMED US BEFORE.

IT DOES NOT AFFECT WHAT THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO DO.

>> OKAY. I CAN ONLY THINK OF A HANDFUL OF 150,000+ APPRAISALS WE HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH IN MY TIME HERE. I SURE HATE TO TEAR DOWN HOUSE OF THIS VALUE. STRUCTURALLY, TO ME, IT IS NOT A. BASICALLY THINKING ABOUT DEMOLISHING THIS BASED ON HIS RAP SHEET, SO TO SPEAK, RATHER THAN STRUCTURAL ISSUES.

I HAPPENED TO BE IN APPRAISAL OFFICE YESTERDAY ON ANOTHER MATTER. I DID INQUIRE ABOUT THIS.

THE PROCESS TO PUT THIS IN AN AUCTION HAS STARTED.

THEY ARE ANTICIPATING THAT IT PROBABLY WON'T TAKE THE SPRING SALE IN MARCH, BUT IT WILL MAKE THE SALE IN THE FALL.

I GUESS OUR ISSUE, DO WE WANT TO GO NINE MONTHS, DO WE WANT TO RISK FURTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT INVOLVEMENT FOR A CHANCE FOR THE APPRAISAL, TAXING ENTITY TO GET THEIR MONEY? THIS THING STAY ON? THAT IS MY QUESTION I AM DEALING WITH. THAT IS ALL I GOT TO SAY.

>> MY SITUATION IS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PEOPLE IN THIT ÃHARD FOR ME TO LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WERE THERE WAS SO MANY POLICE CALLS. I HAVE A HARD TIME OF LEAVING

[00:40:09]

THE PROPERTY. UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, DAVID.

>> I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T LIKE IT.

>> I JUST THINK THAT WE ARE DOING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND INJUSTICE BY LEAVING IT THERE. AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON. SO, ¦

>> THERE IS A PRECEDENT, 20 YEARS AGO, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE IT IS, I WILL, NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT PREVIOUS CASES, BUT THERE WAS SIMILAR PROPERTY IN WHICH IT WAS A KNOWN DRUG DISTRIBUTION CENTER IN TOWN.

THE OWNER WAS INCARCERATED IN CALIFORNIA.

THERE WAS SOMEWHAT OF A LOCAL OR REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPERTY THAT HAD POWER OF ATTORNEY.

THE PROPERTY WAS ON A CORNER WERE THERE WAS A STOP SIGN.

NOT ONLY WERE THERE DRUGS BEING DEALT, BUT WHEN SOMEBODY PULLED UP TO THE STUFF LIKE, PEOPLE BRING ON THE HOUSE AND ROB.

ROB THE PEOPLE STOPPED AT THE STOP SIGN.

AT THE TIME, WE HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION.

I THINK THE POLICE DEPARTMENT A MULTIUNIT RESPONSE REQUIREMENT ON THE PROPERTY. THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW SINGLE UNIT RESPOND. THERE HAD TO BE A MULTIUNIT.

WE HAD A MOTION AT THE TIME, THE BOARD FINDING WAS THE OWNER HAD 30 DAYS TO SECURE THE PROPERTY.

AND GET PERMITS OR SELL. AND IF THERE WAS ANY CALL THAT RESULTED IN VIOLENCE, IT WAS TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD IMMEDIATELY FOR IMMEDIATE DEMOLITION.

IT IS STILL THERE. WITHIN 30 DAYS THE PROPERTY HAD NO WINDOWS. PRIVACY FENCE AROUND THE BACKYARD. AND PAINTED THE OUTSIDE.IT IS STILL THERE TODAY. I DON'T REMEMBER THE YEAR IT WAS IN, IT WAS SOME YEARS AGO. BUT ANYWAY, I WILL HONOR IF YOU

WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION. >> BEFORE WE DO THAT.

WHERE IS ÃWHAT IS OUR LEGAL BOUNDARIES?

>> YOUR CONCERN IS DILAPIDATION, THE STRUCTURAL ISSUE. SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS, EITHER THEY ARE FACTS YOU COULD CONSIDER.

REALLY NEEDS TO BE IN YOUR MIND STRUCTURAL ÃTHE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED AS FAR AS THE HAZARDS THAT FOLLOW THE PROPERTY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN BE CREATIVE IN YOUR MOTION.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO TABLE THINGS.

A LOT OF TIMES STAFF IS NOT THOUGHT OF DOING THAT.

IF YOU WERE TO TABLE, I WOULD RECOMMEND TABLING IT TO A CERTAIN MONTH MEETING WHERE YOU KNOW YOU WILL SEE IT BACK

AGAIN. >> BUT THIS ONE, WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO CONTACT. WE DON'T KNOW ANYBODY.

WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE.

>> RIGHT. >> NOTHING THERE THAT LEADS US TO THINK THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE REPAIRED OR DONE ANYTHING

WITH. >> THAT IS WHY I WAS SAYING, ALMOST SEEMS FUTILE TO GIVE OWNER CERTAIN NUMBER DAYS TO PULL PERMITS. YOU KNOW THE OWNER IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT. THAT IS THOUGHT AS FAR AS TAYLOR/QUESTION. GO OFFER TAX SALE WITH AN OWNER ON IT OR NOT. I MEAN, YOU HAVE DIFFERENT

[00:45:01]

OPTIONS. SOME OF THEM MAY OR MAY NOT MAKE AS MUCH SENSE. THAT IS REALLY WHERE I CANNOT TELL YOU WHAT OPTION TO TAKE NECESSARILY.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

>> COULD WE SEE THE PICTURES AGAIN OF THE INSIDE? PLEASE.

>> THERE IS THREE STRUCTURES ON THIS PROPERTY, RIGHT? PORTABLE BUILDING, GARAGE STRUCTURE, AND THE HOUSE.

>> YES, SIR. >> CAN WE SEE THE OUTSIDE?

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I DON'T SEE MUCH NEED IN PROLONGING THE DECISION, BUT I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS FOR 30 DAYS TO COME BACK TO US IN MARCH.

AT THAT POINT, I HOPE WE CAN MAKE A DECISION TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. I STILL SAY THERE IS SO MUCH IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A DETERRENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I WOULD CERTAINLY HATE TO LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ALL THAT STUFF THAT IS GOING ON. DAVID, I KNOW THAT WAS YEARS AGO BUT WE ARE IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION.

>> TRUE. >> IN TODAY'S WORLD WITH CRIME GOING ON. I WILL MAKE A MOTION IT, IF YOU MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I WILL SUPPORT THAT. SO GIVES THEM THE 30 DAYS.

IT HAS BEEN MONTHS, HE HAS NEVER CONTACTED US.

WE GET THE BALL ROLLING, STILL GIVES HIM THE TIME TO CONTACT

THE STAFF. >> WELL, I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA

OF 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT. >> OKAY.

>> PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION. INCLUDING A TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIRS, AND COST ESTIMATES. THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROOFING INSPECTION. ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS.

>> LET ME GET ¦ >> SECOND.

>> IF YOU WANT TO SEE YOU IN 30 DAYS, THIS WILL MAKE IT 60 DAYS. THEY HAVE 30 DAYS TO PAY.

>> THAT WILL BE FINE. >> OKAY.

MOTION BY MR. ALLRED, OWNER HAVE 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION.

INCLUDING TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES.

IF THIS IS DONE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROOFING INSPECTIONS AND IF THIS IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED BY

EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS. >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY MR. WEBB. ROLL CALL.

>> NO. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> NO. >> YES.

>> MOTION PASSED. >> COULD WE FIND OUT BEFORE THE

NEXT TIME PUTS BOARD STATUS? >> YES.

YES, SIR. >>> NEXT CASE, PLEASE.

>> WE HAVE A ANOTHER MOTION TO GO ON THAT.

NO. >> MY NEXT MOTION IS PROPERTIES A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND HAZARD TO PUBLIC SAFETY, WELFARE, OF THE

STRUCTURE BE UNREASONABLE? >> NO, WE HAVE MOTION FOR 30

DAYS. >> I GOT THAT ONE UP THERE.

TO REPAIR, EXCUSE ME. I AM SORRY.

I AM STILL THINKING ABOUT. >> THANK YOU.

[D. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition, or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-003621: 2109 Poplar St. (BOWYER ADDN, BLOCK 1, LOT 11, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: FOCO Capital, LLC]

>>> NEXT CASE IS CASE NO. 21-003621 , LOCATED AT 2109

[00:50:01]

POPLAR STREET. IT SHOWS QUICK CLAIM DEED NAMING SAMUEL AREVALO LLC OWNER.

SHOWS SAMUEL AREVALO LLC TO BE THE OWNER.

SHOWS.

ENTITY. TAX RECORDS OF DISABILITY NOT APPLICABLE. RECORDS OF MUNICIPALITY ACTIVE SINCE APRIL 2014, SEARCH REVEALS FOCO CAPITAL LLC TO BE THE OWNER. PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED ON STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING. HERE IS THE FRONT WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE REAR EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. EXTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES.

EXTERIOR DILAPIDATION. INTERIOR CEILING ISSUES.

THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE THAT HAS GOT SEVERE DAMAGE. INTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES.

INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES. TIMELINE OF EVENTS SEPTEMBER 11, PROPERTY PURCHASED AT A TAX AUCTION.

MAY 10, CASE OPEN UNSECURE AND DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE.

SEPTEMBER 7 DUE TO NO ACTION TAKEN BY PROPERTY OWNER, REFER TO CONDEMNATION PROGRAM STRUCTURAL HAZARD.

CONDEMNATION OFFICER SPOKE TO THE OWNER WHILE AT THE PROPERTY. WHAT WAS FOUND IN THE PROPERTY WILL BE CONDEMNED. ALSO INFORMED PROCESS OF STRUCTURE SEPTEMBER 8. PROPERTY WAS OFFICIALLY CONDEMNED AND FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK. OCTOBER 1, 2021 PROPERTY PURCHASED BY FOCO CAPITAL LLC. DECEMBER 6, 2012, NEW NOTICES SENT TO FOCO CAPITAL LLC AND REGISTERED AGENT.

JANUARY 12, NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING WAS SENT AND POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE. CODE OFFICER MET WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER IN PERSON AND EXPLAIN TO HIM CASE COMING BEFORE THE BOARD AND ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND TO EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHAT HIS PLANS ARE WITH THE PROPERTY.

ALSO MADE AWARE OF DAY, TIME, PLACE OF HEARING.

PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8. FALLING CONDITIONS EXIST? INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, FAUL WEATHER PROTECTION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ORDER THE OWNER TO PREPARE. 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE PLAN OF ACTION. INCLUDING TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES. THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN INSPECTIONS. THIS IS DONE, FINAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED BY EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM? >> DID I UNDERSTAND, THIS WOULD BE A CASE WHERE IT WAS CONDEMNED, BUT THE OWNER HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN 30/60/90 DAY, CORRECT?

>> NO, SIR. HE RECEIVED A 30 DAY IN

DECEMBER. >> OKAY.

>> THIS WAS AFTER PURCHASED BY FOCO CAPITAL.

>> OKAY. BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN SECURED?

>> NO, SIR. >> IT WAS NOT YESTERDAY EITHER

WHEN I WENT BY THERE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. 21-003621 . ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SAY NO, I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21-003621. OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION AND A MOTION. COULD WE PUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BACK UP THERE? THANK YOU.

IS THERE A MOTION? >> I AM PERSONALLY FRUSTRATED THAT AN OWNER HAS BEEN GIVEN 30/60/90 AND NOT ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE WEL BUILDING.

BUT I WILL COME BACK TO THE IDEA OF PRECEDENTS, I THINK IT

[00:55:04]

DOES MATTER. OBTAIN PERMITS AND PROVIDE PLAN OF ACTION AND TIMEFRAME FOR COST.

IF IT IS DONE, 60 DAYS INSPECTIONS.

THIS IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED BY

EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS. >> MOTION BY DOCTOR.

FOR REPAIR COST ESTIMATES. IF IT'S DONE, 60 YS OBTAIN ROOFING INSPECTIONS. IF THAT IS DONE, ALL FINAL NSPECTIONS SHALL ALL BECOME CLEANED UP BY EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS. IS THERE A A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. WEBB.

ROLL CALL. >> AYE.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> MOTION PASSED.

[E. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition, or Civil Penalities - Case No. 21-003622: 2118 Poplar St. (BOWYER ADDN, BLOCK 2, LOT 3, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: Meono Claudia Ivette Diaz ETAL % Rafael Diaz]

>> THANK YOU. >>> NEXT CASE.

>> NEXT CASE CASE NO. 21-003622.

LOCATED AT 2118 POPLAR STREET. SHOWS SPECIAL WARRANTY NAMING SAMUEL AREVALO FIVE CLAUDIA IVETTE DIAZ AND OTHERS AS OWNER, SAYS IVETTE DIAZ TO BE THE UNABRIDGED SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO ANTEDATED NAME. TAX RECORDS OF MUNICIPALITY NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS OF MUNICIPALITY IN ACTIVE SINCE OCTOBER 2012. SEARCH REVEALS MEONO CLAUDIA IVETTE DIAZ AND OTHERS TO BE THE OWNER.

STRUCTURE ON TODAY'S HEARING, THIS IS THE FRONT WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE REAR EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

IN THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

EXTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES. EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES.

EXTERIOR ROOFING ISSUES. SOME INTERIOR CEILING DAMAGE.

SOME INTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES, LOOSE WIRES HANGING ON THE LIGHT FIXTURE. INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS, MAYTAG, DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE CASE OPEN FOR THIS PROPERTY. MAY 21, 2012, CODE OFFICER CONTACT WITH NEIGHBORS SOME ICE COMING OUT OF THE PROPERTY IS STAKES. DECEMBER 7, 2021, NO ACTION TAKEN TO CORRECT DILAPIDATION CASE.

OFFICERS SPOKE WITH ITH NEIGHBOR, CONCERTA BANQUETS.

AT THAT POINT, SEPTEMBER 8, I AM SORRY, SEPTEMBER 7 PROPERTY CONDEMNED. SEPTEMBER 8 MET WITH PROPERTY OWNER SAID SHE WAS SELLING THE PROPERTY AND GET IT SECURED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. NOVEMBER 22, AS OF NOVEMBER 22, NO ACTION TAKEN BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, HAD NOT BEEN SECURED.

DECEMBER 6 22 AND, CONDEMNATION NOTICES SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. GENDER 11, NO CONTACT FROM THE OWNER OR NO CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN PULLED.

JANUARY 12 NOTICE FOR BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS, OF THE HEARING WAS SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL AND NOTICE ON THE STRUCTURE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8, FALLING CONDITIONS EXIST: INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRE, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, AND FULL-TIME THE WORD FAULTY WEATHER PREDICTION.

REPAIR 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN PERMITS PROVIDE TIME OF ACTION INCLUDING TIMEFRAME AND COST ESTIMATES.

IF IT IS DONE, 60 DAYS FOR INSPECTIONS.

THIS IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED BY THE

EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> IF PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT SECURE THE BUILDING, CAN MAKE.

>> WE WILL MAKE SURE IT IS SECURE.

WE TRY TO GIVE THEM TIME. >> I SAID, DID WE? IT LOOKED PRETTY SECURE.> NO, I MEAN, THE PHOTOS .

>> (INDISCERNIBLE) BACK DOOR ON THE PROPERTY.

[01:00:03]

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR HIM? THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NO. 21-003622.

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

SEEING NO ONE. I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21-003622. OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION AND A MOTION.

>> I DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS THE WEATHER, BUT THE INFORMATION THAT WE ARE GETTING, THESE PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T APPEAR TO HAVE ANY INTEREST TO COME TO MEETINGS LIKE THIS.

BUT THE HISTORY OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, CITY STAFF HAVE GONE THREE TO COMMUNICATE THE LOUDEST VOICE I AM HEARING IN THE COMMUNICATION IS THE NEIGHBORS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SNAKES AND VARMINTS. WHEN YOU GET THE NEIGHBORS COMPLAINING, THAT CHANGES THINGS.

THIS IS NOT ISOLATED, CAN'T GET A HOLD OF THE OWNER KIND OF THING. THE NEIGHBORS JUST ASSUME HAVE EMPTY LOT NEXT TO THEM. IT IS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME. I DON'T REALLY FAVOR THE PROCESS BUT WE NEED TO EARMARK AND NOTE THIS 1 AND SEE IF IT WILL COME BACK TO US IF WE GIVE IT A 30/60.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT TAKES SO LONG. ARE WE REALLY WAITING 30/60 AS OF UP TO 90, DO WE NOT HEAR BACK FROM THESE PEOPLE? DO YOU NOT DEAL WITH 30 DAY CLOCK DAY CLOCK 1ST AND THEN YOU START YOUR ACTION AFTER 30 DAYS IF YOU DO NOT HEAR

ANYTHING? >> YES.

30 DAYS, AFTER WE SUBMIT LETTER AND DON'T HEAR ANYTHING, TYPICALLY DISCUSS IT AS A STAFF TO BRING UP BEFORE THE BOARD.

>> OKAY.

I DON'T KNOW. THIS COULD BE A TEST ÃA TEST FOR THE BOARD. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ORDER THE OWNER TO REPAIR 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS.

AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION, INCLUDING A TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES, PERIOD.

IF WE DON'T GET YOUR INFORMATION THAT QUICK, YOU GET BACK TO US. THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT STEP. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO BE GETTING ANYTHING DEALING WITH 60 DAYS OF INSPECTIONS OR ANY OF THAT STUFF.

WE NEED TO EXPEDITE A PROPERTY OF THIS NATURE WHERE THE NEIGHBORS HAVE COMPLAINED. I MEAN, MAYBE IT HAS BEEN ONE GRASS SNAKE. I DON'T KNOW, IF YOU SEE THE PROPERTY AND A LOT OF TIMES OUR PHOTOGRAPHS ARE INSTILLED INSIDE THE PROPERTY, WE DON'T GET THE NECESSARY INFORMATION POSSIBLY OTHER THAN BOARD MEMBERS DO DRIVE-BYS BECAUSE WE GET THE AGENDA EARLY ENOUGH WE CAN GO LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT WILL TELL US A LOT.

>> I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

I THINK IT IS TRUE. I THINK THE WAY STAFF ORDERED RECOMMENDATION, YOUR INTENT IS EMBEDDED IN THEIR INTENT.

AND SO, IF WE ACCEPT AND MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION, YOU WOULD BE GETTING EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT.

[01:05:02]

BUT THEN IT IS ALSO OPEN THE NEXT STEP WHERE IF THE OWNER DOES, THEN A PROCESS TO FOLLOW AND IT DOES NOT STOP.

SO, IF WE ABBREVIATE THE PROCESS LIKE YOU WANT, NO MATTER WHAT IS GOING TO COME BACK TO US.

THIS OPENS AN AVENUE FOR THE STAFF TO DO THEIR JOB IF THE OWNER DOES TAKE ACTION. AND IT PROTECTS THE COMMUNITY

AS YOU WERE SAYING. >> WELL, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT SAYS, TOO. I FRAMED MY MOTION BY JUST STOPPING AT THE FIRST SENTENCE. I SAID THAT POSSIBLY AS A TEST CASE HERE. IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH TEST

CASE >> I UNDERSTAND .

>> WE CAN ADD THE REST OF IT. >> I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD .

>> I HAVE A MOTION. YOU CAN TURN IT DOWN.

>> MOTION BY MR. SCHRADER, OWNER IS ORDERED TO REPAIR.

30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE PLAN OF ACTION, INCLUDING TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES.

IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND?

>> WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE, THIS WILL BE BACK TO US IN 30 DAYS IF THEY DO NOT GET THEIR PERMITS?

>> YES, SIR. REGARDLESS OF THE RECOMMENDATION. WHETHER IT IS 30 DAYS TO PAY COST ESTIMATES OR THE FULL 30/60, IF WE DON'T HEAR FROM THEM FIRST 30 DAYS IT WILL GET BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD.

>> SECOND MOTION. >> SECOND BY MR. ALLRED.

>> KEEP IN MIND, HAS TO BE A FULL 30 DAYS.

NOT GUARANTEED IT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING. ALSO, SEEMS TO BE CONFUSION ABOUT 30/60. THERE IS NO 90 DAYS IN THERE.

LIKE MR. WEBB EXPLAINING, WE DON'T HEAR FROM THEM IN 30 DAYS, WE TAKE NEXT STEP.IF THIS IS DONE.

THE NUMBER 1 ORDER OF REPAIR, IF THAT'S NOT DONE IN 30 DAYS, ALREADY IN VIOLATION. WE TAKE OUR NEXT ACTION.

>> LET ME ADD ONE MORE THING. IF YOU JUST GIVE 30 DAY RECOMMENDATION AND LEAVE IT OPEN ENDED, IF THEY DO COMPLETED THAT, THEN THE STAFF, YOU KNOW, COMPLETED WHAT THE BOARD HAS ORDERED, BACK IN SITUATION WHERE THE STAFF IS GOING TO WATCH AND SEE AND USE DISCRETION WHETHER IT IS COMING BACK OR NOT. IT WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY COME BACK NECESSARILY IF THEY WERE TO PULL PERMITS WITHIN 30 DAYS.

>> THERE IS A MOTION. >> BE IN VIOLATION, ESSENTIALLY IF THEY COMPLETED FIRST 30 DAYS.HE STAFF COULD ALWAYS BRING IT BACK IF THEY ARE THAT NOT MAKING PROGRESS.

>> THERE IS A MOTION AND 2ND. BROKAW, PLEASE.

>> AYE. >> YES.

>> NO. >> NO.

>> YES. >> YES.

[F. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition, or Civil Penalties - Case No. 21-003928: 1334 Poplar St. (K B LEGGETT, BLOCK 12, LOT 5, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: Logston Mike]

>> MOTION PASSED. >> THANK YOU.

>>> NEXT CASE. >> FINAL CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NO. 21-003928. LOCATED AT 1334 POPLAR STREET.

SORRY, WRONG INFORMATION ON IT. ONE SECOND, PLEASE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. SO, THE CORRECT INFORMATION, COUNTY RECORD SHOWS IT IS WARRANTY DEED NAMED MIKE LOGSTON PROPERTY OWNER. TAYLOR COUNTY SHOWS MIKE LOGSTON TO BE PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVES STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME. RECORDS NOT APPLICABLE.

UTILITY RECORDS SHOW TO BE INACTIVE SINCE OCTOBER 2012.

SEARCH REVEALS MIKE LOGSTON IS PROPERTY OWNER.

I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT CORRECTING THAT ONE.

[01:10:09]

THIS IS A PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED FOR TODAY'S HEARING ON THE STRUCTURE. FRONT WEST SIDE OF STRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE REAR EAST SIDE OF STRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

AND IN THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.