Nov 02, 2022 Board of Building Standards

[00:00:02]

>> AT THIS TIME I'LL CALL THE NOVEMBER 2ND, 2022 ABILENE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS

[CALL TO ORDER]

WHILE WE COMPLETE OUR PRELIMINARIES HERE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS THE MINUTES OF

[MINUTES]

>> WE ACCEPT THEM AS THEY ARE. >> MOTION BY MR. ALLRED. >> I'LL ACCEPT.

>> SECOND BY MR. SCHRADER THAT THE MINUTES BE ACCEPTED AS WRITTEN.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU. >> AS A STATEMENT OF POLICY, IN ALL CASES, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE, BUILDINGS MUST BE SECURED IN THE LOT CLEANED AND MOWED BY THE OWNER WITHIN TEN DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF THE RESULTS OF THIS HEARING.

IF THIS IS NOT DONE THE CITY MAY SO AND BILL THE OWNER. IN ANY CASE WHERE THE BOARD ORDERS THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH STRUCTURES 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 DISAGREED PARTY RECEIVED NOTICE OF THIS BOARD'S DECISION. AT THIS HEARING YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. SPECIFIC TIME FRAME NEEDED TO COMPLETE REPAIRS, SPECIFIC SCOPE OF REPAIR WORK TO BE COMPLETED, AND THE COST ESTIMATES FOR WORK TO BE DONE BY LICENSED, BONDED CONTRACTORS SUCH AS ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING AND AIR-CONDITIONING.

>> 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 PURPOSES OF QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING. WITH THAT BEING SAID, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS ANY CASE TODAY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TODAY IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. WITH THAT, MR. JUAREZ, WE'RE

READY FOR OUR FIRST CASE. >>. >> GOOD MORNING.

I'M JOSH JUAREZ, CODE OFFICER FOR THE COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT DIVISION CONDEMNATION PROGRAM.

IT IS A DAY WE HAVE A TOTAL OF SEVEN CASES ON OUR AGENDA. THIS WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS PUBLISHED FORKED THE' HEARING WITH ALL INFORMATION REGARDING TODAY'S CASES.

[A. Case for Appeal of Condemnation - Case# 22-002791: 4474 LA HACIENDA DR. (VAQUERO SUB SEC 2, BLOCK A, LOT 10, ACRES 1.281, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: HIRSCH, VICTOR JOHN III & CANDICE JO]

TAX RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY ARE NOT APPLICABLE. RESULT UTILITY RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY SHOW TO BE INACTIVE SINCE NOVEMBER OF 2021. EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE IS IF REAR WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE GIVEN THE SIZE OF IT. MON INSPECTION THESE WERE THE

[00:05:13]

HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, AS YOU CAN SEE SEVERAL PIPES, DRAINS, EXPOSEED AND EVERYTHING IS INCOMPLETE THROUGHOUT THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. INADEQUATE SANITATION THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS THAT CONTAIN ANIMAL FECAL MATTER. THERE IS INCOMPLETE USE OF FACILITIES SANITATION AREAS AND SOME INAPPROPRIATE GRAFFITI IN ONE OF THE AREAS THAT HAS A BATHTUB FOR BATHING.

STRUCTURAL HAZARDS, LOT OF INCOMPLETE FLOORING, WALL WALLS AND STAREWELL AS WELL MAKING IT UNSAFE TO WALK UPON. NUISANCE VIOLATIONS MORE INTERIOR DILAPIDATION YI KOON SEE INCOMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND YOU CAN SEE SOME GRAFFITI THROUGHOUT SOME OF THE MATERIALS AS WELL. HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE, SEVERAL AREAS YOU CAN SEE FAULTY WIRING, INCOMPLETE ELECTRICAL WORK HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, AGAIN, SEVERAL AREAS OF DRAIN, PIPE, PVC PIPE EXPOSED AND INCOMPLETE.

SO THE TIMELINE OF THE EVENTS CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING. ON MAY 20TH, OF 2020, THE PERMIT FOR NEW SINGLE FAMILY RES DENSE CONSTRUCTION WAS ISSUED. ON JUNE 9TH, 2020, THE PLUMBING ROUGH SUCCESSION PASSED ON JUNE 19TH THE BUILDING FOUNDATION PASS.

ON JUNE 25, 2020 THE WELCOME TRICKAL UNDER SLAB ROUGH PASS. ON MARCH 30TH, 2051, PROJECT WAS PLACED ON HOLDS UNTIL A NEW GENERAL CONTRACTOR WAS ABLE TO BE DETERMINED.

ON MAY 3RD OF MAY 2121 NEW CONTRACTOR INFORMATION WAS UPDATED.

ON MAY, 2021 A TEMPORARY POWER POLE WAS ISSUED. ON JULY 20TH OF 2021, GENERAL CONTRACTOR ADVISED THEY WERE CHANGING THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR UNDER THE PERMIT.

ON JANUARY, 2022, THE PERMIT WAS CLOSED DUE TO EX PIRERATION AND NO FURTHER PROGRESS ON THE RESIDENCE FROM THE CONTRACTORS. SEPTEMBER 29LET, 2022, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVED FOR THE STRUCTURE TO BE CONDEMNED. OCTOBER 3RD, 2022, CONDEMNATION NOTICES AND 30/60 LETTERS WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. OCTOBER 7, 2022, RECEIVED A NOTICE TO APPEAL CONTESTIMONY NATION FINDING THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO THE CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT. OCTOBER 11TH, 2022, NOTICE OF TODAY'S HEARING WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE BUILDING OR PORTION THEREOF IS DEEMED SUBSTANDARD OR DILAPIDATEED AND JUDGED UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND THEREFORE CONDEMNED DUE THE FOLLOWING CONDITION OR CONDITIONS THAT EXIST TO AN EXTENT THAT IT IS A HAZARDOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BEING FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, INADEQUATE SANITATION,

STRUCTURAL HAZARDS AND NUISANCE CONDITIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. JUAREZ?

>> QUESTION. JO YES, SIR. >> THE SIDE HAS NO FENCING

AROUND IT; CORRECT. >> NO, SIR. >> AND IT IS A PROJJECT THAT WAS

UNDER CONSTRUCTION. >> YES, SIR. >> SO WHEN CONSTRUCTION STOPS ON A PROJECT AND PERMITS EXPIRE THIS IS AN NULL CASE THAT WE'VE SEEN, SO I DON'T SEE ALL OF THE

[00:10:03]

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE HAZARDS COULD BE COULD BE INHIBITED IF THERE WAS SIMPLY A

FENCE AROUND THE PLACE IS THERE ANY VALIDITY IN THAT? >> A FENCE MIGHT PREVENT, BUT I MEAN, THERE IS ALWAYS THE CHANCE OF THE FENCE BEING CLIMBED OVER. THE THING IS THE FENCE IS NOT

GOING TO CORRECT THE SUBSTANDARD VIOLATIONS. >> NO.

OKAY. LET'S GO ON. >> ANY OTHER CASES OF MR. WATER MYS, THANK YOU MR. MYERS AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 22-002791 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU, SIR, CHARLIE ON BEHALF OF OWNER TORNADO HOME OWNER. I'M THE ONE THAT FILED THE APPEAL ON THIS. THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION AS THE GENTLEMAN ADDRESSED, THE HIRSCHS WERE IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING THIS HOUSE DUE TO FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER, THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND FINISH THIS. I HAVE MR. HIRSCH HERE AND I

HAVE HIS CONTRACTOR -- >> CAN YOU FIX THE MICROPHONE. >> SORRY.

OH, I'M SORRY. I HAVE MR. HERRISH, THE OWNER ALONG WITH HIS WIFE HERE, HIS WIFE IS NOT HERE BUT HE IS. AND I HAVE RYAN CLIFF, A CONTRACTOR HERE WHO HAS BEEN CONTRACTED TO ADDRESS THIS. WE ADMIT, THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE WHO APV APPARENTLY COME IN AND PUT GRAFFITI, THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER IN THE HOUSE. WE WOULD OBTAIN, PROBABLY AT LEAST TO THE ELECTRICAL COMPLAINT OR THE PLUMBING COMPLAINT.

THERE IS NO WATER TO THIS HOUSE. THERE IS NO ELECTRICITY TO THIS HOUSE.

WE UNDERSTAND IT IS A NUISANCE. WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, SECURING THE STRUCTURE, SO THAT NO ONE COULD GET IN, AND THEN THIS WHOLE PROCESS STARTED, SO WE'VE KIND OF WANTED TO WAIT AND SEE. AS I'VE SAID, I HAVE MR. CLIFT HERE AVAILABLE TO SPEAK AS TO WHAT THE PLAN IS ON THIS PROPERTY. THE OWNERS' PLAN IS TO SECURE THIS PROPERTY AND SELL THIS, SO THAT SOMEONE ELSE CAN TAKE THIS OVER AND FINISH IT.

AND THEY'VE BEEN IN THE PROCEEDS OF TRYING TO DO THAT. MR. HIRSCH WILL SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT THEY REDUCED THE PRICE ON NUMEROUS OXES, THE OCCASIONS ATTEMPTING TO DO THAT.

THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE, THIS BOARD IF YOU ORDER IT TORN DOWN MR. HIRSCH IS GOING BE OUT IN EXCESS OF A MILLION DOLLAR. HE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST SECURE THIS PROPERTY, SELL THIS PROPERTY AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE FINISH THIS. AND AS I'VE SAID, I HAVE MR. CLIFF AVAILABLE IF THAT IS OKAY, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE OUT OF ORDER OR ANYTHING, IF IT IS

OKAY IF I CALL HIM UP? >> SURE. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> MY NAME IS RYAN CLIFT, WITH CLIFT CONSTRUCTION. >> WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS, SIR.

>> MY ADDRESS, 214 COUNTY ROAD 330. >> OKAY.

DUE THE STATUS WE'VE LOOKED AT, ORDERING SHINGLES TO GET THE ROOF IN, THE ROOF DRIED IN, THE FELT PAPER REPAIR SOD THAT WE CAN -- SO WE NO LONGER HAVE WATER LEAK ACKNOWLEDGE.

WE'VE LOOKED AT SECURING THE STRUCTURE, BUTTING UP TEMPORARY DOORS WITH LOCKS ON THEM SO NO ONE CAN ENTER THE ACTUAL HOUSE. AND THEN FOR THE SANITATION, WE HAVE SOMEONE SCHEDULED TO CLEAN

IT ONCE IT IS SECURE. >> OKAY. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> WITH REGARD TO YOUR COMMENTS OF THE -- OR THE PREVIOUS GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS OF YOUR

[00:15:06]

SO I'M JUST LECTURING AT THE MOMENT, BUT, I AGREE THAT GETTING A ROOF ON IT IS ONE

THING WE NEED TO DO. THAT IS ALL I'VE GET TO, AGAIN. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE, STEP FORWARD

AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. >> MY NAME IS TOM CHOTE I'M AN ATTORNEY IN ABILENE. I REPRESENT THE ABILENE HAVE CUERO SUBDIVISION HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THIS HOUSE IS LOCATED.

>> WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS MR.. >> YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> MY MAILING ADDRESS IS POST

OFFICE BOX 206 ABILENE 79604. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THE TIME LIEN ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER CAN'T START A FEW MONTHS AGO. THE CONTRACT ON THIS HOUSE WAS SIGNED APRIL 17TH 2020. THE ACTUAL WORK BEGINNING ON THE HOUSE BEGAN IN MAY OF 2020.

30 MONTHS AGO. AND IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, CONSTRUCTION WAS SUSPENDED FOR A LACK OF PAYMENT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. BACK IN THE SUMMER OF 2020, THERE WERE SEVERAL EVENTS THAT OCCURRED TO ALLOW MR. HIRSCH TO CATCH UP ON HIS INSTALLMENTS AND TO GET THIS PROJECT BACK ON LINE WITH THE CONTRACTOR IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECT IN CHARGE AT THAT TIME. THOSE AGREEMENTS WERE BREACHED IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

IN DECEMBER OF 2020, THIS PROPERTY WAS POSTED FOR FORECLOSURE UNDER A MECHANICS LIEN ON BEHALF OF THE THEN CONTRACTOR. THAT FORECLOSURE WAS FORWARDED BY THE FILING OF A LAWSUIT BY MR. HIRSCH IN DECEMBER OF 2020. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT LAWSUIT, THE FORECLOSURE WAS WITHDRAWN FOR JANUARY OF 2021 AND A RESOLUTION TO THAT LAWSUIT WAS FORTHCOMING WHERE MY CLIENT AT THAT TIME, THE CONTRACTOR RECOVERED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT

[00:20:03]

FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES -- AND THAT OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY OF 2021.

FOR TWENT ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES VERY LITTLE HAS BEEN DONE SINCE THAT TIME.

THE LAWSUIT THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS OVER. IT WAS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT LAWSUIT, MR. HER HIRSCH WAS GIVEN NOTICE OF THE DECLARATIONS AND COVENANTS ON THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT AMONG OTHER THINGS REQUIRE THAT A BUILDING PROJECT THAT HAS BEGUN HAS TO BE COMPLETED WITH WITHIN A 9-MONTH PERIOD. AT THE TIME THAT NOTICE WAS SENT, WE WERE INTO THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD, NOT NINE MONTHS. NOW THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AND I HAVE PEOPLE THAT CAN TESTIFY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT, BUT THEIR OWN EYES, THAT THE PROJECT IS OPEN, IS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY CAN COME AND GO OUT OF IT, THERE IS NO FENCING, NO BARRIERS NO RESTRICTIONS, NO OUTSIDE DOORS. THE PROJECT IS A BREEDING GROUND FOR FERRELL CATS, FOR A FAMILY OF FOX, FOR OTHER WILD CREATURES, AS THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWED, THAT COME AND GO UNIMPEDED. THERE ARE PIECES OF TRASH FROM THE ROOFING MATERIALS AND OTHER THINGS THAT CONTINUE TO DISINTEGRATE, FALL OFF THE HOUSE OR BLOW AWAY FROM THE HOUSE AND ARE ALL OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HAVING TO BE PICKED UP BY THE NEIGHBORS OUT THERE.

THERE IS -- IN ADDITION TO THE ANIMALS THAT ARE IN IT AND THE CHILDREN THAT ARE IN IT IT IS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE TO ANYONE THAT COMES BY. THEY'RE ALSO -- THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS A GATED NEIGHBORHOOD WITH VERY ATTRACTIVE HOMES AND WHICH IS AS I ASSUME THE REASON THAT MR. HIRSCH AND HIS WIFE WERE ATTRACTED TO IT.

SO IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NOW, IS THE -- THE SHELL OF A HOUSE THAT YOU SAW FROM THE STAFF. AND IT HAS BEEN THAT WAY FOR MORE THAN A YEAR.

IT HAS BEEN THAT WAY FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS. AND PUTTING UP A FENCE AROUND IT, DOES NOT DO ANYTHING TO AMELIORATE THE UNSIGHTLY OF IT, THE DAMAGE, THE NUISANCE DAMAGE TO TO THE VALUE OF OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO PIECES OF THE ROOF STRUCTURE THAT ARE BLOWING OFF AND THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO PICK UP ON A REGULAR BASIS TO TRY TO KEEP THE PLACE TIDY. THE -- THIS BOARD HAS THE DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMETHING IS DONE ABOUT THIS STRUCTURE, AND YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ORDER THAT THE STRUCTURE BE REHABILITATED AND/OR FINISHED AND WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME, AND I THINK, IT IS CLEAR UNDER THE CODE OR THE CITY ORDINANCE THAT THE HOME OWNER HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMING TO YOU WITH A SPECIFIC PLAN. NOT JUST, WELL, WE CAN PUT A FENCE AROUND IT AND TRY TO SHORE UP THE ROOF AND PUT SOME TEMPORARY DOORS ON.

MY READING OF WHAT THAT ORDINANCE SAYS, IS THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC PLAN, HOW IT IS GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED, WHAT PERIOD OF TIME IT IS GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN, HOW IT IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR. AND AN ENDS DATE PUT ON IT. AND IF IT IS NOT DONE AS REPRESENTED TO YOU AND AS YOU ORDER, THEN THERE CAN BE CIVIL PENALTIES ON IT.

MR. HIRSCH HAS NOT PERFORMED WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO FOR 2 1/2 YEARS.

THERE IS NO REAL REASON, AS I STAND HERE TODAY, TO BELIEVE THAT HE'S GOING TO CHANGE NOW AND GET SOMETHING DONE ABOUT THIS OTHER THAN, ONE MORE TIME PUSH IT OFF.

, WHICH HAS HAPPENED REPEATEDLY OVER THE LAST TWO 1/2 YEARS. ON BEHAVIOR OF THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND THESE PEOPLE HERE WHO ARE OWNERS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, HE WOULD ASK THAT YOU HOLD HIM TO A STRICT PLAN OF HOW THIS HOUSE IS GOING TO BE FINISHED AND/OR MARKETED.

A TIME FRAME FOR DOING THAT AND CIVIL PENALTIES IF IT IS NOT DONE.

THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTION OF MR. CHOTE? >> ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS WE SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE

[00:25:02]

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> I THINK MR. CLIFT ENDED HIS TESTIMONY A LITTLE PREMATURELY. HE IS HERE TODAY TO SPEAK TO EXACTLY WHAT WHAT MR. CHOTE HAS TALKED ABOUT WHAT IS PLAN OF ACTION IS AND WHEN THAT PLAN CAN BE COMPLETED.

>> THIS IS A BLIGHT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND A BLIGHT IN THE CITY AND THERE HAVE BEEN OPPORTUNITIES, 2 AND A HALF YEARS WORTH OF OPPORTUNITIES FINISH THIS PLAN.

AND THE OWNER HAS IGNORED NUMEROUS DEADLINES TO FINISH INK CLUING THE REQUIREMENT IN THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION TO COMPLETE THE HOME SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO REQUIRE A VERY STRICT TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OR FOR SALE. AND IF IT IS NOT SOLD IN A VERY STRICT, TIGHT TIME FRAME, THEN TO CONDEMN IT AND TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN, BALLS I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS GOING -- THERE HAS BEEN VERY MUCH ACTION. HAS THERE BEEN ACTION? MORE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED AND SET INSIDE, VERY, VERY LITTLE ACTION OVER THE LAST TWO

YEARS, I CAN TELL YOU THAT. THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MURPHY.

THANK YOU, SIR. 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 22-002791 THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE CASE FOR US.

WE DON'T NORMALLY SEE THIS TYPE OF A CASE COME BEFORE US. WHILE I HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH SOME OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT QUALIFIED IT TO BE CONDEMNED, I DO THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT THE TIME FRAME WITH WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTION.

UNFORTUNATELY, FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SPOKE TO US SO FAR I THINK OUR JOB HERE AS A BOARD IS TO

WITHHOLD THE CONDEMNATION OR NOT; IS THAT CORRECT, MS. LEGAL. >> YES, I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE SUMMARY. WE HAVE HAD THESE APPEALS BEFORE, BUT THEY'RE NOT AS COMMON AS YOUR TYPICAL CASES WHERE YOU HAVE TYPICALLY, WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS CONDEMNED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, SOMEONE WHO WORKS UNDER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, THEY'RE WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER WHEN PROGRESS ISN'T MADE, THEY BRING IT TO THE BOARD. AND ASK THE BOARD TO GIVE SOME KEEP OF AN ORDER FOR REHABILITATION OR DEMOLITION. BUT, ORDINANCE ALLOWS AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING

[00:30:05]

BUT THE INITIAL DECISION IS WHETHER THE PROPERTY SHOULD FALL UNDER THIS DIVISION OF THE CODE TO BEGIN WITH OR NOT, WHETHER IT SHOIB CONSIDERED CONDEMNED OR NOT.

THAT IS THE INITIAL DECISION. AND ALL WE'RE ASKING IS FOR THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE. THERE THEREFORE YOU HAVE THOSE TWO OPTIONS FOR THE ACTIONS.

YOU COULD FIND THAT IT IS CONDEMNED AND GIVE 30/60 BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE ASKING TODAY. WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING YOU TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE CONDEMNED OR NOT, BECAUSE, THAT WAS THE INITIAL DECISION WAS ACTUALLY APPEALED. DOES THAT MAKE -- DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT

I'VE JUST SAID. >> MY QUESTION IS WE'RE ALLUDING TO A STEP IN THE PROCESS AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE RESOLUTION DETERMINED ON THE OUTCOME FOR THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION. WE'RE POSSIBLY ONLY GOING TO SAY THIS HOUSE IS EITHER SUBSTANDARD OR DILAPIDATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.

AND USUALLY WHEN IT IS THAT, IT GETS TORN DOWN, BUT IF THAT IS NOT THE WAY THE BOARD WERE TO THINK, IT IS NOT SUBSTANDARD OR DILAPIDATED OR UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY.

THEREFORE, NOT CONDEMNED. EVEN THAT STATEMENT IS A LITTLE VAGUE FOR OUR CONDITION BECAUSE

IT IS A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. >> WELL, LET ME, IF I CAN CLARIFY, MAYBE SOME OF WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. EVERY TIME A CASE COMES BEFORE YOU THAT IS A CASE WHERE THE STAFF IS ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER DEMOLITION, WE'VE ASKED YOU DEFINE TO FINE OR NOT FIND, WHETHER IT IS SUBSTANDARD UNDER THE CONDITIONS EXISTING AT THAT TIME. BUT ANY HOUSE THAT IS IN THIS PROCESS IS, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANDARD SO WE WANT YOU TO FIND BEFORE YOU DEMOLISH A HOUSE, THAT IT IS SUBSTANDARD BEFORE YOU GIVE A DEMOLITION ORDER, BECAUSE SOMETHING COULD HAVE CHANGED, THEY COULD HAVE REPAIRED IT. BUT TO MAKE THIS FINDING, MEANS, THAT YOU THEN SAY YES, IT IS A CONDEMNED PROPERTY, WE DO NEED TO GIVE IT TIME FRAME, WE DO NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER IT SHOULD BE SECURED, ET CETERA, IT IS NOT SAYING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO IMMEDIATELY ORDER DEM LITIGATION, BUT THIS WHOLE CHAPTER 6 DIVISION DEALS WITH PROPERTY THAT IS DEEMED TO BE SUBSTANDARD AND UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. AND SO THAT DETERMINATION IS IMPORTANT WHETHER YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS A HOUSE -- WE'RE GOING TO INITIALLY SAY YES, IT FALLS WITHIN THIS DIVISION OF THE CODE, OR WHETHER YOU ARE GIVING IT A DEMOLITION ORDER.

AND WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT ASKING FOR STAFF TO ISSUE A DEMOLITION ORDER TODAY.

WE'RE ASKING FOR STAFF TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE DEEMED FOR UNFIT HABITATION AND SUBSTANDARD AND THEREFORE FALLS WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION OR WHETHER IT IS -- IT DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL THAT IT IS SUBSTANDARD, UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION AND DOES NOT FALL WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION. AND, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY MAY NOT, BUT AS YOU KNOW, PROPERTIES DETERIORATE AND THAT DECISION COULD BE MADE AGAIN AT A LATER TIME.

AND SO THAT IS THE DECISION BEFORE YOU TODAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS

[00:35:02]

MS. LEGAL. >> SO ARE WE -- ARE WE TRYING TO -- THIS BOARD --BLER FIT OR UNFIT. AND WE'RE TRYING NOT TO REALLY PUT A TIME FRAME TO IT EITHER.

>> SO NORMALLYING WHEN YOU SEE CASES THAT COME TO YOU, COME TO THE BOARD, THIS DETERMINATION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BY MR. JUAREZ, BECAUSE HE WORKS UNDER THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THEY'VE ALREADY DETERMINED THAT A HOUSE IS SUBSTANDARD, SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, THEY'VE POSTED NOTICE, AND THEN THEY BEGIN TO WORK WITH THE OWNER. THEY OFTEN GIVE THEM 30/60 TIME FRAME SUCH AS THE BOARD DOES, AND TYPICALLY WHEN PROGRESS IS NOT MADE, STAFF BRINGING IT TO THE BOARD FOR DETERMINATION THIS THING TO GET THAT PROCESS STARTED, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WHEN THAT INITIAL DECISION TO CONDEMN THE PROPERTY WAS MADE, MR. JUAREZ AND THE NOTICES POSTED, ET CETERA, THAT INITIAL DECISION CAN BE APPEALED WITHIN TEN DAYS.

AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. SO THAT IS WHAT YOUR TASKED WITH DOING, DETERMINING WHETHER THIS PROPERTY IS SUBSTANDARD AND UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION AND SHOULD EVEN BE WORKED AS A CONDEMNED PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. OR IF IT IS NOT, AND THEN, AT SOME POINT, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT MAY CHECK ON THAT PROPERTY AGAIN AND DETERMINE IS IT ISSUE THIS CONDEMNATION, BUT THAT IS THE

DECISION BEFORE YOU TODAY. >> AND WE HEAR FROM THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT

AUTHORIZED THE CONDEMNATION. >> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW. >> WELL, I REALLY THINK A LOT OF ACTIONS BY THIS BOARD, WE'VE GONE STEP-BY-STEP IN OUR -- I'LL CALL IT A TYPICAL CASE THAT GETS THE HOUSE, IS IT A CONDEMNATION STATE. AND THEN I IT BRINGS IT INTO A PATH OF REHANDLATION. IN THIS CASE, WE'RE DETERMINEING WITH A PROCESS -- DETERMINING WITH A PROCESS, TO HAVE IT BROUGHT TO THE AWARENESS OF THE OFFICIALS THAT WE HAVE SOME STEPS AND THESE STEPS ALSO WILL -- ALTHOUGH WE DON'T -- ALTHOUGH WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE INS AND OUTS OF THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, WE DO -- I THINK HAVE THIS PROCESS IN THIS FORM HERE TO PROTECT THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION. IT IS GOING TO TAKE SOME SCHEDULING AND SOME THINGS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF -- YOU MIGHT SAY, VALUE OF LABOR AND TIME IN WHAT WE'RE SEEING BEFORE US. WE DON'T SO MUCH -- AND I THINK OUR CHAIRMAN AGREES WITH US, WE DON'T SEE THE VIOLATION OF HAZARD WITH ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING BECAUSE IT IS IT IS NOT HOOKED UP. IT IS A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

THAT IS A HAZARDOUS HARD HAT AREA IN SOME RESPECTS IT HAS JUST GOTTEN WHACKED WITH ITS TIMING. AND SOME OF THAT IS DUE TO FUNDING BY ITS ORIGINAL OWNER AND SO WE'RE IN THE STATE OF NOT WANTING IT TO BE CALL CONDEMNED TO BE BROUGHT OUT OF CONDEMNATION. THAT IS WHAT WE DO, A LOT OF TIMES ON OUR REHABILITATIONS, WE BRING THE FACILITY OUT OF CONDEMNATION WE HAVE THE GUIDELINES THAT PUT US IN THOSE CONDEMNATIONS. ONCE IT IS THROUGH BEING CONSIDERED CONDEMNED, IT IS EITHER PROBABLY ON A RIGHT TRACK AND IT DOESN'T EVER COME BACK TO US AS A CODE OF BUILDING STANDARDS NEED TO WATCH OVER IT. SO WE ARE APPROACHING A SITUATION THAT IS JUST DETERMINING IF IT IS GOING DO BE CONDEMNED OR NOT. THAT IS WHERE I SEE WHERE ARE

[00:40:08]

BUT I DO SEE IN THE REALMS OF A GATED COMMUNITY, IT IS A NICANCE ESPECIALLY IF IT HAS BEEN SITTING THERE TWO YEARS IT IS NOT TIME FOR ALL THAT, I GUESS, BUT I DON'T REALLY SEE THE SUBSTANDARD DILAPIDATED CONDITION IN A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

I SEE A PROJECT THAT IS GETTINGDY LAB DATED BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN STOPPED.

FOR WHATEVER REASON. AND I WANT TO SEE US START THE PROJECT, BRING IT TO SELLABLE

CONDITIONS HE NEEDS TO SHOW EFFORT. >> WELL, AS I MENTIONED IF THIS

IS JUST DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE BOARD. >> IF I MAY ADDRESS A COUPLE OF -- BECAUSE BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF TIMES, WHILE I CAN APPRECIATE AND RESPECT Y'ALL'S INPUT ON NOT FINDING THE ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING HAZARDS, JUST BECAUSE NOTHING IS HOOKED UP, JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT WE DON'T CONDEMN THE STRUCTURES OR PROPERTIES JUST BASED ON WHETHER UTILITIES ARE HOOKED UP OR NOT. WE -- EVERYTHING IS PURSUANT TO THE BUILDING CODES UNDER CHAPTER 8, AND BY DEFINITION AND I'M GOING TO READ THE PORTIONS THAT APPLY TO THIS HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING WHICH WAS -- HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION OR WHICH IS NOT BEING USED IN A SAFE MANNER SHALL BE CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD. THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THIS ELECTRICAL WIRING HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED. HAZARDOUS PLUMBING THAT HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION OR SHALL BE CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD, THERE IS OBVIOUS EVIDENCE THAT THIS PLUMBING HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED, AS YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO WORK OR PROGRESS DONE IN OVER A YEAR. SO THESE CONDITIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED, ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 8 OF THE BUILDING CODE, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW, WHICH IS WHY MR. WATSON APPROVED FOR THE CONDEMNATION OF THIS. AND FOR A PROPERTY TO BE CONDEMNED, IT HAS TO BE UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. AND THERE IS CLEARLY NOTHING ABOUT THIS HOME THAT IT MAKES IT LIVABLE SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE BRINGING IT FORTH HERE TO APPROVE TO UPHOLD THE CONDEMNATION SO WE CAN GET THE PROCESS STARTED THAT THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY PROBABLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND, AGAIN, THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THEIR TIMELINE. WHAT TRIGGERS WALKING ONTO ANY CONSTRUCTION SITE AND SEEING THE SAME CONDITIONS AND NOT SHUTTING ALL THESE PROJECTS DOWN.

>> IF I MAY, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY AN UNUSUAL SITUATION THAT WE HAVE WE HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR TIME PERIOD AND SITTING NOW FOR QUITE A LONG TIME SO AT THIS POINT IT IS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION, IT IS CITY AND THIS IS A COOL THAT THE CITY HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND TRY TO PROTECT THIS GENTLEMAN'S INVESTMENT.

HAD WE NOT DONE THIS, IT MAY HAVE SAT FOR ANOTHER YEAR OR IN ANOTHER YEAR, OR ANOTHER YEAR.

BUT THIS THIS IS INITIATED SO THAT WE CAN USE OUR TOOLS TO PROTECT THIS INVESTMENT, THE BOARD SEES PICTURES, JUST LIKE THIS ON EVERY CONDEMNATION CASE. OPEN WIRING, WE HAVE OPEN DRAIN

[00:45:03]

WE HAVE A OSB, UP ON THE ROOF THAT IS EXPOSED. AND OSB, WHEN IT GETS WET, YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. IT STARTS TO DETERIORATING, IT EXPANDS AND THEN EVERYTHING BELOW IT, CAN GET RUINED AS WELL SO, SO THIS IS INITIATED, ONE, THAT WE COULD PROTECT THIS GENTLEMAN'S INVESTMENT, HELP OUT THE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND GET THIS GET THIS HOUSE BUILD SO THAT WE HAVE SOMEBODY LIVING IN IT. AND AGAIN I REITERATE MS. MESS E'S RESPONSE THERE THAT, YES, OR NO, IS THE BOARD, THE BOARD'S DECISION TODAY, YES OR NO, IS IT CONDEMNABLE? CAN WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS? YES OR NO? IF IT IS YES, THEN WE WILL MOVE FORWARD. AND WE WILL WORK WITH THE OWNER AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THOSE TIMELINES TO TRY TO FIX IT AND PROTECT IT.

>> SO IN YOUR OPINION, IS THIS TOOL -- YOU COMMENT ABOUT IF IT IS YES, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS AND ALL THIS. AND IF THE BOARD IS TRYING TO USE THE TOOL IN THE WAY -- AND WE SAY, NO, THIS THING IS NOT CONDEMNABLE, IT IS JUST NEEDS SOMEBODY TO TAKE A MONEY AND SCHEDULE. SO WITHOUT A YES, THE CITY STAFF IS GOING TO HELP MANAGE AND PUSH WITH OUR TOOLS THE OWNER OR IF WE SAY NO, THE CITY IS GOING TO BAIL.

>> WELL, IF IT IS NO, THEN MR. HIRSCHSH, IT IS UP TO HIM. IT IS BACK ON HIM.

>> IT IS BACK TO MR. HIRSCH. >> OKAY. AND THERE IS ALL GOING -- THIS CONVERSATIONU PEOPLE IS GOING TO THE AUDIENCE. EVEN THE AUDIENCE ON TV.

I HOPE YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THAT OUR POSITION IS BEING IN THAT TOOL BOX TO HELP THE PUBLIC GET ALONG, TO HELP THE PUBLIC SEE WHAT'S IN THE TOOLS OF EITHER -- I DON'T REALLY CALL THIS LITIGATION, BUT IT IS A FORM OF LITIGATION. AND WHAT I'M SEEING HERE IS WHERE I'M LEANING -- NO, THIS PLACE DOESN'T NEED CONDEMNED IS IT THE CORRECT TOOL TO HAVE CITY STAFF GET INVOLVED FOR THE SAKE OF THE HOA, THE LITTLE KID THAT COULD WANDER ONTO THE SITE AND REQUIRE STITCHES OR BANDAGES AFTERWARDS, IF I COULD SEE, WE WOULD LET LITTLE KIDS RUN AROUND ON THIS THING? NO. IF WE'RE GOING DO MAKE THIS THING NEED THE CITY TO BE INVOLVED, OR WE HEAR FROM THE OWNER SOME COMMITMENTS AND/OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO MAKE COMMITMENTS TO ADVISE HIS OWNER, YOU STILL GOT TO PUMP SOME FUNDS INTO THIS TO PROTECT YOUR INVESTMENT. IS WHERE I SEE THIS COME TO

THAT'S THE DISCUSSION. >> AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTION I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE QUALIFICATION FOR CONDEMNATION. BUT TO ME, THIS PROPERTY HAS ALLOWED TO BECOME A HAZARD AND A

[00:50:08]

MOTION THAT WE UPHOLD THE CONDEMNATION. >> I'VE BEEN TALKED TO -- TALK INTOED THAT. SO I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE UPHOLD THE -- UNDER THE TERMS OF SUBSTANDARD ORDY LAP DATED, AS ALL PROJECTS THAT ARE IN BETWEEN COMPLETION, THEY'RE NOT FIT FOR

HUMAN OCCUPANCY. >> I DON'T LIKE THE WAY SOME OF THESE TERMS ARE.

>> AND EVEN OCCUPANTSSY IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. >> OUR CODE DEFINES, "CONDEMNED" AS UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANTS U OCCUPANCY AND THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF CONDEMNED.

>> BY DEFINITION, I'LL MAKE THIS MOTION TO SUPPORT THE FINDING OF THE BUILDING BEING SUBSTANNARD AND DILAPIDATED AND UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND THEREFORE CONDEMNED DUE TO THE CONDITIONS

THAT EXIST. >> MOTION BY MR. SLADE THEY ARE THE CONDEMNATION BE UPHELD

SINGLED SECOND BY MR. ALRED. >> WHICH CONDITION OR CONDITIONS YOU FIND CAUSED STRUCTURE TO BE

UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. >> FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. >> DO YOU WISH TO AMEND YOUR

MOTION TO ADD FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION? >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE'S DOCUMENTED IN MY RAMBLING, BUT, FOR FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION IS THE PRIMARY REASON THIS IS

REACHINGDY LAPPATION. THERE IS NONE. >> IF I MAY ADD, TO ME, IS IT A HAZARDOUS, PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE, FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION? INADEQUATE SANITATION? STRUCTURAL HAZARDOUSES? TO ME, THE SECOND FLOOR IS NOT BARRICADED SO KIDS CAN GET UP ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND NUISANCE CONDITIONS.

NOW ABOUT THAT. >> VERY GOOD. DID YOU GET THAT.

>> CATCH IT ON THE RECORDING. >> OKAY. >> SECOND AGREES.

>> I SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. ALLRED. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

[B. Case for Rehabiliation, Demolition, or Civil Penalties - Case# 21-002635: 2049 AMBLER AVE. (SEARS PARK, BLOCK 36, LOT W46 OF LT 1 & 2, LESS N5 FT, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: LOYA, JOEL T]

FAX RECORDS AND MUNICIPALITY NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY SHOW TO BE INACTIVE SINCE SEPTEMBER 1ST OF 2016. THE SEARCH FOR BILLS JOEL T.

LOYA TO BE THE OWNER. PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S HEARING.

[00:55:06]

SUBSTANDARD CODE VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED. >> STRUCTURAL HAZARD YOU CAN SEE IS INCOMPLETE FOUNDATION WORK, NUISANCE EXSTERIOR DILAPIDATION AND EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY.

INADEQUATE SANITATION NO EVIDENCE USE OF FACILITY OR. INCOMPLETE THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE INCOMPLETE, MOLDED SHEETROCK AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION STRUCTURE, LOOSE WARES INADEQUATE EXITS, SEVERAL AREAS OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE ARE BOARDED UP, NOT ALLOWING PROOFER ENTRY OR EXITWAYS.

SO TIMELINE OF EVENTS, WE FAST-FORWARD TO THIS -- THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD -- EXCUSE ME, SORRY. SORRY, LET ME START FROM THE BEGINNING, JUNE 4TH, 2021 WE RECEIVE PERMISSION TO ENTER THE PROPERTY, JULY 20 OF 2021, APPROVED FOR CONDEMNATION.

AUGUST 17TH, WE MET WITH THE OWNER. HE EXPRESSED THAT HE WANTED TO REPAIR THE HOME. AND HE WAS GIVEN HIS DEADLINE AND SO SUBMIT HIS DOCUMENTS.

ON THE 30TH OF AUGUST 20, 2021 HE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL HE COULDN'T IMMEDIATE THE DEADLINE SO WE EXTENDED HIS DEADLINE TO SEPTEMBER 10TH OF 2021CH ONCEPT 10 OR OF 2021 WE RECEIVED A FOARCH CALL FROM THE OWNER TO CHECK TO SEE IF WE HAD EVERYTHING WE NEEDED AND WE GAVE HIM A DEADLINE OF SEPTEMBER 15TH TO SUBMIT THE EMAIL.

AND CONTRACTOR QUOTES FOR THE ELECTRICAL PLUMBING AND STRUCTURAL COOKER.

SEPTEMBER 14TH WE POSTED NOTICE FOR THE BUILDING STANDARDS OF 2021.

SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2021 PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT MEET THE DEADLINE AT THE TIME WE DID NOT HAVE A BOARD HEARING IN OCTOBER, THAT WAS PLACED ON ERROR. ON MARCH 22 -- MARCH 22ND OF 2021 WE CONTRACTED THE OWNER BY TEXT MESSAGE TO ADVISE HIM HIS PERMIT WAS EXPIREED AND HE PASS AN INSPECTION TO EXTEND HIS PERMIT. APRIL 5TH, 2022.

CONTRACTOR CAME IN TOW REQUEST AN EXTENSION ON THE BUILDING PERMIT THREE DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE BEFORE THE PERMIT. AUGUST 11TH OF 2022, WE CHECKED THE STATUS OF THE PERMIT AND NO BUILDING INSPECTION REQUESTED TO THIS DATED BY THE OWNER OR THE CONTRACTOR AFTER THE EXTENSION WAS GRANT THREE MONTHS PRIOR.

AUGUST 19TH WE SENT NOTICE OF THE SEPTEMBER BOARD OF HEARING STANDARDS ALSO CAME INTO CITY HALL TO MEET WITH THE STAFF AND INFORM STAFF CITY MANAGER HAD NOT COMPLETED HITS WORK AS AGREED TO AND REQUESTED AN EXTENSION, HE WAS INFORMED DUE TO TO LACK OF PROGRESS HE WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THE BOARD. AND SO ON SEPTEMBER 7TH OF 2022,BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS WAS HELD AND ORDERED AT 30/IBILITY IS.

ON SEPTEMBER 16TH, WE SENT THE NOTICE OF THE ORDER AND WE STILL HAVE SEEN NO PROGRESS NO PERMITTED OR PLAN OF ACTION SUBMITTED CITIZENS SEPTEMBER BOARD HEARING.

ON OCTOBER 11TH WE 70 NOTICE FOR TODAY'S HEARING. SO DUE TO THE LACK OF PROGRESS AND NOT COMPLYING WITH THE BOARD ORDER BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF THE 3060 WE RECOMMEND TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IT IS A HAZARDOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. FOR THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH OR

APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS TORE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MYERS.

>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE CASE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 21-002635. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR RECORDS. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 21-002635 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION OR A DISCUSSION.

[01:00:14]

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I LOOKED AT PICTURES OF THIS HOUSE AND I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT IT IS A PUBLIC NEWSANCE IN THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF

THE PROPERTY, STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. >> MOTION BY MR. ALLRED.

>> SECONDED SCHRADER. >> THAT THE PROPERTY IS DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE IN & IT IS A HAZARDOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

>> MAKE ANOTHER MOTION THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT

COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> MOTION BY MR. ALLRED, SECOND BY MR. SLADE THEY ARE THE OARDED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. ROLL CALL.

[C. Case for Rehabiliation, Demolition, or Civil Penalties - Case# 22-000806: 2116 SEARS BLVD. (SEARS PARK, BLOCK 32, LOT 15, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: MEZA CHRISTOPHER R & GONZALES ALEXANDER ]

>> NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER 22-000806 LOCATED AT 2116 SEARS BOULEVARD.

CHECKLIST FOR THE RECORDS SEARCH SHOWS COUNTY RECORDS WITHIN W A GENERAL WARRANTY DEED NAMING CHRISTOPHER R. MEZA AND GONZALEZ A OWNERS CHRISTOPHER R. MEZA AND ALEXANDER GONZALEZ TO BE THE OWNERS. NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME. TAX RECORDS OF IF MUNICIPALITY NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY SHOW TO BE INACTIVE SINCE TWIL 2022, SEARCH SEARCHRY VALLEYS CHRIS STORE R. MEZA AND ALEXANDER GONZALEZ TO BE THE OWNER. PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S HEARING THIS IS THE FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE REAR WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

UPON INSPECTION, THESE WERE THE SUBSTANDARD CODE VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED IN CHAPTER 19, INADEQUATE SANITATIONS, NUISANCE UNDER CHAPTER 19, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS

PLUMBING, HAZARDOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND INADEQUATE EXITS. >> THIS IS A NUISANCE VIOLATIONS OF DILAPIDATION IDENTIFIED THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE AND YOU SEE ROOFING ISSUES AND SOME EXPOSED SIDING, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, EXPOSED WIRING AND SEEMS TO BE DISMANTLED IN THE METER BOX, ELECTRIC BOX, EXCUSE ME. INADEQUATE SANITATION OF THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE THE FACILITIES ARE REST ROOM AREAS NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. NUISANCE DILAPIDATION OF THE INTERIOR, SOME COLLAPSED SHEETROCK, AS IS ELECTRICAL WIRING, WIRES AND OUTLETS THAT ARE PROPPED OUT.

MAINTAINED WATER HEATER HERE THERE. AND AIR DUCTS THAT ARE COMPLETELY DISMANTLED OR EXPOSED OUT OF THE WALL OR SOLING AND INADEQUATE EXITS, AREAS IN THE EXTERIOR THAT ARE BOARDED UP AND NOT ALLOWING PROPER EXIT OR ENTRYWAYS.

THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS, MARCH 30TH, 2022, PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED, APRIL 7TH, 2022, AFFIDAVIT CONDEMNATION WAS FILED AT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.

APRIL 19TH, CONDEMNATION WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, ON JUNE 7TH THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD. AND ON JUNE 10TH AN INITIAL NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION WAS SENT TO THE NEW OWNER BY REGULAR CERTIFIED MAIL. ON JUNE FITCHTH, A PHONE CALL WITH IF NEW OWNER AND EXPLAINED TO HIM THE 30/60 PROCESS AND HE NEEDED TO SUBMIT HIS PLAN OF ACTION. SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2022, WE MET WITH THE CONTRACTOR WHO ALSO WAS THE BROTHER OF THE OWNER AND EXPLAINED TO HIM WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE BUILDING

[01:05:04]

WE STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED A PLAN OF ACTION AND THERE HAS BEEN NO PERMITTED PULLED FOR THIS PROPERTY. SO GIVEN THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME BEING BROUGHT TO THE BOARD, AND BEEN IN SOME COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER, WE DO RECOMMEND TO AL YOU HIM 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL MERMIVES AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR COST REPAIR AND IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGH AND INSPECTIONS. AND IF THIS IS DONE, COMPLETED BY THE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MORRIS? THANK YOU MR..

AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 22-000806 ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORDS.

>> FIRST NAME. >> I AM THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY, SIR.

>> WHAT IS YOUR NASDAQ WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS, SIR. >> MY MAILING ADDRESS IS 2149 PRIVATE ROAD 5274 CLYDE TEXAS. THE ADDRESS AT THE HOUSE IS 2116 SEARS.

ACTUALLY PLACE WHERE I GREW UP, 40 YEARS LATE I ENDS UP BUYING THE PLACE BACK.

THERE IS A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE, SIR. DONE CONSTRUCTION ON MY LIFE, I ACTUALLY BUILT HOUSES. I DO NEED -- I'M GOING TO BE STRAIGHT UP, I JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO GET THINGS STRAIGHT. I GOT MY OLDER BROTHER IS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR -- I'LL BE HONGEST WITH YOUR WE'VE HAD SOME FALLING OUTS BEFORE, BUT NOW WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH ME ON GENERAL CONTRACT ANOTHER FAMILY BENNY ORTEGA IS WILLING TO DO MY ELECTRICAL. WASN'T OFFICIAL FOR ME I'VE HAD A LOT OF MEDICAL PROBLEMS WITHIN THE PAST YEARS AS FAR AS BEING DIABETIC AND IT ALLOWS ME TO DO SOME THINGS AND OTHERS THAT DON'T. PRETTY MUCH CLEANEDP A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT WAS ON THAT PROPERTY WHICH WAS A NUISANCE TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS ARVERY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD IF IT MATTER, I'VE HAD A LOT OF COMPLIMENTS FROM AREA NEIGHBORS COMING BY AND MART OF IT LOOKS A LOT BETTER THAN IT IS NOW AND ALLOW ME A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND ALL I CAN ASK, AND ALLOW ME A LITTLE BIT MORE SO I CAN REHABILITATE THIS PLACE AS Y'ALL SAY AND, LIKE I SAY, I DID GROW UP THERE, IT MEANS A LOT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO LAY MY HEAD BACK IN THERE ONE MORE TIME

BEFORE LAST OF MY YEARS ANYWAY. >> YOU SEE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THERE, THE TIME FRAME? DO YOU -- THE TIME FRAME THAT THE STAFF RECOMMEND --

>> YEAH, Y'ALL GAVE ME THE 30 DAYS, THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. GAVE ME THE 30 DAYS WITH WANT TO

HELP IF WE CAN, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO, TAKE SEVERAL STEPS HERE. >> YES, SIR.

IF YOU TAKE THE STEPS IN ORDER, YOU'LL HAVE A LOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS.

>> WELL, YEAH, LIKE I SAID, JUST TAKING ME A LITTLE LONGER THAN I THOUGHT.

AS FAR AS A NEWSANCE, IT IS NOT A NUISANCE ANYMORE, WHICH TO ME MEANS A LOT FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE I GREW UP THERE. BUT I MEAN, ACTUALLY I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT PLAIN AND SIMPLE, UP TO YOU GUYS, THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, AND WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS OR WHATEVER, I CAN COME UP WITH A TIME FRAME AND EVERYTHING THAT I NEED FOR THIS.

[01:10:05]

IS MY OLDER BROTHER, TONY GONZALE. >> IF YOU TAKE THESE EXTRA STEPS YOU WON'T BE COMING BACK HERE. ANY QUESTIONS? SO IF YOU DO UNDERSTAND THE STEPS OR 30 DAYS TO GET YOUR PLAN OF ACTION. SO THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO -- I MEAN, HEY, TO HEAR THAT YOU YOU BOUGHT SOMETHING BACK THAT YOU GREW UP IN, I'M ALL ABOUT IT. SO I REALLY WISH YOU LUCK AND HOPE THAT IF YOU CAN ACCEPT

THESE CONDITIONS, THIS IS OUR FIRST STEP WITH YOU. >> WELL, I CAME, BUT LIKE I SAY, I DONE FAILED, TO ME I DONE FAILED BECAUSE Y'ALL GAVE ME ANOTHER 30 DAYS AND I HAVE HAVEN'T MET Y'ALL'S TIMELINE ON IT, I CAN TELL YOU I GOT GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL OF THAT, BUT,

I MEAN, WHICH I DO. >> MR. MORRIS, WHEN DID THE 30 DAYS ACTUALLY START SO I MEAN, THE INITIAL 30/60 HAS EXPIRED BUT THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE TO GET YOU A FRESH NEW START WITH THE 30/60 SO IF THEY APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION, WE CAN -- I CAN EXPLAIN IT TO YOU AND WHAT YOU NEED TO DO FROM HERE. SO WE'RE HERE TO ASK THEM TO GIVE YOU MORE TIME.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO. SO. >> ORDER 30 DAYS TO PROVIDE ALL PERMITS AND SCHMIT PLAN OF ACTION AND KOS OF ESTIMATES AND IF THAT IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGHENED INSPECTION AND IF THAT IS DONE ALL FINAL INSPECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY

THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS I'LL SECOND THAT BY THE WAY. >> 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 22-000806 THE MOTION HAS BEEN ADVANCED BY MR. ALLRED AND SECOND BY MR. SCHRADER. THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO REPAIR, 30 DAYS TO MAKE ALL PERMIT ANDS PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR COST ESTIMATES. IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGH AND INSPECTIONS.

IF THAT IS DONING ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS COULD BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION ROLL CALL,

PLEASE. >> MR. ALLRED. >> YES.

>> MR. MCBRAAEER, MR. WEB. YES. >> MR. SCHRADER.

>> YES. >> MR. BEARD. >> YES.

>> MOTION PASSED. >> NEXT CASE, PLEASE. >> GOOD LUCK, SIR.

[D. Case for Rehabiliation, Demolition, or Civil Penalties - Case# 22-001153: 3110 RUSSELL AVE. (SCOTT HIGHWAY PLACE, BLOCK 14, LOT 15, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: BORREGO, JOSE C]

>> NEXT CASE IS CASE NUMBER 22- 001153, LOCATED AT 3110 RUSSELL AVENUE, CHECKLIST FOR THE RECORDS SHOWS WARRANTY DEED NAMING A JOSE C. BORREGO AS OWNER, TAYLOR COUNTY SHOWS JOSE C. BORREGO TO BE THE OWNER, SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME, TAX RECOGNIZED OF THE MUNICIPALITY ARE NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY, ACCORDING TO THE MUNICIPALITY THERE ARE NO RECORDS OF UTILITIES FOUND.

SEARCH REVEALS -- SEARCH REVEALS JOSE C. BORREGO TO BE THE OWNER. THIS WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S HEARING. I'M SORRY, THE WE COULDN'T GET ACCESS TO INVESTIGATE. THIS IS THE FRONT SOUTHSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THE REAR NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, AND THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND UPON INSPECTION, THESE ARE THE SUBSTANDARD CODE VIOLATIONS

[01:15:02]

PROPERTY MAINTAIN USE OF FACILITIES FOR A TOILETRIES OR ALSO FECAL MATTER FROM ANIMALS FOUND INSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. STRUCTURAL HAZARDS, YOU CAN SEE THE BEAMS ARE RAFTER BEAMS ARE SPLIT, COMPLETELY DETERIORATED ON THE RIGHT SIGH, LEFT PHOTO THERE SHOWS A CRACK OR SPLIT IN THE WALL, INDICATING POSSIBLE FOUNDATION ISSUES. NUISANCE, YOU HAVE SOME DILAPIDATION WHERE SOME COLLAPSED CEILING OR SHEETROCK AND SOME FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION, COUPLE OF AREAS IN THE STRUCTURE WHERE WINDOWS ARE BROKEN AND ALLOWING SUNLIGHT TO COME THROUGH AND NO PROTECTION FROM WEATHERIZATION. INADEQUATE EXIT, ALSO SOME AREAS WHERE THERE IS NO PROPER DISTURB PROPER EXIT OR ENTRY POINTS THAT ARE COMPLETELY BOARDED UP.

>> TIMELINE OF EVENTS PHONE CALL WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, INFORMED HIM THAT AND ALSO EXPLAINED TO HIM THE PROCESS OF THE 30/60 PLAN AND WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN PERMITS AND DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR THE OWNER TO DISCUSS PROPERTY AND STATED HE WOULD SPEAK TO THE OWNER AND DISCUSS OPTIONS WITH THEM. SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2022, WE HAD NO FULL CONTACT FROM THE OWNER AND NO PERMITS PULLED. OCTOBER 6TH, 2022, THE OWNER ARRIVED AT CITY HALL INQUIRING ABOUT THE BOARD HEARING THAT WAS CANCELED FOR THAT MONTH. INFORMED THE HEARING WAS CANCELED AND WOULD BE RESCHEDULED FOR THE FOLLOWING MONTH.

AND OCTOBER 11TH, 2022, NOTICE WAS SENT FOR THE TODAY'S HEARING.

AND AS OF TODAY, THEY'RE STILL NO PERMITS OR ANYTHING ON RECORD.

GIVEN THE FIRST TIME THIS IS BEING BROUGHT FOR THE BOARD, WE DO RECOMMEND FOR THE OWNER TO REPAIR, 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES AND IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGHENED INSPECTIONS AND IF THIS IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS

ANY QUESTIONS NO RECORD OF ANY UTILITIES AT ALL? >> NO, SIR.

ACCORDING TO THE WATER DEPARTMENT, THEY SAID THAT THEY COULDN'T FIND ANY UTILITY

RECORDS. >> THANK YOU. >> MARIA BORREGO, MY ADDRESS IS

5201 KINGSTON COURT HERE IN OTHER THAN LIEN. >> OKAY.

>> I AM THE DAUGHTER OF MR. JOSE BORREGO. AND SPEAKING ON HIS BEHALF.

WE DID GET, YOU KNOW, LETTERS FROM MR. AND GIVEN US SOME TIME TO DO, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH A PLAN OR WHATNOT. MY DAD HAS BEEN RETIRED FOR 30+ YEARS AND HAS BECOME A HORDER, YOU KNOW, FOR A LACK OF BETTER WORDS. IN THIS TIME, YOU KNOW, HE'S COLLECTED AND COLLECTED AND COLLECTED. SO THE INSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, THE OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, HAS HAD A LOT OF GARAGE FOR US, YOU KNOW, TO HIM IT IS TREASURES, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW HE CAN MAKE MONEY OUT OF IT OR WHATEVER, BECAUSE HE LIKES SCRAPPING METALS.

IN THE TIME SINCE WE FIRST GOT THE LETTER TO NOW NORD FOR A CONTRACTOR TO COME IN AND LOOK

[01:20:19]

SO IN THE TIME THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID FROM THE TIME THAT GAVE US THE NOTICE, WE'VE MANAGED TO CLEAN OUT SOME OF THE HOUSE, A LOT OF PORTION OF THE HOUSE AND THE EXTERNAL OF IT, TOO, BECAUSE, I MEAN, THAT WAS AN ISSUE IN ITSELF, THE YARD. AND I GUESS, TO GET A CONTRACTOR OUT THERE TO SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE AND WHETHER, YOU KNOW, COST-EFFECTIVE FOR US TO INVEST IN DOING THIS, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE SOME -- WE'D LIKE SOME TIME, YOU KNOW, TO CLEAN IT OUT, GET SOMEBODY IN THERE AND TELL US WHETHER BEFORE ANY PERMITS ARE PULLED, WHETHER IT IS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING FEASIBLE FOR US TO DO. SO, I MINE, I'M ASKING FOR THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, FOR SOME TIME SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, DO A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEANOUT, SO THAT IT WILL EXPOSE THE STRUCTURE IN ITS ENTIRETY, SO THEY CAN GIVE US SOMETHING, YOU

KNOW, NOT JUST A GUESS OF WHAT IT MIGHT BE. >> SEE STAFF RECOMMENDATION

HERE? >> YES. >> IS THAT TIME FRAME COMPATIBLE

WITH WHAT YOU'RE THINKING? >> I DON'T THINK IT IS ENOUGH. I MEAN IF I COULD ASK YOU KNOW, BECAUSE, WE'RE GOING 30 DAYS TO START WITH, BUT IF WE COULD GET, YOU KNOW, TWO, THREE MONTHS, JUST TO GET EVERYTHING GUTTED IN THERE AND SO THAT WAY WE COULD HAVE A BETTER RECOMMENDATION FROM A CONTRACTOR. AND THEN DECIDE ON, OKAY DO WE WANT TO INVEST THE MONEY ON, YOU KNOW, IF IT IS ABLE IF THEY'RE ABLE TO REHABILITATE IT OR DEMOLISH IT, YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT. AND WE CAN KEEP, JOSH UPDATED WITH, OUR DECISION.

>> SO WOULD -- HOW MUCH TIME? THAT FIRST STEP THERE, WOULD 60 DAYS BE ENOUGH?

>> IF I COULD ASK FOR 90 DAYS AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, AND, I MEAN, HERE WITH ARE, WINTER IS DRAWING ON US AND, YOU KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING, THAT YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS TO JUST HIRING YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALS TO COME DO THIS SO WE'RE DOING IT WHEN WE CAN.

AND, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, MY DAD IS 91, SO I MEAN, HE GETS OUT THERE AND HE'S HELPING.

SO I MEAN, I'M DOING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING AS MUCH AS WE CAN. AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, WHEN HAS BEEN OUT THERE, THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE IN YOU KNOW FROM THE FIRST TIME HE'S BEEN OUT THERE UNTIL NOW, SO WE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, WORKING HARD AND, YOU KNOW, GETTING STUFF DONE. SO I MEAN IT IS NOT LIKE WE'RE JUST SITTING THERE AND LEAVING

IT. >> DOES THE 30 DAYS TO GET THE PERMITS, IS THAT ENOUGH TIME TO GET THE PERMITS NOW, AND GET THE PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTEDDION.

>> YOU SEE, THAT IS SOMETHING I NEED TO INFORM MYSELF ABOUT, BECAUSE, WHY DO I WANT A PERMIT IF I'M NOT GOING TO, YOU KNOW, INVEST IN TO REBUILDING THE PROPERTY.

>> WE'RE GOING NEED, WE'RE GOING NEED TO GIVE YOU EITHER A TIME TO DO THIS OR TAKE OTHER ACTIONS. AND SO, DO YOU HAVE -- ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY FOR A PERMIT WITHIN 30 DAYS AND GIVE US A PLAN OF ACTION OF WHAT YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO DO? AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE 60 DAYS TO GET STARTED TO WORKING ON THE PROJECT?

AND THEN YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER 60 DAYS TO DO THE FINAL WORK. >> OKAY, THEN, NOW.

>> IF I HAD A PERMIT IS NOT THE FIRST THING YOU TO DO. THE PLAN OF ACTION IS THE FIRST

THING YOU HAVE TO DO, THAT DOESN'T COST ANYTHING. >> SO IN ORDER TO GET YOUR PLAN

[01:25:02]

>> YOU SEE AND WE HAD ONE CONTRACTOR GO OUT THERE AND HE JUST LOOKED FROM THE OUTSIDE, AND OF COURSE IT WAS A YOUNGER PERSON WE WE WON'T EVEN TOUCH THIS, I'LL DEMOLISH IT AND BUILD YOU A NEW HOUSE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, BECAUSE TO HIM, IT IS NOT WORTH SAVING THIS HOUSE, YOU KNOW, AND OUR OPINION, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT IS WORTH SAVING, MAYBE IT WON'T COST $100,000.

>> SO YOU WANT A SECOND OPINION, BASICALLY. >> RIGHT.

>> OKAY. ASK SO THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THEN FIND YOU ANOTHER CONTRACTOR AND IF THAT CONTRACTOR IS WILLING TO TAKE ON THE PROJECT, THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE COST ESTIMATES FOR YOUR PLUMBING, YOUR ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL WORK AND YOU TURN ALL THAT IN, AND ALONG WITH OTHER PAPERWORK AND THEN THAT WILL GET YOU STARTED YOU'LL HAVE 30 DAYS TO DO ALL THAT THAT WILL GET YOU STARTED ON GETTING YOUR PERMIT PULLED AND FROM THAT POINT, YOU'LL HAVE THE 60 DAYS TO DO THE NEXT STEP. AND ONCE THAT IS DONE, YOUR PERMIT WILL BASICALLY EXTENDS.

>> AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU REALLY NEED TO GET A THOROUGH ESTIMATE ON WHETHER IT IS GOING TO BE AN INVESTMENT FOR YOU, SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, YES, YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS AND IF THE BOARD DOES GO WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE 30 DAYS FROM THIS POINT FOR Y'ALL TO GET THAT FIGURED OUT.

>> MA'AM, ARE YOU -- I PICKED UP ON THE WORD "HORDE." >> HORDER.

>> AND I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ALWAYS TRUST -- AND I MIGHT SAY, I DID NOT DRIVE BY THIS, BUT FROM THE ALLEY OF THIS PROPERTY, IS THERE A FENCE AROUND THIS ON THE NORTH SIDE, PIECES, PANEL.

>> IS CAN YOU SEE THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER A CONTRACTOR WOULD EVEN RECOMMEND PURSUING ALL OF THE WORK TO GET YOUR COST ESTIMATES, TIME FRAME, ALL OF THAT AND YOU SPEAK OF, CAN YOU MAKE THAT AVAILABLE TO A CONTRACTOR IN 30 DAYS, IS A LOT OF THE QUESTION, BUT AT THE END OF 30 D CONTRACTOR MAY JUST THEN HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH? >> YES, I MEAN, BUT ALL I CAN DO IS, YOU KNOW, IF THE BOARD IS GIVING ME 30 DAYS AND THAT IS THE EXTENT OF IT, THEN, I'M GOING TO DO WHAT I CAN, YOU KNOW IN THAT TIME FRAME TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

AND IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THEN I MEAN, WE'RE BACK TO, YOU KNOW, OKAY, THE PROPERTIES GOING TO BE

DEMOLISHED OR WHAT HAVE YOU. >> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> 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 22-000153 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR

DISCUSSION OR A MOTION. >>. >> CAN WE ADDRESS THE TIME

[01:30:01]

I JUST THINK THAT RIGHT NOW IT IS TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME THAN 30 DAYS.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THERE -- CAN WE JUST GET WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE 30/60/90 CAN WE GIVE HER 60 DAYS TO GET EVERYTHING IN LINE AND GET HER CONTRACTOR AND EVERYTHING LINED UP IT WOULD BE

60 DAYS TO PLAN OF ACTION AND PERMITS. >> I THINK THAT WOULD WORK.

I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY 60/60 WHICH WOULD BE TOO MUCH. SO THE CODE SAYS, IF THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDSLE LOUS MORE THAN 30 DAYS TO REPAIR, REMOVE OR DEMOLISH THE BUILDING THE BOARD SHALL ABOLISH SPECIFIC TIME SCHEDULES FOR THE COMMENCEMENT AND PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK AND SHALL REQUIRE THE OWNER TO SECURE THE PROPERTY IN A REASONABLE MANNER AND SO, AND THEN IT SAYS IT SHALL NOT ALLOW MORE THAN 90 DAYS, YOU KNOW, UNLESS THEY ENTER INTO COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT AND THAT IS WHY OFTEN WE STOP AT 30/60 AND NOT GO PASSED 90 SO YOU COULD GIVE IT AND YOU COULD GIVE AN ORDER THAT SHE HAVE 60 DAYS TO WHATEVER YOU'RE WANTING TO SAY, CLEAN, COME UP WITH A PLAN OF ACTION, AND SECURE OR WHATEVER, IF YOU'RE NOT DOING THE 30/60, I WOULD ADVISE YOU, DON'T GIVE MORE THAN SEXUAL CONDUCT DAYS SO THAT IT COMES BACK.

AND THEN YOU COULD. >> 60/60 IS GOOD. >> WELL, I WOULDN'T DO 60/60, THAT IS 120 AND THAT WOULD GO OVER THE LIMIT. I WOULD ONLY DO 60 AND BE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT HER TO DO. IT SAYS IF THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARD ALLOWS MORE THAN 30 DAYS TO REPAIR,RY MOVE OR DEMOLISH THE BOARD SHALL ABOLISH A SPECIFIC TIME SCHEDULES FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK AND SHALL REQUIRE THE OWNER SECURE THE PROPERTY IN REASONABLE MANNER FROM UNAUTHORIZED INJURY. IT MAY ALREADY BE SECURED.

IS SECUREMENT AN ISSUE? >> NO, IT IS NOT. >> AND SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, YOU COULD DO 60 AND GIVE HER SOME THINGS TO DO WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME AND IT WOULD COME BACK. THAT WOULD GIVE HER MORE TIME, BUT I WOULD NOT ADVISE TO GO 60/60. I WOULDN'T ADVISE TO GO MORE THAN THE 30.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE SECOND BULLET JO YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND BULLET.

IF YOU WANT TO GIVE HER 60. GIVE HER 60 DAYS TO CLEAN, PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION AND THEN IT WOULD COME BACK, I MEAN KEEP IN MIND, TYPICALLY WHEN WE DO A 30/60 I ADULT COME BACK DO Y'ALL FOR ANOTHER SEXUAL CONDUCT DAYS ANYWAY. SO WE HAVE TO GIVE NOTICES, GIVE TIME FOR THE NOTICES TO ARRIVE, WHATNOT. AND, YOU KNOW, GET CONFIRMATION OF ALL THAT STUFF. SO, TYPICALLY, IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO Y'ALL FOR, YOU KNOW, NOT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING BUT THE ONE AFTER POSSIBLY THE ONE AFTER THAT.

>> AND MY POINT IS, YOU CAN'T GIVE MORE THAN 90. AND YOU NEED TO BE SPECIFIC.

IF YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE STAFF REPORT. AND WE ALSO HAVE HAD WHERE YOU ORDERED 30 DAY FOR SOMETHING AND IT COME BACK. WE'VE HAD THAT ALSO.

>> AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE THE A MOTION FOR JUST THE FIRST BULLET AND MAKE IT 60 DAYS OWNER ORDERED TO REPAIR 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND I THINK THAT -- DO YOU HAVE ANY ISSUE

FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE. >> GIVING THEM 60 DAYS PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION AND FOR TIME

FRAME REPAIR. >> THE SYSTEM WILL FILL IN THE REST OF ITSELF NATURALLY.

>> HONESTLY, BECAUSE IF THEY DO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE 60 DAYS AND THEY GET THEIR PERMIT WITH

[01:35:03]

DAYS, THEN THAT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. >> I KIND OF HEAR -- WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT, GIVING HER THIS DAYS OF 60 DAYS, AND THEN PLAN OF ACTION, THAT PLAN OF ACTION MAY BE A DETERMINATION THAT THEY FIND OUT THAT WE'RE DOING CLEANUP AND MAKING THE DETERMINATION WITH THE CONTRACTORS RECOMMENDATION AND IT COULD BE THAT IT IS NOT RECOMMENDED TO PURSUE. SO THAT BEING SAID, WE'RE WANTING HER TO COME BACK IN 60 DAYS, AND LET US KNOW THEIR FINDINGS TO REPAIR OR IN THOSE 60 DAYS, THEY ARE GOING TO GO FOR IT. THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND GET THEIR PERMITS AND STILL COME BACK AND

TELL US THEIR FINDINGS. >> WELL, THEY GET THEIR PERMITS WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BRING THEM BACK BECAUSE THE PERMANENT RITHS WOULD BE ACTIVE AND THEREFORE STARTING THE REPAIRS.

>> AND IF SHE DETERMINES IT IS NOT FEASIBLE, SHE COULD ALWAYS DECIDE TO PULL A DEMOLITION PERMIT, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THAT 60 DAYS AND STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE AND NOT COME BACK. SO IF SHE DID, IF SHE DID EVERYTHING, AND UNDER THAT STEP ONE IF SHE COMPLETES IT ALL, AND YOU GIVE HER THAT STEP ONE FOR 60 DAYS, IF SHE MET THOSE GOALS, E IT WOULDN'T BE BACK. AND THEN STAFF -- IF PROBLEMS PERSISTED AFTER THAT, IF -- IT

COULD COME BACK AT SOME POINT IF WORK STOPS OR SOMETHING. >> OKAY.

THEN, THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT WE CAN JUST GIVE HER 60 DAYS TO GET THINGS IN ORDER, GET HER PLAN OF ACTION AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THE 30/60/90. SO THAT IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GIVE HER 60 DAYS TO GET THE PLAN OF ACTION AND MACHS HER

DECISION WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY. >> AND PERMIT REQUESTS AND

PERMITS. >> OKAY. >> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> MOTION BY MR. ALLRED, SECOND BY MR. WEBB THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO REPAIR AND GIVE HER 60 DAYS TO DEVELOP A PLAN OF ACTEDDION, PROVIDE IT, INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES AND OBTAIN HER PERMITS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND MS. BORREGO,

IS THAT OKAY? ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> MR. ALLRED, MR. WEBB,

MR. SCHRADER, MR. BEARD. MOTION PASSED. >> GOOD LUCK.

>> NEXT CASE? >> OAK E OKAY. ASK ASKED FOR A BRIEF RECESS.

>> WE'LL RECESS FOR PHENMUSTN'TS FOR A S >> IDENTIFIED IN THE EXTERIOR OF

[E. Case for Rehabiliation, Demolition, or Civil Penalties - Case# 22-001295: 741 MESQUITE ST. (17 147 LEWIS OT 1 ABL TIF#1, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: GREER, JAMES]

[01:40:34]

NUISANCE, DILAPIDATION, YOU HAVE COLLAPSED ROOF AND ROTTING AND DETERIORATION FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION AND MORE NUISANCEDY WITH LAPPATION, YOU CAN SEE IN THE FRONT AND THE VERY OLD SWAMP COOLER AND DISMANTLED FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION AND SHATTERED WINDOWS AND NO PROPER WEATHER PROTECTION AND SEVERAL AREAS OF THE EXTERIOR. INADEQUATE SANITATION THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS NO PROPER MAINTENANCE OF SANITATION AREAS ALONG WITH SOME FECAL MATTER FROM WHAT APPEARS TO BE MAYBE RATS OR RODENS AND ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THE KITCHEN AREA SEEMS TO BE DEBRIS FROM OLD COLLAPSED AND WET SHEETROCKING FROM THE SEEING MORE INADEQUATE SANITATION AREAS, MORE AREAS OF WHERE ANIMAL FECAL MATTER WAS FOUND. NUISANCE, DILAPIDATION IN THE INTERRIER AND SOME AREAS OF MORE LIGHTING COMING THROUGH. AS IS PLUMBING, AGAIN, NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED AREAS OR PIPES THAT ARE EXPOSED FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION AGAIN, SEVERAL AREAS IN THE INTERIOR THIS IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTY, AGAIN, TWO LARGE HOLES AND DILAPIDATION, YOU STILL HAVE THE SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE THAT LOOKS TO BE BOEING OUT, AND SOME SHATTERED WINDOW, LACK OF WEATHER PROTECTION. AND THE INTERIOR LOOKS THE SAME AS WELL, NO IMPROVEMENT AT ALL. TIMELINE OF EVENTS, FAST-FORWARD JULY 26, 2022 WHEN THIS WAS FIRST BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD AND ORDERED FOR 30/60 ON JULY 8, 2022 LETTERS WERE SENT, NO PLAN OF ACTION OR CONTACT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO IT WAS MEANT TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE OCTOBER OCTOBER 11TH, 2022 IS DO TO NO ACTION FROM THE PREVIOUS BOARD ORDER WE FIND THAT IT IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNRANNABLE, DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY

DEMOLISHED. >> NO COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER WITH MR. GREER.

>> NO, SIR, NOBODY HAS COME FORWARD ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THANK YOU, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 22-001 TO 95. AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 22-001295.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION. OR DISCUSSION I FIND THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE IN THAT IT IS A ALREADY TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE MOTION BY MR. SCHRADER.

>> SECOND THAT. >> SECOND BY MR. MCBRIAR THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC

[01:45:03]

STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> MR. BRAAEER, MR. WEBB.

MAKE AN ORDER THAT THE OWNER -- 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. SCHRADER.

>> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. MCBRAAEER, 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.

[F. Case for Rehabiliation, Demolition, or Civil Penalties - Case# 22-001297: 3534 GRAPE ST. (NORTH PARK ADDN, BLOCK 26, LOT S50 N100 E150 CANNON 2.3 AC TR, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: SEXTON, ROSEMARIE PERKINS]

>>. >> NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER 22-001297 LOCATED AT 3534 GRAPE STREET. CHECKLIST FOR RECORDS SEARCH SHOWS WARRANTY DEED NAMING ROSEMARY PERKINS SEXTON AS THE OWNER, FAYLOR COUNTY SHOWS ROSEMARY PERKINS SEXTON TO BE 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 TO BIN ACTIVE SINCE APRIL OF 2021. THE SEARCH REVEALS ROSEMARY PERKINS SEXTON TO BE THE OWNER. THIS IS A PUBLIC NOTICE HOSTED POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE BEFORE THE HEARING IS THE REAR WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE UPON INSPECTION THESE WERE THE SUBSTANDARD CODE VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED.

STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS WELCOME TRICKAL WIRING FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION AND

INADEQUATE EXITS. >> THIS IS A STRUCTURAL HAZARD VIOLATION THAT WAS IDENTIFIED ON THE EXTERIOR. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PORT IS COLLAPSED AND THERE IS A PORTION OF THE EXTERIOR THAT IS CAVED IN. THIS WAS A RESULT FROM THE VEHICLE THAT WAS DRIVEN INTO THE PROPERTY. INADEQUATE SANITATION THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE, SEE THE SANITATION AREA SUCH AS REST ROOM, KITCHEN SINKS ARE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED. ON THE RIGHT ROT AND DETERERATION USANCE CHAPTER 19 INTERIOR DILAPIDATION AND RIPPED SHEETROCK. MORE AREAS WHERE THERE IS RIPPED OFF THE SHEET SHEETROCK AND THE WALLS WAS ELECTRICAL WIRING THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. SEVERAL AREAS WHERE WIRES ARE EXPOSEED AND JUST HANGING LOOSE.

AND MORE STRUCTURAL HAZARD THIS IS THE INSIDE OF THE AREA WHERE THE PORTION OF THE HOME IS PUSHED IN FROM THE VEHICLE AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION AND MORE AREAS OF THE AREA FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION WHERE THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY SHATTERED OUT AND THIS HAS BEEN OCCURRED BY THE CITY MORE THAN ONCE AND IT CONTINUES TO BE BROKEN INTO.

AND TIMELINE OF EVENTS FOR THIS CASE, IT WAS INITIALLY WORKED UNDER THE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE PROGRAM STARTED IN OCTOBER 26 OF 2021 OCTOBER 29TH, THE CITY WAS INFORMED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HOME OWNER HAD PASSED AWAY, THE EXPRESSED CONCERN OF UNSANITARY CONDITIONS AND ELECTRICAL HAZARDS AS WELL AS VAI GRANTS OCCUPYING THE PROPERTY.

ALSO INFORMED BY AEP THAT THE POWER WAS ON ILLEGALLY AND THAT THE POWER GOING TO HAVE THE POWER SHUT OFF. ON JANUARY 19TH, 2022, A CITATION WAS ISSUED FOR NONCOMPLY ANSWER. ON JANUARY 1ST, 2022 WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT REGARDING HOMELESS PEOPLE LIVING IN THE HOME WITHOUT PERMISSION AND CLAIMING THE ELECTRICITY WAS AGAIN TURNED ON ILLEGALLY. APRIL 6, CODE OFFICER MET WITH THE PROPERTY, THE OCCUPANT

[01:50:09]

SHE WAS CLAIMING THAT SHE DIDN'T LIVE THERE AND SHE DID SLOW IDENTIFICATION WITH ANOTHER OF THE ADDRESS BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED OR ANY ATTEMPT TO REPAIR, SHE WAS INSTRUCTED TO ROVIDE PROOF OF BILL OF SALE TO CONFIRM THE OWNERSHIP AND A DEADLINE WAS GIVEN TO THIS OCCUPANT FOR MAY 13TH OF 2020 TO PROVIDE SAID PAPERWORK.

ON MAY 16LET, OF 2022, AS OF THAT DATE THERE WAS NO PAPERWORK PROVIDED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMING TO BE THE OWNER, SO IT WAS APPROVED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL TO BE WORKED UNDER THE CONDEMNATION PROGRAM. ON MAY 18TH, WE SPOKE TO THE SON OF THE DECEASED HOME OWNER AND HE SAID HE LIVED IN NEW YORK. HE WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT WHERE, WHY THE HOUSE WAS CONDEMNED AND WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. HE'S UNSURE IF THE EX-BOYFRIEND OF HISMORE WAS STILL STAYING AT THE PROPERTY. AND WE ASKED IF HE COULD FIND OUT, BECAUSE IF THAT WERE TRUE HE WOULD HOLD OFF ON SECURING THE HOUSE AND TURNING OFF THE ELECTRICITY. THIS INDIVIDUAL DID HAVE PERMISSION TO STAY THERE, THEN WE WERE GOING TO HOLD OFF ON TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION. AND THE ONLY PERSON ON THE DEED WAS THE DESEESED HOME OWNER AND HE UNDERSTANDS ABOUT THE ELECTRICAL BEING HAZARDOUS AND NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED RIGHT AWAY. HE WAS TRYING TO LOOK INTO JUST GETTING EVERYTHING SIGNED INTO HIS NAME AND WE GAVE HIM A DEADLINE OF JUNE 1ST, 20 TWOOVMENT ON JUNE 1ST, 2022, WE DID SENDS NOTICES TO THIS SON AND ALLOWED HIM TO -- AS A FINAL ATTEMPT TO GET TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF ACTION AND TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY.

JUNE 28LET, WE HAD NO ACTION AND RECEIVED NO FURTHER PROGRESS OF ANYTHING FROM THIS INDIVIDUAL, CLAIMING TO BE THE OWNER, I'M SORRY, CLAIMING TO BE THE SON OF THE DECEASED OWNER, THEREFORE THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED DUE TO NO ACTION OR BROCK MADE UNDER THEDY LAP INDICATED ON JUNE 29TH, THE PROPERTY WAS SECURE BY THE CITY DUE TO CONTINUOUS COMPLAINTS OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS NO CHANGE OF OWNERSHIPS OR ANY PERMITS ON RECORDS.

SO GIVEN THE TIMELINE THAT THIS HAS BEEN WORKED UNDER THE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE PROGRAM AND THE CONDEMNATION PROGRAM AND NO ACTION BEING TAKEN, QUESTION RECOMMEND TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE IN THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. WE FURTHER ORDERED THE OWNER TO

DEMOLISH OR APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISHES. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC CASE ON 22-001297. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORDS SOING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 22-001297 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> I RECOMMEND WE ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PROPERTY OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AND HAZARD TO PUBLIC SAFETY HEALTH, AND

WELFARE, REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE IS UNRANNABLE. >> MOTION BY MR. WEBB.

>> SECOND. >> THE PROPERTY IS DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IT IS A HAZARDOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE

UNREASONABLE. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> MR..

>> YES. >> MR. WEBB. >> YES.

>> MR. SCHRADER.

>> I FURTHER MOTION THAT THE OWNERS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER WITHIN DISTRICT

COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THAT THE CITY MAY DEMOL. >>> MOTION BY MR. WEBB.

>> SECOND OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS TORE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

[01:55:04]

>> NEXT CASE, PLEASE. >> FINAL CASE ON OUR AGENDA, CASE NUMBER 22-001592 LOCATED AT

[G. Case for Rehabiliation, Demolition, or Civil Penalties - Case# 22-001592: 790 CARVER ST. (STEVENSON PARK, BLOCK 3, LOT 2, TAYLOR COUNTY, TEXAS), Owner: PENNS, ERMA TURNERHILL]

UTILITY RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY SHOW TO INB INACTIVE SINCE JULY OF 2018 SEARCH REVEALS IRM MA TURNER HILL-PENNS TO WHERE THE OWNER 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 UPON INSPECTION NUISANCE.

HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION.

IDENTIFIED IN THE EXTERIOR, YOU CAN SEE THE SCREEN DOOR IN AREAS OF THE EXTERIOR STRUCTURE ARE IN DISREPAIR AS WELL AS WINDOW FRAMING AND SO THE WINDOWS SEEM TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE ACTUAL FRAME. HAZARDOUS PLUMBING ON THE EXTERIOR, YOU HAVE AN AREA OF WHERE THE SIDING IS RIPPED OFF COMPLETELY EXPOSING THE DRAINS AND PIPES OF THE STRUCTURE.

NUISANCE CHAPTER 19 INTERIOR DILAPIDATION, A LOT OF INCOMPLETE WORK THAT WAS DONE OR THAT IT LOOKED LIKE IT HAD BEEN STARTED AND NOT DONE, OR NOT COMPLETED, EXCUSE ME STRUCTURAL HAZARD, SEVERAL AREAS OF THE INTERIOR STRUCTURE WHERE THERE IS NO FLOORING.

HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, YOU HAVE SEVERAL AREAS WHERE WIRING IS EXPOSED AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION AND THIS CASE WAS WORKED ON DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE SHE WAS THE HEIR TRYING TO GET THE PROPERTY LISTED IN HER NAME. OWN MAY ANGLETH, 2022, THE DAUGHTER IN LAW WAS TOLD TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF ACTION WITH COST ESTIMATE OF REPAIR TO PULL A PERMIT TO REPAIR.

AS LAST ATTEMPT TO HAVE ACTION TAKEN FOR THE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE CASE DUE TO NO PROGRESS MADE. AFL WAS FILED AT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.

SEPTEMBER 6TH 2022, NOTICE OF CONTESTIMONY NATION SENT TO THE LAST KNOWN OWNER AND DAUGHTER IN LAW CLAIMING TO BE THE HEIR AS WELL. OCTOBER 11TH WE DID SEND NOTICE FOR TODAY'S HEARING SOE GIVEN THE FACT THERE HAS BEEN SOME INTERACTION WITH SOMEBODY TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO GET THE -- GET THE PROCESS GOING, WE RECOMMEND TO ORDER THE OWNER TO REPAIR 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMIT AND PROVIDE PLAN OF ACTION, INCLUDING A SOMETIME FRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES. AND IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGH AND INSPECTIONS AND IF THIS IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED

BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS. >> YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT INTO THE

TIMELINE OF OR EFFORT TO GET IT IN HER NAME? >> THE LAST WE HEARD WAS MAY 18TH, OF 2022 WHERE SHE WAS INFORMED TO MAKE SURE SHE TURNED IN THE PLAN OF ACTION AND REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN DONE ANYTHING FROM THERE, THAT WAS DILAPIDATED PROGRAM SO WE WERE HOPING UNDER THE CONDEMNATION PROGRAM WHICH DOES ENFORCE A MORE STRICT TIMELINE THAT WE CAN GET A LITTLE BIT MORE ACTION OUT OF HER BUT SHE HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH US, SO WE SEE A LITTLE BIT

MORE EFFORT. >> WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU TALKED WITH HER MAY 18TH,

2022. >> YES YES, SIR, AS FAR AS THE CONDITION OF ROOF, IS -- DO YOU

HAVE ANY PHOTO THAT MIGHT DEPICT THE ROOFING. >> NO, SIR AND TYPICALLY IF WE

[02:00:06]

DON'T INCLUDE IT IT IS PROBABLY BECAUSE IT WASN'T AN ISSUE. >> MAYBE THIS HOUSE IS PRETTY COME PACT AND AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS BEEN STRIPED AND READY TO KEEP GOING WITH SOMETHING THAT IS A WOOD SUBFLOOR SO ANYWAY, IT LOOKED LIKE IF THERE WILL BE SOME PERSON TO COME FORWARD AND CARE FOR IT THAT WOULD BE ONE THING STRUCTURE OF ONE OF THE PICTURES IN THE BACKYARD, RIGHT THERE. ANY IS THAT A LITTLE METAL BUILDING?

>> YES, SIR. >> THAT'S METAL. >> AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ACE NUMBER 22- 001592. 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 THE CASE 52- 001952 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR

DISCUSSION OR MOTION. >> BECAUSE OF SOME CONSIDERATION AND MAYBE THIS WOULD PUT MORE TEETH IN IT WE'LL GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION SOUNDS LIKE HE'S GOING GET THIS ONE A SHOT AND 30 DAYS TO PROVIDE PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIME FRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES 99 IF THIS IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO GET THE PERMITS FOR A ROUGHENED INSPECTIONS AND IF THAT IS DONE, FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY EXPIRATION OF ALL

PERMITS. >> MOTION BY MR. SCHRADER THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO REPAIR AND HAVE 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMANENT RITH AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION IF THAT IS DONE, 60 DAYS TO AND IF THIS IS DONE ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF

ALL BREMIT. >> SECT SECOND BY MR. BREYER, ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

IRAQ BOL CALL ] MOITIONZ MOST PASSED. >> THAT COMPLETES OUR AGENDA.

>> THAT WAS. >> THOUGHT WE HAD UNIQUE CASE TODAY THINK.

>> I THINK WE'RE FIGURING OUT WE'RE A TOOL IN THE TOOL BOX AND THAT'S OKAY.

>> WE'RE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.