Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:10]

>>> MR. WEBB? >> ABSTAIN.

>> MR. TURNER? >> YES.

>> MR. BEARD? >> YES.

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> IN ALL CASES EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE, BUILDINGS MUST BE SECURED AND THE LOT CLEAN AND MOWED BY THE OWNER WITHIN TEN DAYS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF THE RESULTS OF THIS HEARING.

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

IN ANY CASE IN WHICH THE BOARD ORDERS THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE BUT THE OWNER FAILS TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER, THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. ANY APPEAL MUST BE FILED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE AGGRIEVED PARTY RECEIVES NOTICE OF THIS BOARD'S DECISION.

AT THE HEARING YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED TO GIVE THE INFORMATION, SPECIFIC TIME FRAME NEEDED TO COMPLETE REPAIRS.

SPECIFIC SCOPE OF REPAIR WORK TO BE COMPLETED, AND THE COST ESTIMATES FOR THE WORK TO BE DONE BY LICENSED BONDED CONTRACTORS SUCH AS ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONS CONTRACTORS. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT YOU AT THE HEARING, THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE FILE ON THE PROPERTY, AT THE OFFICE OF AND PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND THE RIGHT TO REQUEST CITY STAFF. ALL THOSE WISHING TO TESTIFY TODAY SHALL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU SHALL GIVE TODAY IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'RE READY FOR OUR

[A. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 17-009: 633 S 11 St. (OT ABILENE BLK 208 ANDERSON 1-A, LOT 7-12), Owner: Abilene Preservation League * Public Hearing]

FIRST CASE, I BELIEVE IT'S CASE NUMBER 17-009.

IT WAS TABLED AT THE LAST MEETING.

DO I HEAR A MOTION TO TABLE IN THIS CASE?

>> I'M MAKE A MOTION WE TABLE IT.

>> SECOND. >> WE TABLE CASE 17-009.

ROLE CALL, PLEASE? >> DR. PARIS?

>> AYE. >> YES.

>> YES. >> MR. TURNER?

>> YES. >> MR. BEARD?

>> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING, THE OFFICER FOR THE COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENT OFFICER PROGRAM.

TODAY'S MEETING WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA.

THIS WAS THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS SENT OUT REGARDING TODAY'S MEETING AND THE PROPERTIES THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED.

AND THIS IS THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, 3A, YOU JUST UNTABLED. 17-009 LOCATED AT 633 SOUTH 11TH STREET. RECORD SEARCH SHOWS THE COUNTY RECORDS NAMING THE ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAGUE AS THE OWNER. SECRETARY OF STATE AT THIS TIME SHSHOWED WILLIAM D MENTOR JR. TO RECORDS SHOW THE ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAGUE TO BE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS PUBLISHED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING. THIS IS THE FRONT NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AND SAME ELECTRICAL ISSUES REMAIN. SAME CONDITIONS ON THE SIDES OF THE WALLS WITH EXCEPTION OF THE SUPPORT BEAMS THEY HAD PLACED UP ON THERE THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING.

SAME EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE WALL BULGING OUT. SAME CRACKS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. SOUTH SIDE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE. EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

AS STATED THEY DID COVER AND PATCH UP SOME OF THE CRACKS IN SOME OF THE AREAS. STILL LARGE CRACKS AND PIECES OF THE WALL MISSING. THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE WALL BULGING OUT. THIS IS FROM ANOTHER ANGLE.

[00:05:03]

SO AUGUST 14TH WE DID MEET WITH MR. BLACK AND POLICE AND M.

THIS IS THE INTERIOR COURTYARD. THIS IS ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE INTERIOR. IT HAS BEEN CLEANED UP SOME SINCE THE 14TH. THE PHOTOS YOU SEE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT PHOTOS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE THREE ROOMS THIS IS THE WAY EACH ROOM LOOKS INSIDE THE STRUCTURE.

AND HERE'S FOUR DIFFERENT ROOMS. YOU CAN SEE THE INTERIOR FLOOR, ALL THE JOISTS ARE ROTTED OUT. PHOTOS OF FOUR MORE OTHER ROOMS, YOU SEE THE CONDITIONS ARE THE SAME, IF NOT WORSE.

INTERIOR CEILING HAS ISSUES THROUGHOUT JUST ABOUT EVERY ROOM. PHOTO OF FOUR MORE OTHER ROOMS. THESE ARE SOME ELECTRICAL ISSUES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED INSIDE SOME INTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES AS WELL.

DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE TIMELINE AND EVERYBODY'S FAMILIARITY WITH THIS CASE, I'M GOING TO JUST SKIP TO THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED SINCE THE LAST MEETING WHICH WAS AUGUST 5TH, 2020.

IT WAS ORDERED TO BE TABLED. THE TITLE WAS OFFICIALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAGUE.

ON AUGUST 21, THE PLAN OF ACTION WAS SUBMITTED BUT MS. PASCALFROM THE ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAGUE AND THE DOCUMENTS WERE GIVEN TO MR. LITTLEJOHN FOR HIS REVIEW. ON AUGUST 24TH, MR. LITTLEJOHN SAID HE APPROVED THE PLAN OF ACTION BUT NEEDED THE ENGINEERING SURVEY TO APPROVE MAINTAINING THAT NORTH FACADE IF THEY WANTED TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE.

THAT WAS THEIR INTENT THAT THEY HAD STATED TO US, THEY DIT WANT TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE BUT STILL KEEP THE NORTH FACADE TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORICAL VALUE. LET ME GET SOME CURRENT UPDATES.

AUGUST 25TH THEY DID SUBMIT AN APPLICATION REQUEST FOR THEIR PERMITS. AND ON AUGUST 27TH, THE ENGINEER STUDY WAS SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED BY OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL. ON AUGUST 31 PERMITS WERE APPROVED, IT'S JUST AWAITING PAYMENT FOR THE PERMITS NOW.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE ENGINEERING STUDY FOR YOU GUYS TO KIND OF REVIEW.

THIS IS THE FIRST PAGE. THIS IS THE SECOND PAGE.

I BELIEVE IT GIVES THE LAYOUT OF WHAT THEY CAN DO TO SHORE UP THE WALL AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN MAINTAIN THE STABILITY OF IT.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME STILL REMAINS THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIRING THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. PURSUANT THE CHAPTER 8, SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY

MAY DEMOLISH. >> COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE -- YEAH, THAT'S ONE. THAT'S ON THE STREET SIDE, THE

SOUTH 11TH? >> YES, SIR THAT'S --

>> THAT'S NOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE --

>> YES, THAT'S THE SECTION THAT'S ADJACENT TO SOUTH 11TH.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. MORRIS. I'M CONFUSED ABOUT SOMETHING.

MR. LITTLEJOHN APPROVED THE ENGINEERING STUDY THAT YOU'RE DISPLAYING FOR US NOW OF SECURING THE WALL, DESTROYING EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS STILL TO DEMOLISH. I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT THOSE TWO ISSUES, WHAT THAT MEANS.

>> IT'S BASICALLY STATING TO DEMOLISH -- BASICALLY APPROVE THE DEMOLITION PERMITS THAT THEY'RE PULLING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RET RETAINING THE H FACADE.

A STUDY WAS APPROVED BY MR. LITTLEJOHN, CORRECT? I GUESS YOU HAVE TO CLARIFY THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE BUT MAINTAIN THE NORTH FACADE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

[00:10:03]

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. MORRIS? THANK YOU, MR. MORRIS. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 17-009. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR

THE RECORD. >> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL -- COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JOSH BLACK, I LIVE AT 97 GLENN ABBEY HERE IN ABILENE, TEXAS.

AND, WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, THIS HAS BEEN A VERY LONG THREE-YEAR ODYSSEY. IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN A LOT LONGER THAN THAT BECAUSE IT WAS HELD UP IN OTHER COMMITTEES.

HERE WE ARE TODAY. SO IF YOU DIDN'T READ THE FULL PLAN OF ACTION, STUDIES WERE DONE ON THE FLOOR JOISTS.

WE HAD BIDS IN TO SAVE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

THE COST FOR THAT AND THE INHERENT RISK OF THE ASBESTOS STILL BEING IN THE BUILDING WASN'T WORTH THE COST.

THE ENGINEERS RECOMMEND THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO SAVE THE STUCCO PARTS OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE IN VAIN.

WE MOVE FORWARD UNDER YOUR PLAN OF ACTION WHICH WE SAID IT MIGHT COME TO THAT AND THAT'S SAVE THE FRONT FACADE OF THAT, REPOINT ALL THE MORTAR, RESTORE EVERY PART OF THE FRONT PART OF THE BUILDING. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING HERE FOR TODAY. SO YOU HAVE ENGINEERING STUDIES, WE HAD BID PROPOSALS. WE HAVE EVERYTHING IN YOUR PACKET TO KNOW WHAT YOU NEED TO DO FORWARD ON THAT.

WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS REMOVING THE ENTIRE REAR SECTION OF THE BUILDING. DISPOSING OF ALL THE ASBESTOS, WHICH IS IN ALMOST EVERY PART OF THE BUILDING, NOT JUST AB ASBESS BUT ANYWHERE THERE'S ADHESIVE, A BONDING AGENT ANYWHERE THROUGHOUT. IT'S BETTER THIS WAY.

I WOULD RATHER WE COULD TAKE IT TO FULL RESTORATION, PRESERVATION BUT WE'VE TALKED TO THE STATE AND THEY DID IN FACT APPROVE THE TWO SIDES THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT.

IT KEEPS ITS NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS AS LONG AS THE FACADE IS UP. MOST IMPORTANTLY NOW WE CAN MOVE INTO A REINSTRUCTION PHASE. THAT'S NOT PART OF WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THAT AREA. WE ALREADY KNOW THE HISTORY OF IT AND WHAT THIS DOES FOR THE AREA.

WE KNOW FROM EVERY TIME THAT WE'VE DONE SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE WE'VE TAKEN THIS RISK, BE IT ROSE TIME, THE PARAMOUNT, BUILDINGS WHERE WE SAID WE DON'T NEED TO SAVE THIS, WE NEED A PARKING LOT, IT'S NOT WORTH SAVING, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE OF BENEFIT. WE KNOW THE BENEFIT OF IT.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR GIVING US THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I'D LIKE YOU TO NOT THINK OF IT AS A DEMOLITION BECAUSE IT'S NOT, IT'S A REMOVAL OF THE HAZARDOUS SECTIONS OF THE BUILDING.

YOU CAN MOVE HOWEVER YOU WISH IN THE NEXT 30, 60, HOWEVER MANY DAYS. THE TIMELINE IS ESTABLISHED.

PERMITS ARE BEING PULLED, SIMPLY NEED TO BE PAID FOR.

THE NOTICE TO THE STATE FOR ASBESTOS REMOVAL BEGINS ON THE 7TH AND IT CARRIES TO THE 7TH OF OCTOBER.

THAT'S THE TIME FRAME THIS HAS TO BE REMOVED.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE OF THE SECTIONS, THEN A FENCE IS PUT UP TO SECURE THE AREA AND WE ELIMINATE THE HAZARD. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE I CAN SAY REALLY ON THAT SUBJECT. 30 DAYS AND THE PARTS OF THE BUILDING THAT ARE A HAZARD, THE PARTS THAT WORRIED THE COMMITTEE, THAT WORRY THIS COMMITTEE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT WILL BE REMOVED. YOU SAW THE PICTURES UP THERE, THE DOTTED LINES ARE SECURE MEASURES ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE WALL. YOU CAN SEE THE FLUSH PARTS ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THAT WALL. THERE'S NOT MUCH MORE I CAN DISCUSS ABOUT THAT. DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR

ME? >> WHAT'S YOUR TIME FRAME? YOU'RE GOING TO SECURE THE WALL FIRST I PRESUME?

>> SO ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO THEY STARTED DRILLING TEST HOLES TO SEE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE HITTING SOLID CONCRETE.

IF THERE'S MORE FOUNDATION IN THE FRONT THAN WE THOUGHT.

WE KNOW NOW IT'S GOOD, SOFT EARTH.

THEY KNOW THE DEPTHS THEY HAVE TO GO NOW TO SECURE THOSE -- THAT SQUARE TUBING AND THEN THEY PUT THE C CHANNEL AND THAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN THE NEXT 10 TO 15 DAYS.

IMMEDIATELY TH THEREAFTER THEY BEGIN THAT WORK.

THE PLAN IS OVER FOUR DAYS TO BEGIN AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE

[00:15:01]

WALL WHERE WE HAVE SECURE FENCING AND START REMOVING THAT.

AS YOU SAW IN THE PICTURES WE'VE HARVESTED MUCH OF THE MATERIALS WE NEED FOR ANY KIND OF RESTORATION OR RECONSTRUCTION EFFORT. IT'S BEING STORED IN DRY STORAGE DOWNTOWN. SO WE'RE ALREADY CLEAR OF THAT.

WE CAN'T GO IN AND DO ANY MORE OF THAN BECAUSE WE CAN'T ENTER THAT SPACE. ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAINED IN THAT KIND OF REMOVAL CAN GO INSIDE TO REMOVE ANY MORE MATERIALS. WITHIN TWO WEEKS YOU SHOULD SEE ALL OF THAT STRUCTURE GO UP ON INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER THEY BEGIN THE REMOVAL FROM THE SOUTH SIDE AND THEN THEY GO STRAIGHT INTO THE EAST AND WEST WALLS. WE DID TALK AT ONE TIME THAT WE HAD TO SECURE THE AREAS OF A LARGE PERIMETER FENCE.

BUT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAVE THOSE WALLS, IT'S JUST GOING TO LOOK LIKE A TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION FENCE.

CHAIN LINK, A BIG POST, AND THEY JUST KEEP THAT AROUND THE AREA DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. AS SOON AS THAT IS ALL CLEARED OUT THEN A WOODEN FENCE GOES RIGHT ALONG THE SAME PROPERTY LINE THAT WOULD BE WHERE THE STUCCO WALLS ARE.

SO THAT WAS A LONG ANSWER, I APOLOGIZE.

>> HOW IS YOUR FUND RAISING GOING FOR THE ADDITIONAL MONEY

REQUIRED TO -- >> WE HAVE ALL THE MONEY SECURED WE NEED FOR THE INITIAL PHASE, WHICH IS THE STRUCTURE AND THE INITIAL TEAR DOWN AND REMOVAL OF THAT.

WE'LL NEED ABOUT AN ADDITIONAL $8,000 FOR ALL OF THE REPOINTING AND ALL THE FIXING OF THE BRICK, SHIFTING, AND THAT ALL WORKS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT STRUCTURE THAT WENT UP.

THEY'RE GOING TO USE THAT TO TIE TOGETHER A LOT OF THAT BRICKWORK. LIKE WE SAID BEFORE IT'S 95% -- IT'S VERY SALVAGEABLE. IT'S NOT MUCH WORK, IT'S MORE FOR BEAUTIFICATION AND COMPLETION OF THAT.

>> GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS, MR. BLACK?

>> YOU TOUCHED ON THIS ABOUT PRESERVING THE FACADE, BUT WHAT IS THE PLAN AFTER YOU GET ALL THE DEMOLITION DONE AND YOU STABILIZE THE FACADE OR VICE VERSA? ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD SOME NEW STRUCTURES TO THAT FACADE OR IS IT GOING TO BE FREE STANDING? WHAT DO YOU VISION HAPPENING

THERE? >> YES, SIR.

THE IDEA IS THAT WHAT THEY PUT UP THERE CAN SURVIVE THAT, MUCH LIKE YOU'D SEE IN LARGER TOWNS WHERE BUILDINGS ARE STACKED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER AND IT'S REQUIRED IN THOSE CITIES TO SAVE THE FACADE. THAT CAN STAY THERE IN DEFINITELY. BUT THE PLAN, YES, WE ALREADY HAVE PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS FROM WEATHERALL AND CONSULTANTS.

HE'S A NOTED HISTORIC ARCHITECT. SO WE ALREADY HAVE PLANS FOR THAT. THERE'S A TERM THAT THE STATES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW USED, THE PROREVIEWER, HE CALLED IT A WHIE BOX IN WHICH YOU MAKE A RE-CREATION THAT ALLOWS FOR THE INCORPORATION OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS FROM THE ORIGINAL BUILDING, MAKE A BUILDING VERY SIMILAR BUT YOU HAVE TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A RE-CREATION. THEN EITHER YOURSELF OR WHOEVER YOU'RE GOING TO PASS THIS ON TO, AND THAT'S BEEN THE APL'S TRADITION, TO FIND BETTER TENANTS OR A NEW ORGANIZATION THAT WANTS TO KEEP THIS BUILDING UP IN THE SAME MANNER, THEN THEY CAN ADD ALL THE ARCHITECTURAL FLOURISHES, INTERIOR WALLS, BUILD IT TO SUIT BUT MEANWHILE YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT MIMICS THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IN SIZE, SHAPE AND FORM.

>> SORRY, I GIVE LONG ANSWERS, I APOLOGIZE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. BLACK? THANK YOU, MR. BLACK. APPRECIATE 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 17-009. AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR

DISCUSSION OR A MOTION. >> COLOR ME IGNORANT, CAN YOU APPROVE THE PLAN THAT'S WITHIN YOUR RECOMMENDATION, WHY --

>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?

>> IF YOU ALREADY APPROVED THE PLAN, THE TIMELINE, WHICH SEEMS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHY ARE WE TELLING HIM TO DO WHAT HE SAID HE'S GOING TO DO AND YOU ALREADY APPROVED IT? I MEAN, MAYBE I'M MISSING THE POINT. I APOLOGIZE.

>> I MEAN, DUE TO THE FACT IT WAS TABLED, WE HAD TO BRING IT BACK AND WE HAD TO REPRESENT IT. I MEAN, BECAUSE IT'S BROUGHT TO YOU WE NEED AN ORDER FROM YOU GUYS STATING THAT BASICALLY YOU APPROVE OUR RECOMMENDATION AND ALSO JUST -- IT CAN BE SPECIFIC TO WHERE IT STATES THAT WE -- YOU APPROVE THE DEMOLITION WITH

[00:20:05]

THE EXCEPTION OF RET RETAINING T NORTH FACADE.

>> OKAY. IF YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED THE PLAN, WHY DO WE HAVE TO APPROVE THAT YOU APPROVE --

>> I THINK THE CONFUSION CAME IN WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO SAVE THE STRUCTURE DURING THESE LAST FEW HEARINGS WE'VE HAD.

WHEN IT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY COULDN'T SAVE THE STRUCTURES THEY WERE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH DEMOLITION. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH A NO BRAINER TO APPROVE STAFF WISE WITH THE PERMIT BECAUSE IT MAKES THE PROPERTY SAFE AGAIN. THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS THE HISTORIC PROPERTY AND THEY'RE WANTING TO SAVE THE FRONT FACADE.

THAT'S WHERE THE ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS COME IN.

SO THAT THEY COULD LEAVE THAT FRONT FACADE.

BUT ALL THIS HAPPENED AFTER THE CASE HAS ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT TO THE BOARD, PLUS IT'S BEEN TABLED.

SO WE'RE REQUIRED TO BRING IT BACK.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I THINK THE UNUSUAL ORDER AND I THINK CHASE CAN PROBABLY HELP ME OUT HERE.

WHAT IS REQUIRED FROM THE BOARD AT THIS POINT IF WE'VE -- SINCE IT IS A CASE BROUGHT TO YOU ON THE TABLE, IS THERE A REQUIREMNT FROM THE BOARD TO ORDER?

>> THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, THERE'S A NUMBER OF OPTIONS THE BOARD HAS. FIRST IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THERE REALLY IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE BOARD, OBVIOUSLY, TO ORDER A DEMOLITION.

I WANT TO STRESS THAT. THE BOARD COULD ALSO DO A TYPICAL 30/60 ORDER WHICH YOU'RE USED TO AND YOU COULD INCORPORATE THE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED TO YOU TODAY ABOUT WHAT THE OWNER PLANS TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY.

OR THE BOARD, IF THE BOARD JUST, YOU KNOW, IF A VOTE WERE TO FAIL ON THE PROPERTY OR, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD COULD DO NOTHING AND THE CASE NEVER COMES BACK AND IT GOES TO THE CITY STAFF THAT'S ALREADY APPROVED. THE ADVANTAGE OF SOME SORT OF ORDER FROM THE BOARD IS THAT IT PROVIDES ANOTHER ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM AS ALWAYS TO -- FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO -- IF A PROPERTY OWNER HYPOTHETICALLY FAILS TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, THE CITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE CODES AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE. THAT'S ADVA ADVANTAGEOUS TO HAVT ORDER IN PLACE. I WOULD ADVISE THE BOARD IS NOT OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW, OF COURSE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

IF THE BOARD DOES ORDER ANY FORM OF DEMOLITION, I WOULD REMIND THE BOARD THE BOARD DOES HAVE TO FIND THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD FOR THE PUBLIC SEAFSAFETY AND WELFARE FIRST. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR MOTION? I THINK THIS CASE IS A POSTER CHILD FOR BEING A PUBLIC NUISANCE. WEAVE SWE'VE SEEN THIS FOR MANYS NOW. I THINK FINDING THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE FACADE, I THINK A FINDING OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION HERE IS APPROPRIATE.

BUT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. WITH THE BOARD'S PLEASURE HERE.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PROPERTY, EXCEPT FOR THE FACADE, IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THAT IS THE HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE

UNREASONABLE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY DR. PARIS, SECOND BY MR. MCCALLUM THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE IN THAT IT'S A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND THE REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. AND THAT PORTION IS THAT THE FACADE BE LEFT INTACT AND SUPPORTED BASED ON THE ENGINEERING THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED, IS THAT OKAY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YES.

[00:25:01]

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

>> DR. PARIS. >> AYE.

>> MR. ALLRED? >> YES.

>> MR. MCCALLUM. >> YES.

>> MR. WEBB? >> YES.

>> MR. TURNER. >> YES.

>> MR. SCHRADER. >> MR. BEARD.

>> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES.

>> BEFORE I MAKE THE SECOND MOTION I WOULD LIKE TO CONCUR, MR. CHAIRMAN THAT I AGREE GIVEN THE LONG HISTORY AND THE PROBLEM THAT THIS HAS BEEN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE NEIGHBORS FOR OVER 20 YEARS AND THE LACK OF FOLLOW UP FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER FOR SIX YEARS WHO DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA OR OF THIS CITY THAT WE NEED THE ORDERS, I TOTALLY AGREE.

SO MY NEXT MOTION IS THAT THE ORDER -- THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH ALL OF THE STRUCTURE EXCEPT FOR THE FACADE IN AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP THAT OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

>> MOTION BY DR. PARIS. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> SECOND BY MR. MCCALLUM. THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT THE FACADE.

OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

>> DR. PARIS. >> AYE.

>> MR. ALLRED? >> YES.

>> MR. MCCALLUM. >> YES.

>> MR. WEBB. >> YES.

>> MR. TURNER. >> YES.

>> MR. SCHRADER. >> YES.

>> MR. BEARD. >> YES.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION BASED ON WHAT MRO REQUIRE THE 30/60 PLAN FROM THE OWNER THAT ALL THIS TAKES PLACE AND THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH SECURING THAT FRONT WALL.

>> SECURING THE FRONT -- OKAY. MOTION BY MR. MCCALLUM THAT WE REQUIRE A 30 DAYS FOR A PLAN OF ACTION.

>> THERE IS AN APPROVED PLAN OF ACTION BASED ON THE ENGINEERING STUDY, BASED ON WHAT MR. CRAIG SAID WE NEED TO FOLLOW UP AS A BOARD TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE PURSUING THEIR 30/60 PLAN OF

ACTION. >> OKAY.

MOTION BY MR. MCCALLUM THAT WE APPLY A 30/60 DAY CLAUSE TO THIS CASE TO ENSURE A FOLLOW UP ON A PLAN FROM THE DEMOLITION IS THAT

CORRECT? >> COULD I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE WE PUT THAT UP FOR A SECONDING? COULD I ASK A QUESTION OF CHASE? CHASE, DOES THE ORDER AS THE PREVIOUS DECISION WE MADE THAT THEY ARE ORDERS TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS, DOES THAT MEAN THEY HAVE TO DO THAT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THEY'RE BASICALLY NOT FOLLOWING OUR GUIDELINES? WHAT FOLLOW UP DO WE NEED TO CONFIRM THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY DONE, GIVEN THE LONG HISTORY OF INDIFFERENCE AND LACK OF FOLLOW

UP? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

THE ORDER THAT WAS JUST ENTERED GIVES THE PROPERTY OWNER 30 DAYS TO DEMOLISH THAT PORTION OF THE BUILDING, NOT INCLUDING THE FACADE OR APPEAL. IF THAT'S -- IF NEITHER ONE OF THOSE IS DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS, THEN THAT ORDER IS VIOLATED, THE ORDER YOU JUST MADE IS VIOLATED. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT JUST HAPPENED. IF YOU WANT MORE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS FOR THEM TO COMPLY WITH THEIR PLAN OF ACTION, THEN YOU WOULD NEED A FURTHER ORDER. THAT ORDER COULD BE SOMETHING ALONG THE STANDARD, 30/60 OR COULD BE AN OWNER THAT THE OWNER COMPLY WITH THE PRESENTED PLAN OF ACTION AND MR. LITTLEJOHN COULD FILL US IN ON EXACTLY WHAT THAT PLAN OF ACTION MEANS.

BUT YOU COULD ALSO HAVE A STANDARD 30/60 ORDER FOR THE REPAIR OF THE EXISTING FACADE. BECAUSE THAT'S STILL AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY, IT COULD BE -- THE BOARD COULD TREAT THAT JUST AS ANY OTHER PROPERTY THAT YOU'VE SEEN WITH

[00:30:01]

YOUR STANDARD 30/60 ORDER. THAT'S ONE POSSIBILITY.

BUT THE CITY WOULD HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IF THAT 30 DAYS GO BY AND NO DEMOLITION IS -- INITIAL DEMOLITION OF THAT PORTION IS NOT COMPLETED. THEN THE CITY COULD PROCEED TO

ENFORCE THE ORDER YOU JUST MADE. >> DOES THAT COME BACK TO US IF THEY DO NOT COMPLY, DOES THAT COME BACK TO US?

>> IF THERE'S NO COMPLIANCE, IT COULD COME BACK TO YOU.

BUT THE CITY HAS OTHER MECHANISMS OF LITIGATION TO ENFORCE THE BOARD ORDER OR MUNICIPAL COURT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING CITATIONS THAT CAN ALSO BE USED.

>> CAN YOU UNDERSTAND MY SKEPTICISM BECAUSE NO ACTION HAS

BEEN TAKEN FOR OVER 20 YEARS? >> I CAN'T COMMENT AS AN ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I JUST ADVISE THE BOARD, I HAVE TO

REMAIN NEUTRAL. >> I KNOW THAT'S MY COMMENT I MADE. IN MR. MCCALLUM'S MOTION, THAT'S A NECESSITY IF WE WANT TO SEE THIS WORK AGAIN AND TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THEIR PLAN OF ACTION AND THIS DOESN'T GET SET ASIDE FOR ANOTHER FIVE OR SIX YEARS AND NOTHING ACCOMPLISHED. AND IT CONTINUES TO BE AN EYESORE AND A PUBLIC HAZARD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR ME?

>> NO. THAT'S IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WILL SECOND

MR. MCCALLUM'S -- >> SECOND BY DR. PARIS, IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

>> DR. PARIS. >> AYE.

>> MR. ALLRED. >> YES.

>> MR. MCCALLUM. >> YES.

>> MR. WEBB. >> YES.

>> MR. TURNER. >> YES.

>> MR. SCHRADER. >> YES.

>> MR. BEARD. >> YES.

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU.

GOOD LUCK, MR. BLACK. THANK YOU.

NEXT CASE, PLEASE. >> NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 3B, CASE

[B. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 19-005564:1399 Oak St. (OT ABILENE BLK 208 .JOHN TOUHY 3-4 H, LOT W85' LT 10), Owner: Smoluch, Joi) ■ Public Hearing]

NUMBER 19-005564. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1399 OAK STREET. RECORDS SHOWS COUNTY RECORDS GENERAL WARRANTY DEED NAME IN JOHN SMALLOCK TO BE THE OWNER.

TAX RECORDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS SHOW INACTIVE SINCE DECEMBER 5, 2018. THIS IS THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING.

THIS IS THE FRONT WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. REAR EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

SOME EXTERIOR STRUCTURE ISSUES ON THE PROPERTY.

SOME EXTERIOR PLUMBING ISSUES AS WELL.

SOME EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES. THE METER BOX IS RIPPED OFF AND YOU HAVE COPPER WIRING COMING OUT OF THE GROUND.

THIS IS AN INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

A LITTLE BIT OF FLOOR BOARD MISSING AND THE SHEETROCK IS ALL PULLED OUT. YOU CAN SEE DAYLIGHT THROUGH HOLES IN THE WALL. TIMELINE OF EVENTS SHOW ON DECEMBER 23RD, THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED AND THE INITIAL NOTICE WAS SENT AND IT WAS FILED ON THE 26TH AT THE COUNTY CLERK. AND HAD A PHONE CALL WITH THE OWNER ON JANUARY 29TH, AND HE REQUESTED AN EXTENSION.

HE WAS WANTING TO GET ALL OF HIS CONTRACTORS IN LINE AND HE WAS REQUESTING IF HE COULD FIX THE PLUMBING HIMSELF, WHICH WE INFORMED HIM HE NEEDED TO GET A LICENSED CONTRACTOR TO DO THAT.

FEBRUARY 12TH, 2020, HE HAD SUBMITTED HIS PLAN OF ACTION AND IT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE SUPERVISOR.

HE WAS REFERRED TO THE PERMIT TO COMPLETE THE PROCESS.

WE SHOWED THE PERMITS WAS NEVER PULLED.

HE STATED HE WOULD COME IN AND PULL PERMITS.

ON JULY 28TH, A PERMIT WAS PULLED FOR AMP SERVICE UPGRADE.

AUGUST 19TH, MECHANICAL BUILDING PERMIT WAS PULLED.

AT THIS TIME, THEY HAVE -- THERE ARE NO INSPECTIONS ON RECORD THAT HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED OR PASSED OR ANYTHING.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE.

[00:35:03]

PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST.

STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

>> WILL YOU GO BACK ONE SCREEN, PLEASE.

EVEN THOUGH THERE'S ACTIVE PERMITS, IS THIS NOT FALLING

UNDER THE 30/60? >> THE REASON IT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD, NOTICE WAS SENT BACK ON DECEMBER 23RD, 2019. WE STILL HAVEN'T HAD ANY KIND OF INSPECTIONS OR ANYTHING SCHEDULED OR CONDUCTED.

THE PLAN OF ACTION WAS SUBMITTED, PERMITS WEREN'T PULLED UNTIL JULY. AND I'M NOT SURE WHY THERE WASN'T A FULL ACTIVE BUILDING BG PERMIT PULLED AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE INDIVIDUAL PERMITS. THIS IS WHY I WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD. THE FACT THAT SINCE DECEMBER THE CONDITIONS REMAINED THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE

PERMITS BEING PULLED. >> THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. MORRIS? THANK YOU, MR. MOROS.

MORRIS.AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN E PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 19-005564. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR

THE RECORD. >> I'M JOHN SMALLOCK.

I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY LAST YEAR AND I'VE DONE QUITE A BIT OF WORK ALREADY TO IT. THE CLEAN UP WAS A NIGHTMARE.

LITERALLY GARBAGE WAIST HIGH THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE HOUSE.

THE EXTERIOR STRUCTURE, SOME KIND OF STORAGE BUILDING THAT GOT REMOVED. ALL THE GROUNDS IN THE WHOLE PLACE WAS A TRASH MESS. AND THEN LIFE HAPPENS.

I'VE GOT TO COLLECT MONEY TO START PAYING THESE OTHER CONTRACTORS. I'M A LICENSED CONTRACTOR HERE AS WELL IN THE CITY OF ABILENE. SO I'M ON A PROJECT RIGHT NOW THAT WILL TAKE ME ANOTHER TWO WEEKS AND I'LL BE DONE AND THEN I CAN START ON THIS PROJECT TO GET IT ALL DONE.

THE REASON WHY THERE WASN'T A WHOLE BUILDING PERMIT PULLED BECAUSE ACCORDING TO CANDY DOWN THERE FOR THE WORK I'M DOING IT'S ALL SUPERFICIAL, IT'S SIDING AND SHEETROCK AND NOTHING THAT IS STRUCTURALLY CHANGING THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSE.

THE ROOF IS IN GOOD REPAIR, I BELIEVE IT'S LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OLD. AND THE ONE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHERE ALL THE ELECTRICAL IS EXPOSED IS BECAUSE GOODWIN ELECTRIC CAME OUT THERE AND RIPPED OFF ALL THE ELECTRICAL ISSUES SO I CAN START ON THE SIDING BECAUSE I CAN'T TOUCH THAT WITHOUT THEM DOING THEIR JOB FIRST.

AND THEN ANOTHER TWO WEEKS AND I CAN GET STARTED ON IT.

IT'S 700 SQUARE FEET SO IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE ME A LONG TIME.

IT WILL TAKE ME A COUPLE MONTHS BUT THEN I'LL BE DONE.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO THAT'S YOUR TIMEFRAME, 60 DAYS?

>> CORRECT. >> DO YOU EXPECT TO HAVE THIS

DONE? >> YES, YES, SIR.

>> DO YOU HAVE PERMITS YET? >> AGAIN, THE BUILDING, I DON'T HAVE BUILDING PERMITS BECAUSE IT'S SUPERFICIAL THAT I'M DOING.

IT'S SIDING AND SHEETROCK REPAIR.

>> ELECTRIC -- I'LL REPHRASE IT. DO YOU HAVE ELECTRICAL AND

PLUMBING PERMITS YET? >> GOODWIN ELECTRIC IS DOING THE ELECTRIC. QUALITY IS THE HVAC.

AND THE PLUMBING DOCTOR, HE HAD A STROKE, CANCER AND SOME OTHER EVENTS UP SO HE'S NOT ABLE TO DO IT SO I'LL HAVE TO GET ANOTHER

PLUMMER CONTRACTOR ON IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU'RE BASICALLY ASKING FOR 60 DAYS?

>> YES. >> TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT? THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO

[00:40:05]

THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND ST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 19-005564.

>> SHOULD I SIT DOWN THEN? >> SURE, SORRY.

OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. IS OR A MOTION.

>> COULD I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? OKAY, HE MENTIONED SHEETROCK.

>> YES, SIR. >> CAN YOU DO AN ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING INSPECTION IF ALL OF THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED

UP? >> NO, SIR THAT'S WHERE YOUR INSPECTIONS COMES IN. ALL THAT STUFF HAS TO BE DONE BEHIND THE WALLS BEFORE ANY NEW WALLS CAN BE PUT UP.

>> SO IF WE APPROVED HIS 60 DAYS, AND THAT WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED UP, THEN THAT MEANS THAT HE'LL HAVE TO TEAR ALL THE SHEETROCK OUT TO HAVE THE ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS DONE, CORRECT?

>> IT'S A POSSIBILITY, BUT NOT NECESSARILY.

HE COULD ALWAYS -- MR. LITTLEJOHN, IF I'M INCORRECT ON THIS -- HE CAN SET UP A CONSULTATION WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTORS AND THEY CAN GO AND INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND LET HIM KNOW WHERE HE IS UP TO CODE SO FAR AND WHAT ADDITIONAL WORK

NEEDS TO BE DONE. >> I PRESUME THERE'S NOT BEEN A

PLAN OF ACTION SUBMITTED? >> YES, HE DID SUBMIT A PLAN OF

ACTION BACK IN FEBRUARY. >> OKAY.

>> PERMITS WERE NEVER PULLED. SO UP UNTIL HE PULLED THE

UPGRADE FOR AMP SERVICE ENJULY. >> HE SUBMITTED THE PLAN BUT

DOESN'T EXECUTE THE PLAN? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

THE PLAN WAS APRE APPRO APPROVEO AHEAD AND COMPLETE THE PROCESS.

I BELIEVE HE HAD A PHONE CALL AND HAD TO WALK OUT THAT DAY.

>> SO TO PROTECT HIM -- I DON'T KNOW ANY WAY OF SAYING THIS -- TO PROTECT HIMSELF BECAUSE HE'S NOT FOLLOWED THE PLAN HE SET UP, ANY REQUIREMENT WOULD NEED TO INCLUDE HIM CONSULTING WITH THE CITY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT HE HAS DONE OR COVERED UP TO DATE IS UP TO CODE? THAT COULD BE DONE IN LIEU OF A

TYPICAL ROUGH IN INSPECTION. >> YES, I MEAN ANYTIME YOU SCHEDULE A CONSULTATION OR YOU JUST SHARE YOUR INSPECTIONS ARE DONE CORRECTLY, THAT PROTECTS YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER.

ONCE YOUR INSPECTIONS -- YOUR INITIAL ROUGH IN SPECTIONS A IE

COMPLETED THAT -- >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYW >> ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTION?

>> GIVEN THE GENTLEMAN HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PLAN OF ACTION WE GIVE HIM, THE 60 DAYS HE REQUESTED BUT BEFORE HE DO ANY WORK THAT HE CONSULT WITH CITY R ALL THAT STUFF OUT.

SO TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS UP TO CODE THAT HE HAS DONE BUT TO GIVE HIM THE 60 DAYS. THAT'S WAY TOO MANY WORDS, MR.

CHAIRMAN, I APOLOGIZE. >> WE GRANT 60 DAYS TO COMPLETE

THE PROJECT? >> BUT THE OWNER BE REQUIRED TO MEET WITH CITY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WORK HE HAS DONE TO DATE DOES MEET ALL THE STANDARDS FOR ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IF THAT HAS BEEN COVERED UP.

BE SHEETROCK WORK. >> IS THAT OKAY? OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. TURNER.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> DR. PARIS.

>> A YE. >> MR. MCCALLUM.

>> YES. >> MR. WEBB.

>> YES. >> MR. TURNER.

>> YES. >> MR. SCHRADER.

>> YES. >> MR. BEARD.

>> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES.

>> THANK YOU, SIR, GOOD LUCK TO YOU.

NEXT CASE, PLEASE.

>> IT'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE I'M NOT PUTTING NEW SHEETROCK

UP, I'M PATCHING -- >> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT'S -- I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND FROM THE WAY YOU STATED THAT.

SO THANK YOU. >> MY APOLOGIES.

>> NO PROBLEM, THANK YOU SIR. >> THANK YOU.

[00:45:05]

>> NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 3C, CASE NUMBER 20-000643.

[C. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 20-000643: 1310 Locust St. (OT ABILENE BLK 208 JOHN J TOOMS/RINEY-HAYS, LOT 7 & Nl/2 OF LT 8,2-B), Owner: Maldonado Brothers Holding Group LLC • Public Hearing]

PROPERTY -- >> EXCUSE ME, THIS CASE WAS ALSO

TABLED? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I NEED A MOTION TO UNTABLE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO UNTABLE

IT. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY MR. MCCALLUM, SECOND BY MR. ALLRED THAT CASE

20-00064000643. >> DR. B PARIS.

>> AYE. >> MR. ALLRED.

>> YES. >> MR. MCCALLUM.

>> YES. >> MR. WEBB.

>> YES. >> MR. TURNER.

>> YES. >> MR. SCHRADER.

>> YES. >> MR. BEARD.

>> MOTYES. >> MOTION CARRIES.

>> I APOLOGIZE. CASE NUMBER 20-000643, LOCATED AT 1310 LOCUST STREET. RECORDS SHOW THAT MALDANADO BROTHERS HOLDING GROUP IS THE OWNER.

SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS ANGEL MALDANADO TO BE MEMB A MEMBER OE INTY. ENTITY.

BEEN INACTIVE SINCE DECEMBER 16TH, 2016.

THE HOLDING GROUP IS THE OWN OROFEROF THIS PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THE REAR WEST SIDE. AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. EXTERIOR STRUCTURE ISSUES GOING ON THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE THING WITH, YOU KNOW, ROOF SOME OF THE BEAMS RIGHT THERE, THE ROOFS ARE JUST RIPPED UP.

THERE'S HOLES THROUGHOUT. MORE EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL ISSUES.

EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES AS WELL.

SO, AGAIN, DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE TIMELINE, I KIND OF LIKE WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH ON FROM THE LAST MEETING.

THIS MEETING WAS TABLED DUE TO THE OWNER NOT BEING AVAILABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING, BEAK OUT OFF TOWN.

TON AUGUST 13TH THE PROPERTY WAS NOT MAINTAINED AND CASE HAD TO BE OPENED FOR MOWING ABATEMENT BY THE CITY AND THE CITY HAD TO GO AND MOW THE PROPERTY.

ON AUGUST 15TH THERE WAS NO CHANGE OF OWNER.

MR. MALDANADO STATED HE WAS TRYING TO SELL THE PROPERTY.

AS OF AUGUST 27 MR. MALDANADO DID SIGN A CONSENT TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE BY THE CITY. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IT'S A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING AND PLUMBING AND FAULTY WWEATHER PROTECTION. WE RECOMMEND THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE OR APPEAL TO COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

>> THERE IS PAPERWORK IN PLACE THAT HE DID CONSENT TO THE CITY

TO DEMOLISH? >> YES, SIR.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MORRIS? >> DO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE A MOTION TO FOLLOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS,

IT DEMOLISHED?'S AGREED TO HAVE- >> YES, SIR.

MR. CRAIG STATED IT'S JUST ANOTHER TOOL WE CAN USE TO HAVE MORE ENFORCEMENT IN THE EVENT THAT MR. MALDANADO DECIDES THAT HE DOESN'T WANT -- CHANGES HIS MIND OR MAYBE HE EVEN SELLS THE PROPERTY DURING, YOU KNOW, AFTER SIGNING THE CONSENT.

AND IT'S ON RECORD FOR THE PREVIOUS OWNER -- THE FOLLOWING OWNER IF THERE WERE TO BE ONE. THERE'S A PAPER TRAIL,

BASICALLY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. MORRIS? THANK YOU, SIR.

AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20-000643 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.

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

SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20-000643 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC

[00:50:01]

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

>> MOTION BY MR. ALLRED THAT THE PROPERTY BE DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IT'S A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND

WELFARE. >> I SECOND IT.

>> SECOND BY MR. WEST. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

>> DR. PARIS. >> AYE.

>> MR. ALLRED. >> YES.

>> MR. MCCALLUM. >> YES.

>> MR. WEBB. >> YES.

>> MR. TURNER. >> YES.

>> MR. SCHRADER. >> YES.

>> MR. BEARD. >> YES.

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALSO LIKE TO FOLLOW THAT MOTION WITH THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30

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

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. WEST.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> DR. PARIS.

>> AYE. >> MR. ALLRED.

>> YES. >> MR. MCCALLUM.

>> YES. >> MR. WEBB.

>> YES. >> MR. TURNER.

>> YES. >> MR. SCHRADER.

>> YES. >> MR. BEARD.

>> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT CASE, PLEASE.

[D. Case Tor Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 20-001905: 1441 Victoria St. (COLLEGE HEIGHTS, BLOCK 61, LOT 17 & N6.03 OF 16), Owner: Secundino, Pedro • Public Hearing]

>> OUR LAST ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS 3D, 20-001905 LOCATED AT 1441 VICTORIA STREET. THE CHECK LIST FOR RECORDS SHOW THAT COUNTY RECORDS WARRANTY DEED NAME IN PEDRO SECONDINO TO BE THE OWNER. SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME. TAX RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY ARE NOT APPLICABLE. RECORDS SHOW INACTIVE SINCE JUN.

PEDRO SECONDINO IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS THE NOTICE. THIS IS THE FRONT WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

REAR EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

SOME EXTERIOR FIRE DAMAGE THAT WAS SUSTAINED.

EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES AND SOME MELTED WIRING AND THE ELECTRICAL BOX FROM THE FIRE. THAT SAYS EXTERIOR, BUT IT SHOULD SAY INTERIOR. THESE ARE INTERIOR ISSUES THAT OCCURRED FROM THE FIRE DAMAGE, STRUCTURAL ISSUES.

HERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL MORE IN DEPTH LOOK AT THE INTERIOR FIRE DAMAGE. SOME INTERIOR PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL ISSUES AS WELL. THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS SHOWS ON JUNE 12TH, 2020, THE ABILENE FIRE DEPARTMENT SENT THE REPORT OF THE STRUCTURE FIRE OCCURRING ON THIS SAME DATE.

ON JUNE 15TH, 2020 THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED.

JUNE 16TH, THE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED.

JUNE 17TH THE OWNER WAS SENT 30/60 LETTER AND NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION. JUNE 22 WE HAD A PHONE CALL WITH THE OWNER HE STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO FIX IT UP BUT NEEDED TIME TO FIGURE OUT COSTS. ALSO STATED HE MIGHT DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE. I EXPLAINED THE PROCESS AND HE NEEDED TO INFORM ME OF HIS DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS.

AUGUST 4TH I RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FROM A CONCERNED CITIZEN SAYING THERE WAS NOTHING DONE TO THE PROPERTY AND THEY WERE AFRAID OF VAGRANTS OR SQUATTERS.

AUGUST 10TH THERE WERE NO PERMITS ON RECORD.

AND MOST RECENT EVENT, AUGUST 28TH, I DID SPEAK TO THE OWNER, HE STATED HIS INTENT TO REPAIR THE STRUCTURE AND I INFORMED HE NEEDED TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF ACTION.

HE STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS STILL OPEN AND UNSECURED DUE TO HIM CLEANING OUT ALL THE RUBBLE AND DEBRIS FROM THE FIRE.

AND THAT HE DID CONFIRM THAT NOBODY HAD BEEN ENTERING THE PROPERTY. YESTERDAY, ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2020, A PLAN OF ACTION WAS SUBMITTED, HOWEVER IT WAS MISSING A MECHANICAL ESTIMATE. I SPOKE TO THE OWNER ABOUT THIS, HE STATED HE DIDN'T NEED ONE -- HE DID NOT NEED A MECHANICAL

[00:55:01]

ESTIMATE FOR WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO WITH THE STRUCTURE.

HE WANTED TO PULL PERMITS INDIVIDUALLY.

AND TOLD HIM THAT WOULD ONLY BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. AGAIN, ENCOURAGED HIM TO ATTEND TODAY'S MEETING. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE AND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8 THE FLOACONDITIONS EXIST, STRUCTURAL HAZARD.

NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, PLUMBING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. AND TO FURTHER ORDER THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL.

THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYDIZ DAYS OR THE CIY

DEMOLISH. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MORRIS? THANK YOU, MR. MORRIS. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20-001905.

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

>> MY NAME IS PEDRO SECONDINO. I WAS GOING TO SEE IF I COULD GET AN EXTENSION FOR THAT PROPERTY.

I HAVE DONE NOTHING, I REALIZE THAT.

BUT WE'VE GOT MOST OF THE STUFF CLEANED OUT NOW.

YOU CAN SEE THOSE PICTURES THERE HAVE BEEN -- I GUESS BEEN A WHILE BACK. BUT I ALREADY GOT -- I SUBMITTED THE PLAN OF ACTION. I WAS GOING TO SEE IF I CAN GET AN EXTENSION AS LONG AS -- A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO REPAIR THE WINDOWS FIRST AND ALL THAT OUTSIDE PART FIRST.

IF WE CAN DO THAT AND THEN GO TO THE NEXT -- THAT'S WHY I'M KIND OF ASKING FOR THE LONGEST TIME I CAN GET, BUT I UNDERSTAND I CAN ONLY GET SO MUCH TIME FOR THAT TO GET IT FIXED.

>> HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WOULD TAKE FOR YOU TO GET THIS

INTO ACCOMMODATION? >> AT LEAST 90 DAYS, IF I COULD GET 90 DAYS THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.

IT WOULD GIVE ME ENOUGH TIME TO DO EVERYTHING RIGHT AWAY, YOU KNOW, BACK TO NORMAL. BUT RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING, JUST WRAPPING THE WHOLE HOUSE, REPLACING ALL THE WINDOWS, DOORS. REPLACE THE WHOLE SIDING.

AND THEN GO WITH THAT -- THE NEXT WILL BE PROBABLY THE ELECTRICAL BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO RIP THE SHEETROCK OUT INSIDE THE HOUSE. THE NEXT WILL BE THE -- ALL THE ELECTRICAL AND ALSO THE PLUMBING, PRETTY MUCH AT THE SAME TIME. I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO THE PLUMMER, HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW IF HE NEEDS TO REPLACE THE WHOLE WATER LINES, BUT IF HE NEEDS TO, WE'LL HAVE TO.

>> WHAT'S YOUR PLAN ON SECURING THE PROPERTY, HOW SOON CAN YOU

SECURE THE PROPERTY? >> I CAN -- I KIND OF HURT MY BACK THIS PAST WEEK, BUT I'M GOING TO TALK WITH THIS MAN HERE. I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO IT THIS WEEKEND,USC-JJSC1029

>> THE REST OF THE WINDOWS. I CAN DO THAT, IT SHOULD NOT BE HARD TO DO IT. PROBABLY THIS WEEK, PROBABLY.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

>> FROM THE STANDPOINT OF NEIGHBOR MAKING A COMPLAINT DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WILL HAVE ENOUGH ACTIVITY THERE THAT MAY WARRANT, YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY VAGRANTS OR PEOPLE GETTING INTO THAT HOUSE? BY THE MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO SECURE THE HOUSE. HE WILL HAVE ENOUGH ACTIVITY, THAT ANY OF THE CONCERNS THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAY HAVE?

>> I CANNOT CONTROL THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

I AM GOING TO SECURE THAT PROPERTY.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

[01:00:01]

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING ON THE CASE. OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION

OR MOTION. >> REITERATE AND ASSURE THAT HE UNDERSTANDS WHEN HE DOES, IF HE IS REQUESTING TIME HE WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PERMIT.

THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED.

DUE TO THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY CONDEMNED A FULL BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE ABLE TO BEGIN WORKING ON MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING AND STRUCTURAL WORK AND ALL THOSE INSPECTIONS WOULD NEED TO BE PASSED BEFORE PROCEEDING ON DOING ANY ADDITIONAL WORK.

>> SOUNDS TO ME LIKE MAYBE WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND THE 30/60 DAY PROCEDURE WE ALREADY HAVE APPEARED WILL THAT

TAKE CARE OF YOUR CONCERNS? >> THAT IS DEFINITELY ãA DECISION YOU ALL CAN MAKE. WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO COMPLETE THE ENTIRE PLAN OF ACTION AND HAVE ALL HIS PERMITS PULLED, THOSE FIRST 30 DAYS AND THEN HAVE HIS ROUGH END INSPECTIONS COMPLETED IN 60 DAYS. THAT WOULD PROBABLY GIVE THEM THE TIME HE IS REQUESTING. AS LONG AS HE PULLS THE FULL

BUILDING PERMIT. >> THE 30'S LAST 60 GIVE 60 DAYS? THEN HE ASKED TO COMPLETE IT BY

THE TIME THE PERMIT EXPIRES? >> INITIALLY WHEN YOU PULL PERMITS THOSE ARE GOOD FOR SIX MONTHS.

ROUGH END INSPECTIONS PULLED WITHIN 60 DAYS.

AT THOSE ROUGH END INSPECTIONS THOSE EXTENDED BEYOND.

HE CAN HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT AS LONG AS HE CAN MAKE PROGRESS. AGAIN ONE OF THE THINGS, HE WANTED TO PULL EACH PERMIT INDIVIDUALLY.

WANTED TO MAKE SURE HE UNDERSTANDS WE WANT HIM TO PULL

A FULL BUILDING PERMIT. >> IS THERE EMOTION?

>> THE OWNER BE ORDERED 30 DAYS TO REPAIR ALL PERMITS.

60 DAYS TO ROUGH END INSPECTIONS.

BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION PERMITS.

>> MOTION BY MR. TURNER, THAT THE OWNER BE GRANTED 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING A TIMEFRAME FOR REPAIR AND COST ESTIMATES.

IF THIS IS DONE 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ROUGH END INSPECTIONS, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF

ALL PERMITS. >> SECOND BY MR. SCHRADER.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> YES.

>> YES. >> MR. TURNER.

>> YES. >> MR. SCHRADER.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU.

>> I BELIEVE THAT COMPLETES OUR

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.