Okay.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

The time is 9 05 on 7 May 2026.

The San Antonio Building Standards Board will come to order.

My name is Dwayne Nelson.

I'm the chair for this morning's meeting.

If we could, let's have a roll call, please.

Joane Nelson.

Present.

Paul Hernandez.

Present.

Doris Elise.

Robert Benke.

Here.

Fred Andes.

Here.

Ryan Baldwin.

Dr.

Fazal Hussein.

Here.

Also present in the meeting from the City of San Antonio or Civita Ray from the City Attorney's Office and from Development Services.

Jenny Ramidez, Interim Code Enforcement Administrator, Melissa Garza, Administrative Assistant 2.

Estor Tees, Development Services Specialist One, and myself, Judy Kroom, Development Services Specialist Supervisor.

Chair Quorum is present.

Thank you.

The City of San Antonio provides translation services for anyone who may need that translation service.

Let's have the translation of that offering.

Good morning.

Buenos días a todos.

Thank you.

We would like to welcome Dr.

Faisal Hassan to the board this morning.

He will be uh observing the practice for the building standards board.

Uh, in case you wonder why he was not vote on everything, the board goes through some intensive training.

He has not completed that training yet, so he will be observing what we actually do in a public meeting.

Uh a quorum is present as we stated, please sign your cell phone or any device that may disrupt this public hearing.

No person shall delay or disrupt the proceedings or disobey the orders of the chair.

If you wish to speak on the case, you'll be allowed three minutes.

However, an owner or owner's representative will have unlimited time.

Please keep all information relevant to the property in question and the code violations.

As advised prior to this public hearing, the city will provide translation services for anyone needing assistance.

It is our understanding that you have made such arrangements as advised in your notice of hearing.

Our expectation is that you submitted the required documents prior to this public hearing.

Your responsibility as a property owner or lienholder of a dilapidated structure case is to demonstrate the following.

Number one, provide the required documents.

Discuss your detailed scope of work with a cost of each item outlined in order to bring the copy the property into compliance to the satisfaction of a code officer.

Number two, submit the required proof of financial ability to pay for proposed work and discuss feasibility of repair depend upon monies at hand.

And number three, request the amount of time needed to complete the work.

All abatements ordered by the board shall be enforced.

All work proposed must be done within code regulations with required permits prior to commencement of work.

You may obtain all permits from the Department of Development Services located in this building at 1901 South Alamo Street, San Antonio, Texas, 78204.

If in doubt as to the process during this time, please contact the code enforcement officer.

Any officer or lienholder dissatisfied with an order of the board may file an appeal in civil district court within 30 days after the date that the order is mailed.

If you have any questions regarding the order, please contact a code enforcement officer or the development services staff member by phone at 210-207-5422.

Please note that it is unlawful for any person present to solicit or pedal services regarding any property under consideration by this board during the course of this public hearing for city code section 16-236.

Thank you.

The board has received copies of the prior meeting on 2 April.

Uh do I have a motion on those minutes or corrections for it?

Robert Binke, I move to approve the minutes as is.

Thank you, Robert.

Motion is to approve the minutes as drafted.

Do I have a second?

This red and it's a second.

Mr.

Anders, thank you.

Any discussion?

All in favor of the motion to approve the minutes as drafted for 2 April 2026.

Say aye.

Those opposed say nay.

The motion carries unanimously.

The first case we're excuse me.

We we do have a uh I told you I was not going to follow your agenda, but I will at this point.

Staff report, please.

Good morning, board Namuders.

Good.

Excuse me, so we can get through this without coughing.

Um, my name is Jenny Ramides, interim code enforcement administrator.

I do have a couple of items to read into the record, as well as a couple items we'll be uh removing from today's agenda if I may proceed.

Yes, please.

Uh first items we will be discussing.

Um briefly agenda item number five, SAPMC case 144 Dean Street will be um removed from the agenda.

It will be rescheduled.

We don't have a tentative date just yet, but it will be rescheduled.

Agenda item number seven is a DP case 131 spats.

That one will also be pulled.

We don't have an agenda date just yet for that, but it will be reset as well.

Okay.

Next items we'll start with are the uh emergency demolitions we'll be reading into the record.

First property structure located at 102 Sullivan Drive, main structure, located in council district one, was demolished as an emergency on April the 1st of 2026 due to an extensive fire, which did occur on March 26th of 2026.

Pursuant to Chapter 6-175, no further actions needed by the board at this time.

Structure located.

I'm sorry, there are before and after photos.

Going a little too fast here.

Um this uh structure was demolished as an emergency on April the 9th of 2026 due to an extensive fire, which occurred on March 24th of 2026.

Pursuant to chapter 6-175.

No further action is needed by the board at this time, and there are before and after photos as well.

In the last item, 510 Nolan Street, which was a main structure, was demolished as an emergency on April 23rd of 2026, due to an extension of extensive fire which occurred on April 17th of 2026.

Pursuant to chapter 6-175.

No further action is needed by the board at this time.

That does complete my report unless there's any questions.

Are there any questions from the board?

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, ma'am.

This is Sabita Rye with legal.

I just wanted to let the board know that uh some of the properties were pulled uh because I have a scheduling conflict.

I have to be a city council at the same time as this hearing.

So when the item comes up on the agenda, uh I will have to leave.

And so uh if I'm not able to find a backup attorney, I just wanted the board to know that uh we would need to continue the hearing.

Will we recess or will we have to postpone the date?

Uh I hope just to uh recess to allow my backup uh to arrive here, but if that's not possible, then uh yes, it would be um ending the hearing and continuing it on another day.

Very well, just advise us of the time situation, and you'll observe the time as you need to.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our first case is going to be 1447.

Actually, 1447, 1449, Arangus Avenue.

Uh, this is a reset case uh from February the fifth meeting.

Go ahead, please.

Good morning.

For the record, my name is Ryan Garza, dangerous premise officer for the City of San Antonio Development Services Department.

The structure being presented today is located at 1447 aka 1449 around this avenue with a recommendation for demolition in accordance with City Code Article 8, Chapter 6.

This is the second time this case is being heard before the board.

The legal description is NCB 3117 block one, lot 25, located in City Council District 2.

The owner on record is Don Juan Gilberto with a mailing address of 1440 around this Avenue, San Antonio, Texas, 78210.

All notices, all notices of hearing were properly issued as required.

Mr.

Don Juan is not here today, the owner.

The Office of Historic Preservation has confirmed on November 28, 2023.

The property is not eligible for historic destination.

This is the first inspection regarding 1447 aka 1449 Aranzis Avenue was conducted on September 27, 2023.

Original notice was mailed on November 20, 2023, and the certified receipt was returned unclaimed on December 13th of 2023.

On April 12, 2024, a scheduled conference with the owner, and on April 30th, 2024, the owner did not show up to that one.

Excuse me, just a moment.

Let me for the record state that the chair did approve continuation since the owner is not present.

Go ahead, please.

Yes, sir.

On January 22nd, 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was posted at 1447 aka 1449 Aranzas Avenue.

On January 21st, 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was mailed to the owner, and a certified receipt is still pending.

The first BSB hearing was on February 5th, 2026.

The case was presented to the building standards board and a reset was granted.

The second BSB notice was mailed on April 22nd, 2026 to the owner.

Office of Historic Preservation requires deconstruction of the structure.

No scope of work or financial proof of letter or credit of engineer report has been provided.

And as of today, no permits are filed.

And the photos that are being presented for today for today's presentation were taken on April 21st, 2026.

This is a single story residential structure with a gable roof system with asphalt shingles that is bowing due to the lack of weather protection and a recent fire.

Smoke and water damage are also present.

The wooden siding is deteriorated and the exterior wall elevations has started to detach from the wooden framing.

Window glazing is present on the left side of the front elevation and graffiti has been painted over several times.

This is the left side elevation.

The wooden siding is deteriorated and lacking weather protection.

The facial boards and overhang are rotted and damage and damage to the window glazing and present on the front row.

This is the rear of the left side elevation showing the damage to the roof system, the facial boards, and wooden siding.

You can see that the exterior wall elevation has shifted and detached from the wooden framing.

The foundation has sunk in the rear, causing the structure to shift.

Portions of the overhang and facial boards have collapsed.

This is a close-up photo of the damage of the overhang and facial boards at the corner.

You can also see the separation of the exterior wall elevations.

The wooden siding also has separated and portions have collapsed.

This is the rear elevation.

Fire smoke and water damage is visible to the exterior wooden members.

The facial boards and overhang are damaged and missing on the rear left side.

The skirting is missing, and the windows and exterior door has been boarded up to prevent entry.

The owner has placed a single piece of plywood on the exterior wall on the top.

The wooden siding is damaged and missing, trash and debris are scattered around the exterior premises.

This is a close-up of the rear top portion of the structure.

Fire and smoke and water damage are present to the wooden members, and the wooden members are also charred.

There are several large holes in the roof system, which you'll see the interior and the interior photos of this presentation.

This is the left corner elevation.

The skirting is missing, and pieces of the wooden board and rock have been placed to prevent to hide the deteriorated wood and post and beams.

The wooded siding is deteriorated, and some siding has detached.

This is the right elevation.

The wooden siding is deteriorated and also lacking weather protection.

The roof system, facial boards, and overhang has fire damage, smoke, and water damage.

The electrical riser has been disconnected, and the electrical panel had the copper strip from the strip from it, and the covering was left open.

The right side elevation had graffiti painted over multiple times.

This is the top right front elevation of the structure that shows the damage overhang, facial boards, and wooden siding.

This is the living room as you walk into the structure.

All the sheet rock has smoke damage, and a wooden 2x4 was placed to support the ceiling from collapsing.

The floor has water damage and tiles have lifted.

This is a close-up of the wooden 2x4 that is being used to support the ceiling from collapsing.

The wooden 2x4 is not bolted or secured properly and is loose.

This is a photo of the next room facing the kitchen.

The room has fire smoke and water damage to the wooden members.

Charn is visible on the ceiling and somewhat being supported by a wooden 2x4 that is not secured properly.

The wooden framing and sheetrock is missing.

This photo is the same room that shows the left interior wall.

More charn is visible, and you can see the water damage to the sheet rot.

Graffiti is also present in this room.

This is a photo of the ceiling of the kitchen.

A wooden 2x4 was also placed here to help to help support the ceiling from collapsing.

The ceiling has fire smoke and water damage, and the sheetrock has collapsed.

Some of the wooden members have detached from the wooden framing.

This is another view of the kitchen showing charring and the wooden damage to the wooden members.

The framing has significant damage and has detached from the sheetrock.

The sheetrock is missing, and there's debris scattered, and water has the floor has water damage and is soft and spongy.

This photo is the kitchen showing the left interior wall.

Another two by four was placed to help support the ceiling from collapsing.

Charring is visible to all the wooden members.

This photo shows a large hole located in the kitchen.

The floor joists blocking and the subfloor have water damage, and some have broken off and is missing.

This is a walking hazard and unsafe for first responders.

Wooden members are loose and charring is visible and window glazing is present.

This photo shows fire smoke and water damage to the interior ceiling of the structure and allowing the outside elements and wildlife to enter the structure, causing more damage.

Tarring is visible.

This is the left rear interior room.

The patio of the photo shows the interior wall has detached from the wooden framing.

Natural light is visible entering from the holes in the ceiling system and the separation where it has detached in the back rear left hand corner.

The wooden members have water damage, and some areas are rotted.

The floor is damaged, spongy, and is a walking hazard.

This photo shows the other side of the rear interior ceiling.

When you look up, you can see the charring, the rafters, the beams is all exposed to the outside elements from the holes in the roof system, allowing the outside elements to enter this is a single story residential structure that is in a dilapidated condition.

The structure is fire smoke and water damage to all main components.

The structures wooden posting beams are deteriorated and leaning outwards in the rear of the structure.

The structure's foundation is unleveled the wooden floor system is a walking hazard for first responders due to the spongy rotted deteriorated subfloor and wooden members.

The roof system has holes and is sagging on the right elevation structure has evidence of houses individuals going in and out of the structure the structure is unfit for human occupancy.

To recap the structure located at 1447 aka 1449 around this avenue is in violation of City Code Article 8 chapter 6-156 subsections 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17 and 18 in which in any building or structure which has any or all conditions of defects herein after described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building and a walking hazard oh and a hazard to public health safety and welfare provided that such conditions are defects of dilapidation substandardness or unfit for human habitation pose a threat or potential threat to life health property or human safety staff recommends demolition.

That concludes my presentation of 1447 aka 1449 around this Avenue.

Thank you.

Do we have questions of the code officer go ahead this is Robert Binkey uh quick question here in the notes it says that um looks like somebody was in the house and had added some board since the last time you were there so there's obviously some sort of movement but we're unable to communicate with the owner would that be a fair statement okay cool just making sure thank you.

Additional questions there are none you may be seated thank you.

Officer Rob Dupey please come forward and state your name sir and your station please good morning gentlemen my name is Officer Robert Dupe I'm with the San Antonio Police Department's East Safe unit I've been a police officer for 19 years and all 19 years I was on the east side in this low general location.

I'm here to uh discuss a little bit about what's going on on our end at that location I have a number of calls for service at 40 1447 but not 1449 within that was there's a number of assaults suspicious persons narcotics and family disturbances just within this 1447 not as much as what we have for that intersection the intersection is is almost three pages long of a number of issues that San Antonio police respond to andor fire and I couldn't just distinguish if the actual person that has been staying at this location I believe her name is Jennifer if is involved but there were a number of issues for foot traffic and foot traffic means for us is uh narcotics uh activity um because of the the damage at this I've been to this house multiple times both with uh the code enforcement officer and uh work in general and I've been have to I've had to go into that house the house has been semi cleaned up because they're trying that looks like they were trying to do something but the problem is it's so dangerous stepping in on that those floor uh the floor it is just dangerous and there's been a couple times that I've almost fallen through um clearing the building because we get a call for suspicious person it's an abandoned building nobody's answering a doors open, we're able we we have to go in and clear it.

So and that's just me personally.

Uh I've been there on on this address um four times as of this last year.

So that to me is a concern.

Obviously to you, gentlemen, it is a concern.

Code enforcement is a concern.

Uh I'm more worried about uh the fire issue because I could not find any anything within the fire department's uh uh realm on their records of a fire, which is concerning.

Um so it's some I'm guessing it happened and nobody was notified, no no first responders were notified.

So, and that to me, and 34 years of law enforcement tells me that there was some sort of narcotic uh making in that building, and it caught on fire, and it stayed within the house and contained, and I guess it might have been raining or overcast that day.

So that's just my guess, and they didn't want to notify anybody, so and that block that intersection, like I said, is notorious for drug activity, lots of foot traffic.

So I just wanted to give put give you gentlemen uh and and the board here uh that information, and if you have any questions for me, please.

Questions of the officer.

This is Fred Anderson got a question.

Go ahead.

Is this in a high traffic area for kids from their house to school?

Yes, sir.

As a matter of fact, there should be a school within I would say two blocks, three blocks from that location, and there's also a number of churches in that area, and there's actually a convenience store relatively close by as well.

So, and are most of the people that you run into.

Are they coming from other areas?

When you run them off, there they come here and then vice versa.

Vice versa, yes, sir.

It it depends.

It really really depends.

A number that like I said, the foot traffic can be of anybody of any stature or demographic.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Additional questions.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate you, gentlemen.

Thank you.

Chairman, a motion on the property located at 1407, excuse me, 1447, aka 1449, Orange Avenue.

Mr.

Chair, this is Fred Anderson.

Like the motion.

Please go.

Uh I moved at the property located at 1447 aka 1449, Arkansas Avenue.

It um is a public nuisance for City Code Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6-157, which is not feasible to be repaired at this time, and is in violation of City Code Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6, 156, subsections 1 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18, and the violations pose a threat or potential threat to life health, safety, or even property.

I um order a demolition of within 30 days, a vacate order, and a security building order in the motion, in the motion, the motion is that the property located at 1447 a K 1449 or regis is a public nuisance at this time and is a not feasible but being repaired and is in violation of Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 156, subcodes 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18, that the property should be uh vacated and be demolished in 30 days.

Second, and security.

Uh repeat the demolition in 30 days, vacate and secure.

Do I have a second?

Robert Binkie has second the motion.

Thank you, Robert.

Any discussion?

Roll call, please.

Joy Nelson.

Aye.

Paul Hernandez.

Aye.

Robert Banking.

Aye.

Fred Andes.

Dr.

Fazal Hussein?

Aye.

Sorry, we'll be in an abstention.

So the motion carries with the vote of four to zero two one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next case.

206 Kato.

This is also a reset from the February 5 meeting.

Good morning.

Good morning.

For the record, my name is Stephanie Sanchez, Dangerous Premises Officer for the City of San Antonio, Development Services Department.

The structure being presented today is located at 206 Cato Street with a recommendation for repair for the main and demolition for the accessories in accordance with City Code Article 8, Chapter 6.

This case is a reset and then the second time being heard before this board.

The owner on record is Zapata Jaime Alfredo Flores and Flores Villa Torre Tovar.

Excuse me, with a mailing address of 167 Cahalo Street, San Antonio, Texas, 7821.

All notices of hearing were properly issued as required.

The owner, Mr.

Jaime Zapata Flores, is present.

Contact with the owner has been made by phone and by and in person.

The Office of Historic Preservation has confirmed on February 19, 2024 that the property is not eligible for historic designation, and was also updated on January 6th of 2026 that no deconstruction is required.

The first inspection regarding 206 Cottle Street was conducted on July 18th of 2023.

Original notice was mailed on July 18th, 2023, and certified receipt was returned unclaimed on July 30th, 2023.

On January 22nd, 2026, the notice for the original BSB hearing was posted at 206 CADO.

And on January 21st, 2026, the original notice for the BSB hearing was mailed to the owner.

And certified receipt was returned uncleaned.

On January 7th of 2026, a warrant was executed to obtain photos.

On February 4th, 2026, the original BSB hearing was held with a reset date.

On April 22nd, 2026, the reset BSB hearing date was mailed to the owner, and certified receipt is pending.

On April 23rd, 2026, the reset posting was notice of hearing was posted to the property on April 23rd of 2026.

A conference meeting was held with the owner on April 28th of 2026 with at the owner's property.

At this time, a scope of work and a financial letter has been provided.

There is an active permit on the property as of July 2025 that is active.

The photos that are being provided for today's presentation were taken on April 28th, 2026.

Here we do have the front elevation.

You can see towards the bottom that there is some deterioration to the siding, and as well as the window frame is um starting to list a little bit, and there is no, and it is lacking weather protection.

Here we are going towards the left elevation.

Excuse me.

You do see closer towards the over the overhang awning to the front door that there is still missing siding.

We are going into the rear of the of the structure.

There is also missing siding with uh deteriorated exterior wall studs.

Following over towards the towards the rear and towards the right elevation, you do see lacking weather protection as well as missing siding and some deterioration to the overhang and fascia.

Here we do have the front right elevation.

You do see some do see some deterioration to the siding as well.

Here we are going into the interior.

This is the room towards the right elevation.

You do see that the interior has been cleaned from previously.

There is no no drywall to the ceiling or the walls.

Here we are going to the left elevation.

You do see again no no drywall to the ceiling or to the walls, as well as large crack in the foundation.

This is a previous photo from the original date in February.

You can, if you pay attention closely to the wall structures towards the left where the framing is at, the owner, new owner has actually moved that wall back, and we'll show in the following photo.

So here is the new wall where there is a new beam, also.

Unfortunately, this framing was done without permits.

And here is a previous photo from the previous hearing on Feb in February.

If you pay close attention to where the window is, there is a slight hole for a window unit.

You can see how the distance is where that wall used to be.

There is no active electricity currently at the property, but here you do see some deterioration and water damage to the roof system as well as the missing drywall throughout the structure.

And here is just a better photo of the back room.

There is water damage and damage to the rafters above, as well as more cracking in the foundation.

Here we go going into the accessory structure.

Previous owners or someone at some point tried to raise the roof that is severely deteriorated and water damage and is rotting.

There is some new plumbing that I've noticed that was added originally.

The topmost PVC pipes are new as well as the lacking weather protection and the water damage wall studs.

And this is the current photo as well of the right elevation.

You see damage to the overhang.

You do see again the damage to the roof system and the overhang.

There is some damage to the siding towards the bottom, lacking weather protection.

There used to be a deck that was connecting the dwelling unit, which is to the left, and an accessory garage towards the right that has been removed.

So these two structures are now separated.

Here we are going into the accessory dwelling structure.

You do see that there is missing drywall towards the ceiling.

They's showing some rotting and damage to the ceiling drywall.

I'm sorry, ceiling choice.

Here we are going towards the rear of the structure.

Again, you do see some damage to the ceiling joys, damage to the drywall, as well as the missing floor covering.

This is just going out panning over towards the right towards where the front elevation towards the back of that wall is where the bathroom would be where the new plumbing was installed.

You do see again damage to the missing drywall as well as missing floor covering.

This is going to be towards the front left section of the structure.

Past that wall, you do see the bathroom where their plumbing was added.

You do see a little bit of damage, water damage towards the ceiling.

And here we are into the bathroom, showing the exposure to the elements as well as any potential wildlife to damage to the drywall.

And here we do have a view of the ceiling and the water, the decking that is water damage and rotting.

And here we are into the garage accessory.

This will be the front elevation.

Here we are going towards the rear and the right elevation.

You do see previously towards the bottom left of the right elevation where the structure was previously attached to the other structure that is missing and now allowing access for elements and wildlife to enter.

And here we are, this would be the left elevation of the structure.

The new owner has started placing material to do said repairs to the structures.

You do see here that there is some drywall that is missing, as well as the ceiling drywall missing.

Here is a better view.

You do see some of the decking and rafters that show some signs of water damage.

And this is panning over towards the rear structure.

You do see some more of the material that the owner has placed in preparation to do repairs of the structure.

And here we are, there is a section of the gable that is missing towards the right elevation.

You can also see the extensive water damage and rotting present in the roof system.

The siding is missing in some section and has broken or missing windows.

Some reframing has been done without permits.

The accessory structures consist consisted of a potential dwelling unit and a storage shed that were previously attached by a deck.

Wood frame construction, slab on grade with wood siding that is missing in some areas, allowing for elements and wildlife to enter.

Interior drywall and ceiling is missing and exposing water damage wood members.

Original roof decking is severely water damaged.

The raised roof decking is dilapidated in a deteriorated condition.

Shed unit has deteriorated wood siding that has holes and is missing on the gable, allowing for the elements and wildlife to enter.

Roof has holes and water damage.

Interior drywall is missing in some areas, and excuse me.

To recap, the structures located at 206 Kato are in violation of City Code Article 8, Chapter 6-156.

Subsections for the main are one, two, five, eight, eleven, twelve, and fifteen.

Subsections for the accessory are one, two, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, and fifteen, in which any building or structure which has any or all conditions of defects herein after described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building, a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare, provided that such conditions of defects of dilapidation, substandardness, or unfit for human habitation pose a threat or potential threat to life, health, property, or human safety.

Staff recommends repair for the main and demolition for the accessory.

That concludes my presentation of 206 Kido.

Thank you.

Let me clarify for myself first of all.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And in addition to that, there was a scope of work provided you have reviewed that scope of work?

I have not.

They just brought it in today.

Um the I believe the city attorneys has reviewed that work.

Very good.

We'll see that when he uh presents them.

Do we have any questions of the code officer?

Excuse me.

Officer Sanchez, can you just repeat your definitions for the main and accessory structure, please?

Yes, ma'am.

For the accessory for both?

Yes.

Okay.

Subsections for the mean are one, two, five, eight, eleven, twelve, and five.

And subsections for the accessory are one, two, five, eight, eleven, and fifteen.

Or I'm sorry, eleven, twelve, and fifteen.

Excuse me, officer.

Can you double check on your notes?

Um on the screen up on top, we have for the main one, two, five, eight, eleven, twelve, and fifteen.

You stated five, so we just want to make sure that's not a misprint.

Correct for accessory one?

No, for the main.

For the main one, two, five, eight, eleven, twelve, and fifteen.

There we go.

We just needed that stated clearly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are we all clear on the codes?

Uh and I will state that in the original hearing we had seventeen and eighteen.

Is that your question or just verification?

For this present one, sir, it was uh the very last number on the main um back going backwards.

Okay, I understand.

Very good.

Thank you.

Any question to the code officer?

Uh I got one that needs to be clarified.

You're still considering the XX structure.

Both buildings, even though now they're separate buildings.

Correct.

On the accessory, they took away the divider, which now makes them separate buildings, correct?

Correct.

So we're still considering them as one building.

If the just to confirm, the uh wall separating the two areas has been removed, so now it's one big area.

Uh previously it was a deck that was connecting the two structures together, and that has been removed.

And that was the case in the previous hearing.

They are two separate structures.

Uh my respect to the board is that we consider it as two separate structures.

But normally, and that's what I'm saying.

If they're considering it as one structure, with the deck removed now make it two structures, so it would actually be two accessories, not one.

Because you divide it in.

Could you uh put the uh drawing Judy or Esther of the property for us to see?

Yeah, this right here is one structure, but since this was taken out, it now disconnects them, so that does not make it two structures.

I I would argue uh with the removal uh they would be two different structures, but uh I want to defer to the dangerous premises investigators in terms of that's why I'm asking it because once you do separate them, then we have to have one of those structures identified as the accessory and the other one is going to have to be reinspected because they're not connected no more.

Is there a good sorry this is Robert Binke?

Is there a good so we got the site plan up?

Is can you show us on the pictures like where this area is, maybe in relation, like if it's picture 129 or whichever picture it might be to help us see that separation, maybe sure.

I'm not sure what picture you want to do.

Uh JPEG 120 has a the actual piece right here.

This is where the back is going to be right here.

No, up here it actually is not really a deck, it looks like it's more of a canopy.

So on this picture, um, was there then decking between the two structures and the center of this picture?

Correct.

Yes, and that's what they've made of one structure.

Correct.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that's why I'm asking that because once you disconnect it, now you have two stro actually three structures, and two of them are identified.

The question is is which accessory building is identified, and which one hasn't been, even though it's been inspected as a whole, once we divide it, do we now have to have a another case based off of the one that we're not identifying?

If you would take a look at uh you don't have to move to this, uh Judy, but slides one sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen cover one structure, slides one twenty through one twenty-eight cover a sec actually through one twenty-seven cover a second structure, uh, and if you can look at it in that context, you will be able to actually see both structures.

And uh just my observation I'll have to defer to the code officer.

The codes applied to uh that they provided for the accessory structures would actually still apply to both structures if you look at them in that context, yeah.

I concur uh with the chair's interpretation.

Well, that's what I want to make sure because once we divided it, we haven't identified accessory two because you technically now have three because you cut it.

Correct.

You're both correct.

It's um what uh we will need to do on the spot here is uh designate one structure, accessory one, designate the second as accessory two.

Make sure that uh the board is aware of uh which one is which so uh the one with the red.

Is it okay for the board if that is labeled accessory one?

And uh the other part of it is accessory two.

I it doesn't matter to me.

I just for the record for legal reasons we need to identify it because as soon as you did that, you if the appeal process comes up, then we did not identify the third building, and the court may see it different from what we see it.

Correct, yeah.

I appreciate uh having that brought to our attention.

How would you like to proceed?

Well, it is uh on the on the plot or plat as it on the plat, is it is this one identified as a bigger building or the smaller?

The red the reddish one, I would say they're probably almost about the same uh size and square footage.

Well, that shows a little different up there.

One's about half.

Anyway, you you can determine which one, as long as we have three identified, it really doesn't matter.

And they're all gonna be the same number as far as the two buildings because there are all four separate walls.

The walls weren't divided, just the roof was taken away, which means pretty much you made another building.

So there can still be the same designation on the numbers.

We just have three instead of so you're just amending the presentation, you're just amending and adding the third building, which would be accessory two.

Doesn't matter which one it is, as long as they're identified for purposes of an appeal process if need be.

Are you comfortable looking at uh both structures in terms of item number one, doors and aisles, item number two, walking services, aisles, passageways.

To me, the numbers aren't the issue as far as what's identified, it's just the fact that the buildings were separated.

So you could agree basically then that both structures could carry both structures can carry.

The only difference would be is structure uh uh accessory one and accessory two, that's it.

Very good.

That's the only thing we'd be amending, all in the theory.

Okay, the thinking is common through across the board.

Thank you.

Uh and with that, then we'll be looking at primary main structure and two accessory structures, and the code officer recommendation is uh for the main structure repair.

Correct.

And then for the two accessory structures, it would be demolish.

Correct.

It would be the same, everything would be the same except accessory one and accessory two, and then uh actually just be accessory two.

That would be the only difference if that would be accessible to staff, and attorney.

And yes, that would code officer and code.

I do apologize.

Just to make it easier, uh going back to the rendering of the properties.

Uh let's just say the property on the left is accessory one, the one on the right is accessory two.

That's too much in the weeds for me.

Board is common in their thinking at the present time.

Any other questions of the code officer?

Nope.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, you may be seated.

Jaime Flores, if you would please come forward.

And for the staff uh for the board, uh we are using translation services to assist uh Mr.

Thank you, Mr.

Flores.

So go slow with your questions if you have questions.

Go ahead and make your presentation, sir.

Okay, permission, but uh, senorita.

I I would like to ask permission for the lady to speak on my behalf.

That is fine.

It's seven.

Okay, thank you.

Board number.

See, that's number seven.

Okay.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is the Annette, and I'm here representing both uh Jaime and as well as the company that's gonna be financing and overseeing this entire project.

Um we're respectfully asking the board to allow us the opportunity to rehab the property rather than to move forward with uh demolition.

We have extends uh experience with construction, remodeling, navigating the city uh permitting process.

Um we've done a lot of very difficult projects, um, and we understand you know the complexity of this uh this uh particular uh property.

We have um I know it was brought up to the board about the framing, the engineer that was done before, um, and we've already engaged with an engineer, and we're working on getting all of that inspected and getting an engineer letter to kind of clear that part up.

Um our plan is to fully renovate, bring the property into compliance.

Um the scope of work is gonna include all the framing, foundation, um, the flooring, the sheetrock, plumbing, electrical, painting, all general interior rehab uh for both the main and the rear structures.

Um, on the rear structures, the I believe you guys called it the accessory one, so the one on the left.

It's actually a garage.

So I don't know if that makes a difference with the labeling.

So it's a garage and then the the structure next to it.

Um this is a very serious investment uh and a huge commitment.

Um the new owners are very excited uh to have this house, you know, for them and their families.

Um, and we are uh prepared to invest uh sixty thousand dollars into the rehab, um, and our goal is to restore the property, bring it back to safety, um rather rather than seeing it demolished, and we are respectfully asking for the time to move forward to do that, and um that's it.

If you have any questions, thank you.

Do we have any questions?

Yeah, this is Robert Binke.

Um, so I I'm a little confused.

So your speaker are the owners are here present with us today.

Correct.

Okay, and then you're helping with the financing and the rehab, is that correct?

Correct.

So yeah, so we do um we own multiple properties, so the the owner of this particular property sold it to them and is also financing the rehab for them to do the work.

Correct, uh hard money loan, and then um we also do new construction and remodeling um as well.

So we would be the ones pulling all the permits and doing all of that work.

And when did you guys get involved in this process?

When we just found out that all this was going on with the so they came to the hearing, we didn't know about that, and that's when we realized there was a bigger issue that they needed help with.

Um, and that's when we came.

And your expectation is that you'll be able to do repairs of both accessories and the main with sixty thousand dollars?

Correct.

And if anything else comes out that we need, you know, we'll kind of but sixty thousand dollars would be enough.

The main house really does not need a lot of work.

Um it looks like before these new owners purchased it, it had it's kind of gutted, so it's just the sheetrock um foundation, making sure all the electrical plumbing and all of that is up to code, and we have a lot of experience, we know how to pull permits, we know all the contractors, like that's not gonna be an issue for us to be able to get that done.

And if you get the engineer's report and he says that you cannot get it done for sixty thousand dollars, what's your plan of action?

We would read the goal is to have this house not demoed to have have them be homeowners and rebuild this house for them and their families.

So if we have to come up with more money, they're willing to do that as well.

And how much more are you willing to come up with?

I would have to I can't answer that.

I would have to go to the owner because it's not my money, but um he he did tell me between sixty and eighty thousand would be.

I'm sorry, say that again, please.

Yeah, I I don't believe it would take that much, but yeah.

And that was a verbal commitment.

There's nothing in writing that you can show us on the eighty thousand.

On the eighty, no, but I can I can get him to if if you give me time I can ask him.

No, no, I will not ask you to do that.

Any other questions?

Yeah, this is right in the accessories.

You could put all of this together for that amount in the main structure.

You're gonna need a lot of permits.

Yeah, but this isn't a rehab to the full extent.

The only requirement this board requires is code to bring it up to code.

Absolutely.

Now all of this here, I only saw a rough, not even a cost, but a rough.

It doesn't even have a cost on it or a timeline.

What is the timeline you're looking at?

We're looking about four to six months to complete once once we have gotten the permits.

Once the work actually starts, four to six months.

And that's for all of it, yes, sir.

Because I see a lot of other things in here as a general contractor myself that's going to need to be addressed in addition to what you have on your list.

You're looking at some major pieces that need to be played in here.

Your permits, I'm not too worried about because those are just pretty well flow.

I'm more worried about your timeline because if you start running out of time, which I don't see a timeline on here.

Okay, to like a date because after so many, we have to have specific things in here to grant that.

Okay.

Okay.

And your engineers' letter you haven't got yet, correct?

Not yet, no.

Um I just learned that about that.

And we don't have a bank statement in front of us to guarantee the assets.

It it would go to the first page of the slider, please.

First page?

There we go.

Yeah, up to the a verbal let or a letter, but not a actual physical statement, which is um so you got what's the next one?

You got your oh item, your your cost of every item is one of the requirements.

Okay, I didn't realize that.

I thought it was just a jump.

You just have it listed as what it is, but not the breakdown of everything.

Okay, the engineer's letter, so what that's two out of three, correct?

And for the amount of time, there's a little more paperwork that needs to come with that now.

It's to bring it to code, and mainly that's just the the main structure, the front.

Okay.

The others have to come up to code, but I think because you want them to live in it, you would they would be they would not be living in it until the whole right, right?

But I mean that would seem to be the priority.

Um, to bring it up to code, right?

Yeah, okay.

So, could we do to bring everything up to code in those four months?

That would be the I mean I don't think it would take that long, but could we do it that way?

So it's like to bring it up to code, we just need four months, and then obviously with the right permitting and all of the things that we need, um, right.

Uh I'm I'm looking at what we're required here for specific times.

Absolutely.

Like 30 days now you we have specific things that meet that have to be here before we can just grant okay.

So I'm just running it.

So we've got a letter, a so other than this property.

You said you've done other properties in the city?

Yes, we've done a lot of properties in the city.

I've never been up here other than with historic, um, but not for this reason.

And do you just to confirm do you work with SP?

Is that who you work with or yours?

The SMP property profit sharing, yes.

So you work with okay.

Um and then um for the remodeling stuff uh side um it's AMCL remodeling, which we have pulled many many permits.

Um, and I think we're the ones that initially pulled the one on here.

Um it's just that we're kind of out of stop because of all this going on.

So your scanning the game is at least this, uh a minimum of sixty.

Correct.

That's your skin in the game, and four to six months.

So do you guys do you guys have an engineer?

A baby?

We do.

We do.

Yes, polendo engineering is who work.

When did you guys get aware of this?

The about the engineer letter?

No, no.

When did you you said you just came on?

Um when they came to the last hearing after that, that it didn't?

Well, I think it was February.

Yeah.

Did you guys after that essentially?

Correct.

Thank you.

Any additional questions, Paul?

There are none, you may be seated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Torres, are you comfortable that everything has been presented to your satisfaction?

Are you comfortable that everything has been presented to your satisfaction?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Okay.

Let's go to the SME.

See the presentado.

Say too, that's that's okay.

Everything is okay.

Very good.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

See, those está bien.

Okay, thank you.

At this time, the chair would entertain the motion on the property located at 206 Kato.

This is Robert Binke.

I move that the property located at 206 Cato.

Is a public nuisance per city code chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6-157 for the main, which is feasible to be repaired, and the accessories being not feasible to be repaired at this time and are in violation of city code chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6-156, subsections 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 15, and for accessory 1 and accessory 2, subsections 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 15.

I move that the property.

The motion is that the property located at 206 Cato.

Two separate issues, the main is feasible being repaired, and that it should be uh even though it is in violation of subcodes one, two, five, seven, excuse me, one, two, five, eight, eleven, twelve, and fifteen.

Uh even though it is in violation of Article Six, excuse me, chapter six, article eight, section one five, six, uh, that it would be repaired in 30 days.

The two accessory structures, accessories one and two, uh, are not feasible being repaired at this time, and is in violation of chapter six, article eight, section one five, six, uh, and is in violation of codes subcodes one, two, five, eight, eleven, twelve, and fifteen, and both should be demolished in 30 days.

Do I have a second?

Chair, go ahead, please, counsel.

Uh when uh you stated the order for the main, uh I believe you inadvertently said repair in 30 days.

Uh the motion was repair in 90 days.

I'm sorry, thank you for that correction.

The repair would be in 90 days on the main structure.

Uh the demolition would be in 30 days on the two accessory structures.

Uh, we cleared board on that.

Yes, sir.

Very good.

Uh do I have a second?

This is Paul Hernandez, you have a second.

Oh, well, second.

Let's have a roll call, please.

Thank you.

One moment, please.

Uh, they're calling for a discussion.

Go ahead, uh, I guess this would also be a friendly amendment too.

Um, did we um for 90 days every 15-day follow-up with code?

And all documents are required, but the 90-day uh timeline be given, which would be the uh engineer's letter, itemized list, um.

Well, I think that's the only two that because they've already bounced for finances, um, and that the um code would be following up every 15 days, and you just say permits and uh require all permits, and I'm I'm I'm still kind of iffy on the 30 days on the demo, so I think they could be salvaged within that, okay.

Um, that's what you're saying, yeah.

On the acceptance well.

Let's get the uh the uh amendment voted first and to discuss.

We'll deal with the main first as an amendment, Robert.

He is asking for an amendment to include a permit for all work, engineer's letter, and itemized list of repair work.

I'm good with that.

And 15-day follow-ups and 15-day follow-ups.

Okay with that, that's absolutely okay.

And Paul, are you comfortable with the motion?

Now on the discussion part, um I understand we're trying to save the main, but it sounds to me like they also want the accessories, which really aren't once you divide them like that, aren't really that bad when you're looking at structure wise.

There's some issues with them, of course, but I'm kind of debating the demo part of it.

Yeah, I'm uh this looks in the worst shape.

Yeah, there's a lot of and I agree, there's a lot of damage in there.

Robert, if you would own your comments, go ahead.

I'm not I'm not sure how you're gonna repeat the configuration on that part.

That's not slab on grade.

Um I mean, the framing doesn't look terrible in there.

Um they have this metal post and slide 130 that seems to be in the access.

I think that's in the accessory.

Is slide 130 and the accessory?

Slide 130 would be that's uh one of the accessories, look like it's a bigger one.

That's where they're storing stuff.

But most of that structure, a lot of it looks a roof, a lot of this looks like roof, right?

Can you clarify for us that that picture that we're looking at right there is an accessory structure and not in the main building?

Can we get some clarification?

That would be considered like the line.

This is dangerous premise officer Stephanie Sanchez.

This is what be considered accessory number two for the shed garage area.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

I mean, what does it do?

Looking at this, I mean, you got good studs here.

I mean, it could I think I've seen a lot of the damage, it seems like it's in that roof.

Right.

It's a tresses you're looking at right now.

It needs to be redacked.

Um I would like to amend that part as yeah, I I would like to give them some time to either let them assess to see if they're gonna have the cash flow to get it done.

Yeah, and then because if we order a demo, you know, and just my two cents here, um, a sixty thousand dollar budget, the main structure is thirteen hundred and some change square feet, that's forty dollars a foot.

You can probably do some reasonable damage with that.

My concern is then though, as you proceed into these structures.

Are you accessory structures?

Are you then out of juice financially to get those fixed?

I know there's not as much, there's not cabinetry, maybe there's not as much flooring, things like that, and I understand that.

Um, but you still got to essentially redeck that roof because of the rot, it looks like throw a roof, sheet rocket, insulate it, any electrical come up to code, stuff like that, right?

Um, and there's probably I'm assuming not plumbing in there, so that's good.

That takes that item totally out of play.

Um, I'm looking at it at this other side.

Okay.

If we demo it, order demo, somebody's got to pay for it, right?

So that means that's taken out of their pocket or it's taken out of city, which means it goes on their tax or their right, which means they get a lien on.

So we're at that catch 22.

If they can feasibly repair it or demo it themselves, then that's on the owner or the people with the stake in the game here.

It's not on us to go in and demo, eventually, it's gonna get put on somebody's property.

Somebody's gonna have to be held responsible for it at some point, one way or the other.

Okay.

I can follow that logic.

I'm not upset with that.

So do you want me to then do you want to revise the whole motion or what should we I would just like to make a friendly amendment on the demo as repair all?

Uh the demo, the two demo structures to be repaired.

Up to code, up to code within uh the same within 90 days, because again, we have a somebody's going to end up pulling the tab on that 30-day deal.

I agree.

I'm okay with that.

I mean, if you guys can get it, and so in uh I guess with those 15-day follow-ups and the engineer information, I would like the engineer to look at these structures as well.

I think other than that, I'm okay with Fred's amendment.

So, there's one thing.

Number one, uh, I agree with you, all structures could be repaired.

The only issue, my concern is the money.

There's eighty thousand dollars potential looking at.

Uh, I do not believe you can do it for eighty thousand dollars, but still there's additional money.

The key is if we order repair, and they decide to destroy or do demolish one, they can do that.

They'll have to have a permit to do the demolition.

Uh, and they can continue to repair a part of it or neither of them, depending on what they want to do.

Uh, by ordering a repair, it gives them the opportunity to indeed to do the repair.

If they do not, then it's going to either a decision that they will demolish or it will come back to the board.

So, uh the proposal that uh is being recommended.

Uh I also concur with on that.

And Paul, you do not have to agree with that at all, but it's just an observation.

As a result of that, based on the conversation, we're going to set aside the first motion, and chair would entertain a motion on the property on 206 Cato.

Chair.

Uh Council, go ahead, please.

Uh the there's the current motion, and it has been seconded.

Uh so uh, it does have to be voted on.

Thank you, council.

The uh the motion was to the original motion that was seconded is that the main structure should be repaired or could be repaired.

Uh and was 15 days reports uh just as a comment on that.

Uh I think 15 days is too frequent for them to be able to come back, but I'll leave it at that to the rest of the board.

Uh permits required uh engineered letter uh and uh an itemized list of repairs on that as well as confirmation of the money, even though that was not part of that motion.

Uh and the demolition would be on the two accessory structures in 30 days.

Uh and it was seconded.

Uh all in favor of the motion say aye.

Chair acknowledges there are none in support of the motion.

The motion is set aside.

Uh Chairman, a revised motion.

This is Robert Binke.

I move that the property located at 206 CADO is a public nuisance per city code chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6-157, which is feasible to be repaired at this time and is in violation of City Code Chapter 6, Article 8, Section 6-156, subsections for the main one, two, five, eight, 11, 12, and 15, subsections for accessory one and accessory two, one, two, five, eight, eleven, twelve, and fifteen.

I move that the property be repaired within 90 days from the issuance of this order.

We also move that engineers' letters are required.

There should be 15-day check-ins with the code officers, all permits to be up to date and pulled as needed, and we would still like to see an itemized scope of work.

The motion is that the property located at 206 Cato is a public nuisance, but it is feasible being repaired at this time, even though it's in violation of chapter 6, Article 8, Sections 156 subcodes for the main 1258, 11, 12, 15, and for the accessory structures one and two, subcodes one, two, five, eight, 11, twelve, and fifteen, that the property is to be repaired in 90 days with an engineer report and a 15-day report to the code officer with all permits drawn before the work it begins with a full scope of work and itemized scope of work.

Do I have a second?

Is Paul Hernandez?

And thank you, Paul.

Any discussion on the second motion.

A roll call, please on the second motion.

Dwayne Nelson.

Aye.

Paul Hernandez.

Aye.

Robert Bankie.

Aye.

Fred Andis.

And one abstention from Dr.

Hussein.

Sorry, Dr.

Hussain, that'd be an abstention.

Abstain.

That motion is 4 to 021.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council, are you good on time?

Yes.

We will then take the last case.

Good job.

Good morning, board.

Good morning.

For the record, my name is Cynthia Santana, Dangerous Premise Officer for the City of San Antonio Development Services Department.

The structure being presented today is located at 5246 Village Crest with a recommendation for demolition in accordance with City Code Article 8, Chapter 6.

This case is a reset and the second time being heard before this board.

The legal description is NCB 15780 block 13 lot 60, located in City Council District 2.

The owner on record is Semang Carrie A with a mailing address of number 158-0666.

COTULA Unit 610 FM 624, Cotula, Texas 78014.

All notices of hearing were properly issued as required.

The following individual is present on behalf of the case, Elizabeth Rogers.

Does this board wish to continue?

Yes, please.

No phone number was found for, nor have I spoken with the owner.

He did send a letter from the prison.

The following is the timeline of events regarding the notification process.

The first inspection regarding 5246 Village Crest was conducted on November 24th, 2025.

The original notice was mailed on December 3rd, 2025, and the certified receipt was claimed on December 8th, 2025.

The conference meeting was held on December 18, 2025, and no one uh showed for the meeting.

On February 19, 2026, the first notice for the BSB hearing was posted at 5246 Village Crest.

On April 22nd, 2026, the notice for the reset BSB hearing was posted at 5246 Village Crest.

On February 18, 2026, the notice for the BSB hearing was mailed to the owner, and the certified receipt has not been returned.

On April 22nd, 2026, the notice for the reset BSB hearing was mailed to the owner, and the certified receipt has not been returned.

No scope of work or letter of credit or engineers report has been provided.

The owner did mail a copy of a bank statement.

As of May 5th, 2026, there are no active permits on file for 5246 Village Crest, and no fire damage assessment has been requested.

The photos that are being provided for today's presentation were taking on on April 13th, 2026.

This first photo is of the front elevation as it faces the street, showing a single story vacant structure in a residential zone.

It was built in 1967 and is 1,811 square feet.

The structure has both a brick veneer and vinyl siding.

It has a cross-gable roof system with shingles and a slab on grade foundation.

The structure is not located within a thousand feet of a school.

The front elevation shows damage to the roof from the fire that occurred on November 18th, 2025.

The front of the garage area is missing doors.

Smoke damage is visible on the front peak as well as the shingles and the vinyl soffit is melted and hanging from the structure.

The support post on the left for the overhang is rotted at the bottom.

This is the left elevation.

The vinyl siding and soffit, as long as the fascia are severely damaged from the fire.

The wall studs and structural members are charred, broken, and collapsed.

The electrical panel and connections are fire damaged as well.

The owner did not comply with the board orders, requiring the area around this garage to be secured with a perimeter fence.

The doors, the windows are also remain unsecured.

This is the right side of the rear elevation, showing a collapsed roof, charred and missing rafters, ceiling joists, and wall studs.

The decking and shingles are heavily damaged.

The entire back wall on the right side is missing.

This is the left side of the rear elevation.

The roof has holes.

The siding is damaged and missing.

The rear door is unsecure, and windows are broken.

The broken window on the far left is recently broken.

It wasn't that way when we came for the first time.

Here you can see the left elevation.

There's smoke damage just under the rear eave of the overhang.

This is a close-up of the front elevation of the roof, showing the holes in the sagging decking between the rafters caused by the fire.

They collapsed from the fire, and the interior is fire damaged.

This is looking into the garage area from the right entranceway.

Here you can see the missing and collapsed portions of the roof.

The center support beam is heavily charred.

Rafters are charred and missing, the ceiling joists as well.

The rear wall is completely gone with charred studs remaining in some locations.

The door to the rear right side of the photo goes into the kitchen where more damage from the fire occurred.

This is looking to the left of the garage.

You can see the same deficiencies with charred walls, studs, and rafters.

This is directly outside that left wall that we just looked at in the garage.

You can see the wall is separated from the roof portions from the roof at the top there.

Portions of the wall have been burnt away.

The critical corner support post is heavily charred.

This is the rear elevation on the right side, showing the completely charred wall studs, top plate, rafters, and ceiling joists.

The bottom plate is charred as well, and no wall exists.

This is looking up at what is left of the roof and the overhang on the right side of the rear elevation.

As you go into the rear entrance door and look to the right, this is directly above the kitchen, where there's a large hole in the roof, allowing the elements to enter the structure.

The rafters and ceiling joists are charred.

The decking is missing and charred in areas where it is still present.

This is looking a little uh more closely above the stove in the kitchen, showing the same type of damage.

Charred and missing decking, rafters and ceiling joists.

That ridge board is significantly charred.

If you look a little more to uh the right, this is closer to the rear elevation, uh in the kitchen there.

The ceiling joists are charred, the decking is charred in this area and missing.

This is looking to the left over what I assume is a dining room area.

The decking um here is also heavily charred, along with the rafters in the ceiling joists or smoke damaged.

The drywall and the insulation have collapsed.

This is the ceiling in the front uh room, looking towards that front entrance door, which also remains unsecured.

Uh the ceiling drywall is collapsed along with the insulation.

The rafters and the decking are charred here as well.

This is the photo of the ceiling in the front room that's closest to the garage.

And this is looking back at that front room from the front entrance room.

Give you an overall view of the amount of damage in this portion.

The amount of debris has created an egress violation.

This is the ceiling in the hallway.

Uh, as it heads towards the bedrooms, uh, there's heavy smoke damage, collapsed drywall and insulation.

This is a single-story residential structure that suffered a fire on November 18th, 2025.

The fire damaged uh the structural walls on the left and the rear elevation to the point where the structure is unable to be secured.

The fire left large holes in the roof over the front room, kitchen, and garage where the weather elements entered the structure and caused additional damage.

Neither the property owner nor the individual who stated they were a representative of the owner, secured the structure with the fence around the garage as ordered by the building standards board.

No fire damage assessment has been requested, nor any application for permits submitted.

The property remains in violation and in an unsafe, uninhabitable condition.

To recap, the structure located at 5246 Village Crest is in violation of City Code Article 8, Chapter 6-156.

Subsections one, two, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen, which any building or structure which has any or all of the conditions or defects herein after described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building and a hazard to public health, safety, and welfare, provided that such conditions of defects of dilapidation, substandardness, or unfitness for human habitation pose a threat or potential threat to life, health, property, or human safety.

Staff recommends demolition, and that concludes my presentation for 5246 Village Crest.

Thank you.

Do we have questions of the code officer?

There are none.

Elizabeth Rogers, if you would please come forward, state your name and your council district that you're either businesses in or you reside in, please.

My name's Elizabeth Rogers.

What else did I need to say?

I have a council district you either live in or the business.

I live in Bear County.

In Barrett County.

Yeah.

Okay.

Very good.

Go ahead, please.

Okay.

Um, so there's a bunch of things.

Um, first of all, they have been mailing um Mr.

Semang stuff at the Cthulhu unit, and um, as I told them last time I was here, he's at the Conley unit, so he hasn't been getting um that's why he hasn't responded to any of your letters because the first one that he got was actually on.

He sent me a lot of stuff.

It was actually he received it 427 26.

That's when we found out um I found out the 28th of this hearing.

Um, so that's why he hasn't responded to Let me ask you also a question uh before you go further.

There was also a requirement to provide a power of attorney to bring it power of attorney.

He gave me that, and I have this part, but that's why I was seeing what time we were gonna do it because he uh where is it?

I have the the durable one, but it's it's in the other folder, but I do have this, so this should work.

Did you they give you copies of everything that I I don't have it?

It's on the screen.

Okay.

Do you have it, Judy?

I don't know if they have this, ma'am.

This was um something that he wrote me in the mail, but it does state that he had given me power of attorney and then I have that all written out.

Okay, let me ask.

Uh has uh our attorney review that yet.

Uh let her review that, please.

He just copied one.

Um if that isn't um satisfactory, um, is there any way that I can I'm sorry.

Well, you might have to do it.

I didn't know if I could talk.

Um, if that isn't uh satisfactory to you guys um for the power of attorney, I do have it.

If is there any way I can email it to you right when I get home?

Um I'm not gonna lie to you guys.

I know that's perfectly I have to rely on counsel.

Okay, I apologize.

I'm sorry.

I had a lot of paperwork today that I had to deal with.

My board, if you will uh allow me a couple minutes.

Um I see the power of attorney language granting it to Elizabeth Rogers, but uh it's not signed.

I have no way of knowing if this was drafted by the owner.

And so we're going to look at uh some of the letters he also forwarded, so that I can see if he also stated in the letter that he signed.

The time is now uh 10 38 on 7 May uh 2026.

We're gonna take about a five-minute recess.

Chair, I'm ready whenever you're ready to resume.

Very good.

The time is 10 47 on 5 May uh 2026.

The San Antonio Building Standards Board will reconvene after recess.

Uh counsel, your judgment.

Uh I have reviewed the additional documents the owner himself had sent.

Uh he did grant power of attorney and uh to Elizabeth Rogers and his brother, and he did sign it.

So she may present before the board.

Excellent.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

Uh Elizabeth, you would please come back forward again and I apologize for the delay.

It's just requirements that we have some days.

Yes, sir.

And go ahead with your testimony, please.

Okay.

Um let's see.

Like I was saying, he hasn't been getting all these notices.

That's why he's not responding to you guys.

Um, I believe he wrote you a letter, a couple of them.

Um basically I think um it's just telling you that um his name and um he doesn't know why the place was burnt down.

None of us do um.

Oh, thank you.

I'm sorry.

I might I don't have glasses.

Um, basically he's just saying that he's not at Cthulhu.

Why did they keep sending him stuff there?

That was a couple years ago.

Um we had informed them that uh where he was, so I don't know why the address was wrong.

Um he said he sent all the info that um was requested of him, filled out everything, and the time frame for all the work.

Now he has a a list of um okay.

Keep in mind he's been incarcerated for 18 years, so his price range is a little um so I did include I'm sorry, we're okay.

I'm sorry.

Um, so I did include a um an estimate that is uh from actual times where um the prices are now, okay.

Um, it's a it's a difference.

Um he thinks it's gonna cost about 12 grand to fix the house and it's gonna be more like 40, you know.

Um a lot of the stuff that um they were pointing out is it's it's not as bad as the pictures are showing.

Now the garage is gone.

Um there's only two walls standing, and that is the one um on the far end, um, and the one that goes between the garage and the kitchen.

Um, I'm sorry, the front and the back.

Um there's no doors on the front, and the back um is gone.

So we were going to actually recommend that we we would just take the garage down.

Um we didn't know if that was okay with you guys, so of course we had to ask for permission first.

Otherwise, we could definitely rebuild that that part of the structure.

The the uh kitchen, um it's just uh about maybe five by by by five feet of it, that the wall is actually burnt um in the kitchen, and then the back um is messed up, but most of that was glass for the windows and then um the glass door.

We have boarded all that up.

I know they stated that we hadn't done anything.

We we boarded all that up.

Um, however, um I was told that um with the garage being the way that it is, um, I I shouldn't, you know, and I don't I don't want to do anything I'm not supposed to do.

Now we did put a um uh like a thick plastic panel around there um so that people can't get into it.

Um we've also put a camera up with the neighbor so that we can monitor if anybody's coming, if there's anybody staying there, um, and there there is not.

Um the dogs that they were talking about are in fact the neighbor's dogs that they don't they just let them run free.

Um, you know, um one was there the other day that actually greeted me, he's little.

Um it's not that bad.

Um let's see, what else?

Um the electrical is shot.

Um we're gonna have to have that totally redone.

Um the estimate that I got I believe was about 10, a little over 10,000 for the materials, and then a couple thousand for the labor.

Let me get that for you.

Um excuse me.

Um the roof is gonna have to be completely replaced um over I would say over the whole house because it is it is severely damaged, but it that's not a big um expense.

Um not too much.

We can we can get that done.

Though the whole pro uh project, we could get it done for under 40,000.

And he did send you um a copy of his bank statement.

Um there's well over $60,000 in there, so he definitely has the money to fix it.

Um, let me see.

Yeah, the roof definitely we have to fix that.

Um fire damage walls.

Um most of the walls are actually intact except for the little bit in the kitchen.

It's the ceiling that is the main uh problem with the the what is that?

The pink stuff.

I'm so sorry.

That stuff that's coming down.

We would have to, like I said, replace the whole roof.

Um now the company that uh there's a couple companies that I that I talked to about um doing the work.

As far as the foundation, um I was trying to find out what was wrong with the foundation because all it says is slab on grade and there's nothing checked um over there.

I I didn't know what the problem was with the foundation.

Um the back patio, um, because there's a a dip when you come off of um the porch.

Um it has been it's it's it's all dirt now.

So it's you're not gonna fall off and hurt yourself, but it yes, it does need to have a new patio made back there.

Um but they're the the hole is filled in, so it's not you know too bad.

Um we could actually have the work done in in we have one company that's bidding us eight weeks and then another one that bid us three months.

So if if if he keeps the house, um it'll it'll take a little bit longer.

If we sell it, um the people that want to remodel it told me four to eight weeks tops they could have it done in.

Uh it's just a matter of whether Carrie's gonna, you know, um sell it or not.

I I didn't know if that was an option um that I'm allowed to discuss with you guys.

Um like I said, I'm not I'm not too sure.

Okay.

Um this one is actually his estimated costs in labor.

Um again, I apologize.

Um this is a couple decades ago for the prices.

Um so like I said, that's why we did the same thing.

I took this and went ahead and got estimated on what was said to be wrong um with the with the place.

The front porch is not damaged.

Um the door isn't rotted, it just was broken.

Um when the fire department kicked it in, uh, the frame was broken.

And I've been told not to do anything to the structure, which is part of the frame, so that's why I didn't um do anything with that.

It is secure the door shuts.

Um it's just um I was told not to I I'm trying to go by the rules and I was told not to do anything like that um until I was approved by you guys.

Um basically what what Carrie's trying to say is it's not it's ugly, but it's not that bad.

It can definitely be fixed.

He can definitely afford to fix it, and we can do it in a timely manner.

Um they can pull all the permits if that you guys approve.

Everything can be done, and um he just really is begging that we don't tear down his house.

He's been gone for 18 years and that's where he wants to come home to if he ever does come home.

Um I believe he's got some more time over there, but um I know he's got kids.

I don't know if that would be an option, but um, we're just uh it's it's not as bad as as it looks.

That forty-two thousand, um, that is that is getting everything from Home Depot.

Um we actually we go to a lot of habitat for humanity.

I just wanted a realistic um, you know, up there so that you could see what what that is.

These guys over here, um, the labor that that normally the that the forty thousand dollars would be, they've gone below that and they said they would half the labor on on each of the projects, so that would be less, a lot less.

Um the drywall in the house, like I said, it's it's it's mostly the ceiling and then the the two areas in the kitchen, but um it's it's not as bad.

All that stuff that's in the living room, um, I can't I'm not allowed to remove it.

That's why I haven't gone in there and removed it.

It's it's like mattresses and um just the ceiling um pretty much, but nobody has access to it, and I I am keeping look on it to make sure there's nobody going in or um any animals in there, anything dangerous going on inside, so nobody can be hurt.

Um the Gloria actually allowed us to put a the neighbor let us put a camera up, so make sure that that was safe.

Um we've cleaned up all the stuff that was in the backyard.

That that picture that they took is probably almost a month old.

Um we have done a lot of things to it since then.

Anything else, ma'am?

Um, well Kerry just says please don't please don't wreck his house and um I I can get it's I can get it done as quick as you need me to get it done within four to eight weeks at minimum if if need be.

Okay, any questions.

I'm sorry, he he's he's uh you're saying.

But you need four to six weeks.

We have your financials, we have an itemized list.

And you said something about an engineer's.

You said something about an engineer.

You didn't get an engineer out there for the foundation.

Um I I wanted to know where they said the foundation was uh messed up because I went and looked and there was nothing like even right here where it says foundation, it just says slab.

Yeah, that's d they're describing it.

That's all it is.

Oh they'll tell you if there's a foundation issue.

Normally, because they describe it on the thing and they're checking off what they've checked.

So did their type of foundation would either peer beam or slab or something like that.

So they're just telling you what the slab is.

Okay, yeah, they didn't check anything on the so I I was wondering what was wrong because they didn't check anything on the it's just that you have a foundation that's slab, not peer and beam.

Okay, so it's just identifying it.

Um you got bids from other companies?

I I just want to make sure I do write by him and get it right.

You know, so are you gonna be overseeing the project?

You're gonna be the contractor?

Four to six.

My question.

Robert, do you have questions?

I uh yeah, more so just a thought, I guess.

But yeah, I think that we will have to have an engineer for sure for the framing, I would assume based on the amount of damage that's occurred to that structure.

Um obviously I don't think I'm concerned about the slab, but I think an engineer will need to be involved for that framing.

Okay, I can do that.

Yes, sir.

Cause they'll help point you in the right direction as far as everything that needs to be replaced and what their expectations are because they're gonna have to sign off on it for the city to approve it either way.

So you're gonna have to have that engineer.

Okay.

I think that's all I have.

Just I have one question, and that is even though he had indicated in the last meeting that he had sixty thousand dollars.

Do you have any idea if there's more available than that sixty thousand?

Um he has rentals that he gets paid uh every month.

I I one twelve, twenty-five.

It's about twenty five hundred income every month now that he's getting on his other two properties, and then as soon as um I can get this one fixed, it'll be it'll be more.

He does get income every month.

Okay, because once you get started in this, uh the the bills are gonna add up and the quotes are not compatible with at least my thoughts.

Well, um I'm really I I'll make sure that with what the he was bid that it'll get done.

It it'll have to be, they can't tell me one price and then do another.

We have an agreement.

Okay.

Any additional questions?

Well, it has gone up.

If you look at the statement, it says new balance is sixty-four thousand.

So it has gone up from C.

Yeah.

So he's your averaging.

If he keeps that in there, you're probably getting about when was the last time you were here, a couple of months back when so probably about two to three thousand a month?

Yeah.

Is what it's showing according to this.

Yeah, the my only concern is the fact that number one, the required required amount to rebuild is more than sixty thousand, even more than sixty-four thousand.

And I hate to see somebody get into it.

Uh, but that's neither here nor there.

The question is, can it be repaired?

I could bring if well I know this is probably should have brought somebody with me, but I didn't know if I was allowed to, um, because you have to get the owner's approval.

But um I could have um the contractors come in and um they're better than I am that could tell you exactly what they're gonna do and how it's gonna uh work.

Unless the board wants to reset, I'm not gonna do not recommend that because we got we've got sufficient information to make some kind of decision, whatever that some kind of decision is, and the board will make it anything else you'd like to add?

No, sir.

Okay, you may be seated.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Chairman entertained a motion on the property located at 5246 Village Crest.

Mr.

Chair, this spread ends.

Go ahead.

I'd like to make a motion.

Oh no.

I got one more question before we go to motion.

To whom?

What happened to the fence?

How come the fence was not put up?

Yeah, the last order that we gave, there was supposedly a fence that was supposed to be put up to protect.

Yeah.

Um part of that you can see one of the pictures sitting on the wall.

Um I believe that the girl that lived there.

I I can't say that because um it's it's it's um I'm assuming um it's not fact, but the person that damaged the house, I believe, is the one that removed that from the front part of the garage.

So I think it was kind of uh somebody's messing with him, and they they didn't want us to get it fixed, but we have a camera now, so they won't be able to take any of the materials or do anything like that again.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

All right, now I'll resume with the motion.

Yes.

I moved it to property located at 5246, village crest.

Is it public nuisance per chapter per city code chapter six?

Article eight, section six, one five seven, which is feasible to be repaired at this time, and is in violation of city code chapter six, article eight, section six one five six, subsections for the main one, two, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen, and is um isn't it um is feasible to be repaired within ninety days?

Must secure the property, must have a follow-up every fifth twenty days to uh the code officer.

Engineer's letter must be obtained, a um permits, all permits are required, and secure, the property to keep any vagrants or anybody else off that property while construction is going on.

Into motion in the motion.

Motion is that the property located at 5246 Village Crest is a public nuisance, but it is feasible to be repaired at this time.

It is in violation of chapter six, article eight, section one five six, subcodes one, two, five, seven, eight, eleven, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, and eighteen, but the property can be repaired in order that repair be done in 30, excuse me, in 90 days, that the property be secured, that there be a 20-day uh every 20-day progress report to the code officer with an engineer report to the code officer with all permits prior to commencement of any work.

Do I have a second?

This is Paul Hernandez.

I second the motion.

Thank you, Paul.

Second from Paul.

Any discussion?

I I've got a little discussion.

I just want to clarify I think what Fred meant on the secure of the property.

I personally I'd like to see a chain link fence like a rent of fence around that property just because of the accessibility right now and the holes and just being so open.

I'd like a securing the property is great.

I'd like a chain length rent offense of some sort.

You don't have to buy it, you can rent it, but let's let's at least keep kids, people, animals, stuff like that.

Totally off the property, please.

I was okay with that.

Well, no, you read my mind.

Okay.

The then that was a uh amendment to the motion, and the motion was.

No, he did he was clarifying my secure.

Okay, the secure then requires a which would be the rental fence or some type of not the building, but just the fence itself.

Just to keep people out.

That's around the structure, as opposed to entire property.

Structure only.

I'm fine with that.

I just don't want anybody to get hurt.

You're comfortable with the as long as it's secured any discussion about the fence I'm I approve of that okay accepted to be perimeter fence around the structure any other questions or discussion roll call please joy nelson aye Paul Hernandez aye Robert Binkey aye Fred Andes and Dr Hussain is required to abstain the motion passes with a vote of four to zero two one do we have any administrative issues Judy or staff council yes Judy Crew development services just have an update to the BSV membership we'd like to welcome doctor Hussein to the BSB he fills the veteran category and joins panel A.

Also Jamie Little has been appointed to the BSB on April 30 2026.

Miss Little will join panel B and with this the BSB now has full membership and just a reminder that the BSB full board meeting is scheduled for May 28th at nine o'clock thank you.

Any questions or discussion of staff?

Without objection and by unanimous consent we are adjourned at 1107 on 7 May 2026 council thanks for staying with us.