Weatherford Building & Standards Commission Regular Session – July 23, 2025
Weatherford Building & Standards Commission Regular Session – July 23, 2025
The Building & Standards Commission met in regular session at 9:00 AM on Wednesday, July 23, 2025, in the City Council Chambers at Weatherford City Hall. The commission approved prior minutes and held two code-enforcement public hearings. The public hearing portion opened at 10:16 AM, and the meeting adjourned at approximately 10:49 AM.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Mitchell Cardenas (transcribed in the meeting record as 'Cardiff'/'Carnivus') testified at length. He said work on the property began around 2015 after a utility crew dropped something through the roof, causing water damage and black mold, and that the city told him he needed a full remodel permit. He said an expired-permit dispute and a later roof inspection failure requiring 2x6 rafters instead of 2x4 rafters set back his repairs, and that he was trying to hire an engineer to assess whether the structure could be safely rebuilt.
- He stated he had almost finished the interior previously, had AC condenser units stolen three times, and had no written documentation for many of his claims. He urged the commission to allow him time to continue repairs rather than demolish the house.
Discussion Items
- Case BAS2025-02 (814 E. 3rd St., Equity Trust Company Custodian FBO Raymond Otten IRA): City staff presented a proposed demolition order and noted the commission could modify deadlines or add conditions such as securing the perimeter. A motion to issue a 30-day demolition order was made, seconded, and passed.
- Case BAS2025-03 (Alfred Cardenas and Gloria Cardenas): The agenda lists the property at 207 W. 7th St.; the public testimony discussed a property at 1305 Timber Ridge Road, and the transcript does not explicitly restate the agenda address. City staff said they found no written record of the utility-related roof damage and disputed the claim that a former employee barred the owner from the property for an extended period. Commission members discussed possible deadlines of 30, 60, and 120 days; some favored a 30-day demolition order, while one member supported allowing 120 days.
Key Outcomes
- Approved the March 26, 2025, minutes.
- Case BAS2025-02: Adopted a 30-day demolition order effective July 23, 2025. The order requires the owner to secure the property within 7 days and, within 30 days, to remove all debris, bring the lot to grade, install erosion control, and seed or sod the lot per city standards (or as specified in a city-issued permit). If the owner fails to comply, the city may enter, secure, demolish, and remove the structure and assess/lien costs.
- Case BAS2025-03: A final motion for a 30-day demolition order, with similar requirements plus authorization to assess costs and fix a lien, was made and seconded. The transcript does not explicitly record the vote on that motion before adjournment.
Meeting Transcript
Thank you, Lord, for this great day. Thank you for the beautiful weather. Thank you for this wonderful city of Weatherford and the wonderful men and women who serve it. And I pray today that you would give them wisdom, give them direction. Lord, let them use their gifts and abilities and talents wisely. I pray that everything that's done in this place today would honor you, and we ask it in Jesus' name. Any corrections, additions, questions, discussion. So moved. Second. Five A is hold of public hearing and or take action in case number BAS two oh two five dash O two City Weatherford, the Equity Trust Company custodian. Raymond Otten IRA. Regarding the structures look or structure located at eight fourteen third Street Weatherford, Texas seven sixty. I think the city's request is that you adopt and the order that's been placed in front of you. If you want to um change the time frame, allow opportunity to repair, or place other requirements um in the order like um securing the perimeter. Those are all things you can discuss, and somebody can make a motion, and uh that can be adopted into the order if you all want to see something like that. So initially you're looking we're looking for a motion to uh adopt the order. That's what the city would like to see happen. But you will, of course, as you know, have only way to discuss and decide what you think is appropriate. Does anyone want to make the motion? I will. Okay. So uh I'll make a motion that uh the commission hereby orders that the owner of the property must demolish the structure and detest structure on the property within thirty days of the date of this order, uh July twenty-third, twenty twenty-five. The following additional conditions and requirements must be met. Uh, within the thirty-day period provided in this order, the owner must also fulfill the following requirements. All debris removed, a lot brought to grade, erosion control installed, and our seed and our sod installed or other as otherwise specified in the city issue permit, all per city standards. Also, the owner must secure the property from unauthorized entry, including the property and structure within seven days, including the following uh specific requirements, which are per city standards. In the event the owner fails to comply with any requirements of this order within the time period provided in this order, that the city of Weatherford shall, without further application, notice or hearing be fully authorized to enter upon the property and to secure the property and to cause the demolition and removal of the property, including following requirements. All debris removed, a lot brought to grade, erosion control installed, and our seed sod installed, or as otherwise specified in the city issued permit. I'll second. Any further discussion? And the motion passes. Yeah, he did. Okay. And that's a glance. What's that? The time frame. And the time frame, yeah. Yeah. Oh, yes, within thirty days, yeah. So so again, I just want to make sure I'm clear. This process started basically August of twenty-one. I'm looking at the I guess well, as far as the case is concerned, I'm only uh I'm concerned with the the second start of the the the permit, but essentially the remodeling process of this home has been uh going on since at least two thousand twenty-one. Okay. And going back to and I'm again I'm just trying to get this clear in my in my mind. Going back to calling for the inspection. It's obvious. I'm not a professional, but it's obvious that I didn't see anything that would have been ready for inspection as you confirmed. Is that a is that a common practice? Do you all see that a lot? You know, you get down to the wire and and uh the the homeowner, the contractor will call for an inspection to start that other hundred and eighty-day clock.
openpublica.com