The San Antonio Building Standards Board voted unanimously Oct. 9 to order demolition of the property at 5647 Mayo Drive in City Council District 6 after Development Services staff said the building remains in dangerous condition despite a roofing permit and some claimed repair attempts.

Jaime Hassell, dangerous premises officer for the City of San Antonio Development Services Department, told the board the house shows missing siding, rusted corrugated metal roofing, detached porches, exposed framing with plastic sheeting, sagging joists, and interior debris. Hassell said a reroof permit was issued April 14, 2025, but inspectors saw no visible repairs matching that permit in the photos taken Sept. 9 and Oct. 6. Staff recommended demolition under City Code Article 8, Chapter 6.

The hearing record included three written public comments read into the record. One letter from an author identifying as Martin Solace (filed Sept. 10 and read at the hearing) said he is incarcerated and asked the board to “please have compassion for me” and allow an extension; the letter stated he expects to be released in 2026 and that he had earlier purchased a roofing permit (invoice number 1342470). A second letter submitted Oct. 1 made similar pleas and said the property had sentimental family value; a third letter from Barbara Rodriguez asked the board to grant an extension so family members could complete repairs.

Board members asked staff whether ownership had changed; Hassell said Bexar County Appraisal District records show the property remains in the owner’s estate. The board was informed the only person in contact with staff is currently incarcerated and that a scope of work had been submitted to Development Services but that visible repairs tied to the permit were not evident in recent photos.

A motion to declare the property a public nuisance and order demolition within 30 days carried unanimously. The board did not adopt an alternative compliance schedule on the record; staff noted the presence of a re‑roof permit but maintained the structure’s overall condition presented a hazard. Staff also indicated the property is not within 1,000 feet of a school and that photographs and documentation are in the file.

Discussion vs. decision: staff recommended demolition after inspecting the structure and reviewing permit activity; the public comments requested leniency and an extension while the owner serves a sentence. The board decided to proceed with the demolition order.