Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues hearing on substandard building at 709 FM 379; owner given deadline to deliver repair schedule
Summary
A public hearing on whether to order repair or demolition of a structure at 709 FM 379 was continued after the property owner described repair plans; the council required a detailed milestone schedule to be submitted to staff by the next Monday for packet review.
Erika Varubius, the city code enforcement officer, presented findings from inspections of a structure at 709 FM 379, concluding the building had conditions that may render it unsafe and a danger to public health. "The structure is considered unsafe, unsanitary and dangerous to the health, safety, general welfare of the city citizens," Varubius said, citing deterioration, evidence of rot and other conditions.
Varubius told the council she had posted notice on the property and that multiple cases dating to February 2023 had been created; previous court action had been scheduled but the owner did not attend. The building official’s photos and report cited rotten siding, damaged rafters and insulation, and rot in wall studs and under‑structure components.
The property owner addressed the council through a translator and said he planned to rebuild the home "completely from bottom to top," provided a materials list and said he could finish work earlier than the one‑year window he included as a contingency. Council members pressed for details about plumbing, electrical work, permitting, and whether the owner would act as his own contractor. The owner said he intended to perform the work himself and understood licensed electrical and plumbing work would be required.
City staff and the city attorney explained the ordinance requires a detailed repair schedule showing milestones and completion dates if the council is to accept a repair plan rather than ordering demolition. City staff suggested setting verifiable milestones (for example, items due in 30, 60 and 90 days) and having the building official verify progress; missing a milestone could trigger demolition procedures or allow the owner to dismantle and remove the structure from the property if it is a manufactured home.
Councilmembers agreed to continue the public hearing to the next council meeting and directed staff to require a detailed, milestone‑based repair schedule to be delivered to staff and included in the next meeting packet. Staff said the owner must submit that schedule to code enforcement by next Monday to allow packet preparation. A motion to continue the hearing carried with no recorded opposition.
The council did not make a final repair-or-demolish determination at this meeting and instead set a procedural deadline for a documentary repair schedule the council can evaluate.
