Board tables action on duplex at 132–134 NE Ninth, asks for permits and a relocation plan

The Grand Prairie Building Advisory and Appeals Board opened a hearing on alleged dangerous conditions at 132 and 134 Northeast Ninth Street and heard from a family member offering help to secure and clear the duplex. Staff described extensive interior and exterior damage, missing roofing and sagging ceilings, and identified the structure as substandard and dangerous under city code.

A code officer described exterior and interior conditions observed during inspections, including broken windows, rubbish in the yard, sagging and warped ceiling surfaces and an area missing a roof. The officer said the structure meets the definitions for a substandard or dangerous building under the Grand Prairie Code of Ordinances and noted the owner had applied for a rehabilitation permit that was returned for clarification. The officer also said the city was not recommending an immediate evacuation order and that further discussion could occur in executive session.

Felipe Espinosa, who said he grew up in the home and does not live there, said his mother currently occupies one unit of the duplex. Espinosa offered to clear debris using heavy equipment he can rent and to coordinate repairs. "I can clear all that, all that mess up and try to work to, mitigate the problems that, that you guys see there," he said. Espinosa said his sister holds title to the properties and that the family is attempting to address occupancy and repair issues, including evicting an occupant he described as a squatter from one side of the duplex.

Board members and staff pressed on safety and timetables. A staff member told the board that building inspections requires engineered stamped drawings for substantial roof or structural work and estimated a typical turnaround for permitting and engineering of about three to six weeks: "It's probably gonna take about a month to get the permit. Building inspections has asked for engineered stamp drawings. So they will have to hire an engineer, before the permit's approved." Staff also said 134 could likely be brought into compliance with a door and electrical work, while 132 required more extensive repairs to secure the building.

After discussion and questions of Espinosa about how quickly the structure could be secured for an occupant, a board member moved to table the matter until the board's July 7 meeting and asked that Espinosa return showing that the engineer has been engaged or permits have been filed and that the elderly occupant had been relocated to the safe side of the duplex or otherwise secured. The transcript records the motion to table and the requested conditions but does not record a vote on the motion in the provided transcript excerpt.

Board members said securing the structure to protect any person still living there is the immediate priority, and staff reiterated that structural repairs affecting load-bearing elements require engineered plans before permits can be issued.

The board scheduled further review for its July 7 meeting; the family representative was told to provide permit and engineering documentation and a relocation or safety plan at that time.