Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dangerous Structure Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Paso panel gives owner 90 days to start repairs at 419 E. Shuster, pauses immediate demolition
Summary
The Building and Standards Commission amended a staff order to give MIG EP Enterprises 90 days to begin rehabilitation of a vacant garage structure at 419 East Shuster or face demolition; inspectors had found the structure open to entry and structurally dilapidated.
The Building and Standards Commission of the City of El Paso on May 29 amended a staff recommendation to demolish a structure at 419 East Shuster, giving the owner 90 days to begin rehabilitation or face demolition.
The commission’s action came after a Building Department inspector told commissioners the single‑family structure, built around 1910 and constructed of brick with about 2,063 square feet of living area, was found to have "substantial structural dilapidation" and was open to unwanted entry. The inspector said the building was partially secured but that the left side remained open to entry and that the roof and interior showed notable decay.
The department had recommended revoking the certificate of occupancy, demolishing the structure within 30 days, securing the property immediately and placing a lien on the property if the owner failed to comply. Inspector presentation (transcript) noted staff could not locate an electrical service and reported two prior property maintenance and zoning cases dating to 2015.
Owner Ivan Garza, who identified himself as the owner of MIG EP Enterprises and of 419 East Shuster, told the commission the units were "garages" and "were never meant for someone to sleep in. There's no electricity, there's no gas, there's no water." Garza said he purchased the property in 2010 and that construction on Shuster earlier this year had led to a side entry that he believes allowed others to enter. He said he had a structural letter from Border Structural Engineering and asked for time to clean out and secure the property and to replace the roof.
Commission discussion focused on whether repairs could proceed without creating other hazards. A staff member cautioned that modifying the roof or structure without coordination could risk collapse of an apparent retaining/back wall; staff recommended structural drawings and a building permit for reframing work. Commissioners also noted that a guardrail would be required for any walkable surface higher than 30 inches above grade.
A commissioner moved to amend the city recommendation to give the owner 90 days to rehabilitate or to begin rehabilitation, with demolition to follow if the structure was not rehabilitated within 90 days. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.
Under the amended order, the owner must secure the property and comply with permitting requirements; staff said structural drawings and permit applications will be required for roof reframing or similar repairs. The commission recorded the owner’s agreement to rehabilitate the roof and mansards as part of the work.
Next steps listed by staff included submission of structural drawings and permit applications and coordination with Building Department staff for inspections and code compliance. If the owner does not meet the 90‑day deadline, staff may proceed with demolition and place a lien on the property for city costs.
Votes at a glance: the commission approved the amended recommendation by voice vote; the record shows no recorded roll‑call tally in the transcript.
