Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds notice delivery after lengthy appeal at 1517 East Crockett Street
Summary
The Building Standards Board found on April 3 that the city’s notice of code noncompliance was properly issued to the owner of 1517 East Crockett Street after an appeal and extended public comment; the board’s action affirmed the city’s notice but did not rule on the underlying violation.
The San Antonio Building Standards Board on April 3 voted that the notice of code noncompliance served for the property at 1517 East Crockett Street was delivered properly, ending an appeal by the property owner.
The hearing focused on whether the city’s yellow notice — the administrative step that precedes potential enforcement — was validly issued to the property owner. That procedural question, not the merits of any alleged accumulation of trash or debris, was the subject of the board’s decision.
Joseph Martínez, a code enforcement officer with Development Services, presented the file and said inspections and notices were completed in accordance with department procedures. Martinez said multiple site visits and photographs supported the department’s conclusion that an accumulation of trash and debris existed on the lot and that notices were placed and mailed in line with city protocol.
Thomas McCey (who identified himself at the hearing as the owner of 1517 East Crockett Street) disputed the notice and the inspector’s findings. McCey repeatedly told the board that much of the litter blown onto his property came from a nearby commercial store he named as “HYB” in testimony and said other properties on the block also contained comparable amounts of debris. He said he had lived on the lot for decades and objected to what he called selective enforcement.
Board members repeatedly limited the appeal record to the narrow question of whether the notice was properly issued. After a period in which the board consulted with legal counsel in executive session, the board returned and took a vote on the procedural question. The board voted that the notice had been properly issued; the vote was recorded as unanimous.
Why it matters: The decision means administrative enforcement procedures remain in effect for 1517 East Crockett; the ruling resolves a procedural step but does not itself impose demolition or other corrective measures. The owner retains the right to follow the city’s administrative appeal process or seek relief in court, subject to statutory deadlines.
The hearing recorded extensive public testimony and back-and-forth about how the city determines accumulation and how inspectors apply the code, but the board’s ruling stayed within the procedural frame presented to it.
