Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dangerous Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Freeport board orders evacuations, short demolition windows for several unsafe houses
Summary
The City of Freeport Board of Adjustments found multiple residential structures unsafe and ordered immediate vacating in some cases and brief timelines (30 to 90 days) for owners to pull permits, start repairs or demolish, while staff said it will prioritize about five properties per month from a 60—70 case list.
The City of Freeport Board of Adjustments on Nov. 30 reviewed several properties staff deemed hazardous and set short deadlines for owners to demonstrate progress or face city-initiated demolition.
City code staff opened the meeting by reciting findings that several buildings show structural deterioration, unsafe electrical systems and failure to meet the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code and applicable Texas statutes. Staff said the structures depress adjacent property values and create potential liabilities for the city.
At the hearing for the property at 1302 West Ninth Street, a company representative told the board the firm that manages the house has the assets to rehabilitate it but acknowledged full replacement of electrical, plumbing and HVAC would be required and estimated construction to occupancy could take about six months. Staff reminded the board that under state law ordinary administrative extensions typically cannot exceed 90 days and recommended a short, monitored interval. After board discussion the panel granted a 30-day extension tied to permit pulling and visible progress; the board directed staff to return with a construction-status report.
At 821 North Avenue B, staff told the board the main structure and five accessory buildings are unfit for human occupancy and posed an immediate safety concern. Maria, who identified herself as the daughter of the property owner, said the family had limited resources (she said the owner's retirement income is about $700 per month) and asked for time to retrieve belongings and pursue repairs. Staff described the house as unsafe to enter and recommended immediate vacation of the property, followed by a 30-day window for owner demolition or city abatement; the board ordered the property vacated immediately and set the 30-day timeline, instructing staff to help the family with options for removing personal property during that period.
For 522 West Eighth Street the owner, identified in the hearing as Mr. Garcia, said he was arranging demolition and requested 90 days to complete it. The board voted to give the owner a 90-day deadline to carry out demolition and told him to coordinate with city staff on permits and details.
On 722 West Fourth Street (listed in parts of the record with typographical variations), staff said a prior buyer or investor recently pulled out of a rehabilitation effort and that the structure's interior support elements and termite damage meant any safe repair would require engineering and substantial funds. The board set a 30-day requirement for permits and demonstrable progress or demolition.
Staff told the board it intends to bring roughly five properties before the board each month from a prioritized list of some 60—70 cases, focusing first on properties that pose the greatest life-safety risk or sit near schools and churches. Code leaders emphasized a preference for owner compliance but warned the city will use abatement and cost-recovery mechanisms, including liens, when owners do not act.
"We're trying to get compliance — owner compliance is our first approach," a city staff member said. "If they don't do it, then the city's going to abate it and assess costs against the property."
The board's actions were procedural and administrative: setting evacuation orders, short deadlines tied to permit activity, and time-limited opportunities for owners or buyers to complete demolitions or begin repairs. Staff repeatedly urged owners to work with code personnel at City Hall and said staff would offer interpreter help and referrals to community partners when possible.
The board did not adopt new code changes during the meeting; its actions were limited to enforcement orders and timeline determinations for the specific properties on the agenda. The board also asked staff to report back on permit activity and to continue prioritizing high-risk structures for future hearings.
Ending: The board moved on after finishing the property items; staff said it will continue to present properties monthly until the backlog is addressed.
