[00:00:04]
I AM THE BUILDING STANDARD BOARD, UM, CHAIR.
AND, UH, MY NAME IS FRED ANDIS, AND WE WILL NOW START THE PROCESS.
UH, GO AHEAD WITH THE ROLL CALL.
ALSO PRESENT IN THE MEETING FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO ARE ERIC BURNS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
AMIN TOMAS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR JENNY RAMIREZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER.
JENNIFER MARTINEZ, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TWO.
AND MYSELF, ESTHER ORTIZ, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SPECIALIST.
IT IS NOW 9 0 5, UM, WITH A SPANISH TRANSLATOR.
AT THIS TIME WE'LL HAVE A CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT READ BY MY VICE CHAIR.
PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONE OR ANY DEVICE THAT MAY DISRUPT THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
NO PERSON SHALL DELAY OR DISRUPT THE PROCEEDINGS OR DISOBEY THE ORDER OF THE CHAIR.
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON A CASE, YOU WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES.
HOWEVER, AN OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE WILL HAVE UNLIMITED TIME.
PLEASE KEEP ALL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND THE CODE VIOLATION.
AS ADVISED PRIOR TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY WILL PROVIDE TRANSLATION SERVICES FOR ANYONE NEEDING ASSISTANCE.
IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE MADE SUCH ARRANGEMENTS AS ADVISED IN YOUR NOTICE OF OF HEARING.
OUR EXPECTATION IS THAT YOU SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A PROPERTY OWNER OR LIEN HOLDER OF A DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE STRUCTURE CASE IS TO BE, IS TO DEMONSTRATE THE FOLLOWING.
ONE, PROVIDE THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS.
DISCUSS YOUR DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK WITH A COST FOR EACH ITEM OUTLINED IN ORDER TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CODE OFFICER.
TWO, SUBMIT THE REQUIRED PROOF OF FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PAY FOR PROPOSED WORK AND DISCUSS FEASIBILITY OF REPAIRS DEPENDENT UPON MONIES AT HAND.
AND THREE, REQUEST THE AMOUNT OF TIME NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE WORK.
ALL ABATEMENTS ORDERED BY THE BOARD SHALL BE ENFORCED.
ALL WORK PROPOSED MUST BE DONE WITHIN CODE REGULATIONS WITH REQUIRED PERMITS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
YOU MAY OBTAIN ALL PERMITS FROM THE, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LOCATED AT 1901 SOUTH ALAMO STREET, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 0 4.
IF IN DOUBT AS TO THE PROCESS DURING THIS TIME, PLEASE CONTACT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
ANY OWNER OR LIEN HOLDER DISSATISFIED WITH AN ORDER OF THIS BOARD MAY FILE AN APPEAL IN CIVIL ISTIC COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THAT THE ORDER IS MAILED.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ORDERS, PLEASE CONTACT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF BY PHONE AT (210) 207-5422.
PLEASE NOTE THAT IT'S UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSONS PRESENT TO SOLICIT ANY OR PEDAL ANY SERVICES REGARDING ANY PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THIS BOARD DURING THE COURSE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
AS PER CITY CODE SECTION 16 DASH 2 36.
[ Approval of Minutes ]
ALRIGHT.AT THIS TIME WE HAVE, UM, APPROVAL OF A MINUTES.
UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THIS? ROBERT BINKY? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.
MOTION IS TO ACCEPT MINUTES AS IS ANNE WEINER.
ANY NAYS? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
[ Briefing and Possible Action on the following items ]
REPORT.[00:05:01]
GOOD MORNING.MY NAME IS JENNY RAMIREZ, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I HAVE GOT A, GOT A LOT TO READ INTO THE RECORD THIS MORNING, SO BEAR WITH ME, BUT I WILL GET STARTED IF I MAY.
SO THAT MEANS WE NEED A CUP OF COFFEE REAL QUICK.
MAYBE THAT, MAYBE WE CAN TAKE A BREAK IF WE NEED TO, BUT WE'LL GET GOING.
UH, FIRST ITEM WE'LL BE READING, UH, IS A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT FIVE 19 SOUTH GENERAL MCMULLEN HAS VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO ALLOW THE CITY TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER SIX DASH 1 59, SECTION FIVE.
NO FURTHER ACTION IS NEEDED BY THE BOARD THIS TIME THAT WAS SIGNED ON FEBRUARY THE 14TH OF 2025.
NOW, UM, READING INTO THE RECORD, UH, EMERGENCY DEMOLITIONS FIRST, THE FIRST ONE WE'LL BE READING IS STRUCTURE LOCATED AT TWO 19 F STREET.
IT'S IN COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO WAS DEMOLISHED AS AN EMERGENCY ON FEBRUARY THE THIRD OF 2023 DUE TO A FIRE WHICH OCCURRED ON JANUARY 17TH, 2025.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER SIX DASH 1 75.
NO FURTHER ACTIONS NEEDED BY THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.
THERE ARE BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS.
CASTLE HUNT WAS DEMOLISHED, UH, AS AN EMERGENCY ON FEBRUARY THE FOURTH OF 2025.
DUE TO THIS WAS A VEHICLE ACCIDENT, A VEHICLE HAD, UM, DAMAGE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
UM, IT WAS, UM, THAT ACCIDENT DID OCCUR ON NOVEMBER 11TH, 2024.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER SIX DASH 1 7 5, NO FURTHER ACTION IS NEEDED BY THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.
THERE ARE BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS AS WELL.
NEXT LOCATION STRUCTURE LOCATED IN 1 0 0 9 MONTEZUMA STREET IN COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE WAS DEMOLISHED AS AN EMERGENCY ON FEBRUARY THE FIFTH OF 2025 DUE TO A FIRE WHICH OCCURRED ON JANUARY 28TH, 2025.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER SIX DASH 1 75, NO FURTHER ACTION IS NEEDED BY THE BOARD AT THIS TIME AND THEIR BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS AS WELL.
NEXT ONE, THE S STRICTURE LOCATED AT FOUR 14 WEST, WEST LAUREL LOCATED IN COUNCIL.
DISTRICT ONE WAS DEMOLISHED, UH, AS AN EMERGENCY ON FEBRUARY THE FIFTH OF 2025 DUE TO AN EXTENSIVE FIRE, WHICH OCCURRED ON JANUARY 31ST, 2025.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER SIX DASH 1 7 5, NO FURTHER ACTION IS NEEDED BY THE BOARD AT THIS TIME, AND THAT WAS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE BEFORE AND AFTER PHOTOS.
NEXT LOCATION STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 3 48 EAST SATCH IN COUNCIL.
DISTRICT ONE WAS DEMOLISHED AS AN EMERGENCY ON FEBRUARY THE EIGHTH OF 2025 DUE TO, UH, AN EXTENS FIRE, WHICH OCCURRED ON FEBRUARY THE FOURTH, EXCUSE ME, UM, FEBRUARY THE FOURTH OF 2025 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER SIX DASH 1 75.
NO FURTHER ACTION IS NEEDED BY THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.
NEXT LOCATION STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2310 HICKS IN COUNCIL.
DISTRICT THREE WAS DEMOLISHED AS AN EMERGENCY ON FEBRUARY THE 10TH OF 2025 DUE TO AN EXTENSIVE FIRE, WHICH OCCURRED ON FEBRUARY THE FOURTH PURSUANT TO CHAPTER SIX DASH 1 0 5.
NO FURTHER ACTIONS NEEDED BY THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.
NEXT ONE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 6 0 1 ARBOR PLACE.
THIS WAS, THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WAS DEMOLISHED ON FEBRUARY THE 14TH OF 2025, DUE TO A FIRE WHICH OCCURRED ON FEBRUARY THE FIFTH OF 2025.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER SIX DASH 1 75.
NO FURTHER ACTIONS NEEDED BY THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.
STRUCTURE LOCATED AT TWO 19 PLAZ DRIVE COUNCIL.
DISTRICT FIVE WAS DEMOLISHED ON FEBRUARY THE 15TH OF 2025 DUE TO A FIRE WHICH OCCURRED ON FEBRUARY THE SEVENTH.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER SIX DASH 1 75.
NO FURTHER ACTIONS NEEDED BY THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.
THAT DOES COMPLETE MY REPORT UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? NO, SIR.
I HOPE WE PREVENTED, UH, SOME, UH, ACCIDENTS, FATALITIES, NEW THINGS.
UM, I CAN SAY THE MAJORITY OF THESE PROPERTIES WERE ALL VACANT.
UM, THAT DOESN'T, I DON'T SEE THAT ANY OF THESE DID TRAVEL INTO ANY
[00:10:01]
OTHER, UM, STRUCTURES, WHICH IS GOOD.UM, BUT, UH, YES, WE DO HAVE, WE DO HAVE THE MAIN HOUSE, UM, FOR 6 0 1 ARBOR PLACE COMING FORWARD, UM, FOR SOME ACTION TODAY.
BUT THIS WAS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT ONLY, THAT WAS, UM, THAT WAS, UH, DAMAGED AT THIS TIME.
SO OUR FIRST CASE ON THE DOCKET WILL BE 1407 OR AURORA.
GOOD MORNING BOARD FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS DALE RUSSELL, CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR WITH THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
THE PROPERTY I'M PRESENTING TO THE, UH, TODAY IS LOCATED AT 17, OR I'M SORRY, 1407 ARRO VISTA DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 3.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING NCB 1 2 7 2 1, BLOCK SIX, BLOCK 14 ZONED R FOUR LOCATED IN COUNCIL DISTRICT ONE.
THE OWNER OF RECORD IS SAUL AND THERESA VELES.
THIS PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED.
THE SECTIONS THAT WERE IN VI THAT ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE ARE 3 0 4 0.13 WINDOW SKYLIGHT DOOR FRAMES EVERY WINDOW, SKYLIGHT DOOR AND FRAME SHALL BE SOUND CONDITIONED, GOOD REPAIR AND WEATHER TIGHT.
ALL EXTERIOR DOORS, DOOR ASSEMBLIES AND HARDWARE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION.
LOCKS AT ENTRANCES TO DWELL IN UNITS AND SLEEPING UNITS SHALL BE TIGHTLY SECURE.
THE DOOR LOCKS ON MEANS OF EGRESS DOORS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE TO SECTION 7 0 2 0.330 5.2.
ALL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING IMPOSED LOADS.
UH, FIVE, UH, 3 0 5 0.3 INTERIOR SURFACES.
ALL INTERIOR SURFACES, INCLUDING WINDOWS, DOORS, SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD REPAIR, CLEAN SANITARY CONDITION, LOOSE PLASTER, DECAYED WOOD, AND OTHER DEFECTIVE SURFACE CONDITIONS SHALL BE CREATED CORRECTED.
5 0 4 0.3 PLUMBING SYSTEM HAZARDS WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT THE PLUMBING SYSTEM OF A STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A HAZARD TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE STRUCTURE BY REASON OF INADEQUATE SERVICE, INADEQUATE VENTING, CROSS CONNECTION, BACK SIPHON IMAGE, IMPROPER INSTALLATION, DETERIORATION OR DAMAGE FOR SIMILAR REASONS.
CODE OFFICIALS SHOULD REQUIRE THE DEFECTS TO BE CORRECTED TO ELIMINATE THE HAZARD.
WATER SUPPLY SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED TO PROVIDE A SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE PLUMBING FIXTURES, DEVICES APERTURES IN SUFFICIENT VOLUME AND ADD PRESSURE TO ADEQUATE ENABLE THE FUNCTION, THE FIXTURES TO FUNCTION PROPERLY, SAFELY, AND FREE FROM DEFECTS AND LEAKS.
6 0 4 0.3 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAZARDS WHERE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IN A STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A HAZARD TO THE OCCUPANTS OR TO THE STRUCTURE BY ANY REASON OF INADEQUATE SERVICE, IMPROPER FUSING, INSUFFICIENT RECEPTACLE AND LIGHTING OUTLETS, IMPROPER WIRING OR INSTALLATION DETERIORATION OR DAMAGE, OR FOR SIMILAR REASONS, THE CODE OFFICIAL SHALL REQUIRE THE DEFECTS CORRECTED TO ELIMINATE THE HAZARD.
AND 7 0 2 0.3 GENERAL MEANS OF EGRESS.
A SAFE, CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM ANY POINT IN THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURED TO THE PUBLIC WAY, MEANS OF EGRESS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL, UH, FIRE CODE.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS, AND THIS IS THE FIRST INSPECTION.
THIS WAS DONE AS PART OF A DART, AND THIS IS ON 5 21 2024.
UH, THESE ARE THE POSTINGS, AND YOU CAN SEE HERE THE DETERIORATED, UH, WINDOW FRAMES AND THE, THE ROT AT THE VERY TOP OF THE PHOTO OF THE, UH, OVERHANG.
AND HERE THE, UH, ROOF IS OPEN, ALLOWING WATER AND WEATHER TO GET TO THE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS.
NEXT, YOU HAVE THE, UH, SOME REPAIRS HAD BEEN ATTEMPTED, BUT THEY'RE NOT SEALED, AND YOU CAN STILL SEE THE DETERIORATION ON THE WOOD.
NEXT, THE INTERIOR SURFACES WERE UNEVEN AND A TRIP HAZARD.
AND, UH, THIS PART WAS BOWING.
NEXT HERE YOU HAVE THE, YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, THE, UH, CEILING AROUND THE WALLS AND WINDOW FRAMES, UH, OPEN EXPOSED ELECTRICAL.
AND THE DOOR THAT IS COVERED BY THAT LAND.
THAT LADDER ACTUALLY HAS NO DOOR,
[00:15:01]
NO DOOR HANDLE, HAS A, UM, A LOCK, UM, A KEY ON BOTH SIDES, NOT ALLOWING EASY EGRESS.NEXT, THERE IS A WATER LEAK ON THE PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN SEE THE EXPOSED WIRES ARE IN THE WATER LEAK.
NEXT, AND THAT IS THE, THEY OPENED UP THE WALL TO GET TO A WATER LEAK, AND THOSE ARE EXPOSED.
NEXT, AND THIS IS THE BEHIND THE BACK WALL.
THEY ADDED AN ADDITION WITHOUT PERMITS, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT WAS UNFINISHED.
THAT'S A SLIDING GLASS DOOR ON YOUR LEFT HAND SIDE INTO THE PROPERTY.
THIS DOOR, THIS DOOR AND DOOR FRAME IS NOT SECURE.
AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S BLOCKING THE EGRESS DOOR ON THE FAR SIDE, WHICH IS THE DOOR.
THAT IS A DUAL LOCK, UH, PASSAGE.
NEXT, AND THIS IS FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE.
YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT, THAT, UH, STRUCTURAL MEMBER IS ACTUALLY BLOCKING THAT DOOR FROM BEING OPENED.
NEXT, AGAIN, THIS IS THE EXTERIOR.
YOU GET A BETTER VIEW OF THAT DOOR FRAME, UM, THAT IS ROTTED AND THE, UH, EXPOSED ELECTRICAL NEXT.
AND THAT IS INSIDE THE, INSIDE THE STRUCTURE, UH, WHERE YOU HAD, UH, EXPOSED ELECTRICAL AND THE, THE, UM, FIXTURES ACTUALLY HANGING OUTTA THE WALL.
NEXT, AND THIS IS THE REINSPECTION ON 1 31 2025.
NEXT, YOU CAN SEE SOME REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE PROPERTY'S BEEN CHANGED SLIGHTLY.
NEXT, UM, NEW, NEW FASCIA HAS BEEN PUT UP OR PAINTED.
UH, BUT YOU CAN STILL SEE HOW IT'S AND NEW WOOD HAS BEEN ADDED, BUT YOU CAN STILL SEE HOW IT'S DETERIORATED AND THE WINDOW FRAME IS DETERIORATED.
NEXT, THAT WINDOW FRAME IS COMPLETELY BLOCKED.
NEXT, THAT'S A BETTER PICTURE OF THAT WINDOW FRAME SHOWING THE, THE, UH, WOOD STRUCTURE THAT WAS PLACED ON IT.
NEXT, THERE'S A BROKEN WINDOW.
YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, THE ROT TO THE, UH, STRUCTURE AND HOW THAT, UH, WINDOW FRAME IS ROTTING OUT OF THE STRUCTURE AND SEALED IN WITH, UH, SPRAY FOAM.
NEXT, OF COURSE, THAT IS BLOCKED EGRESS, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THE, THE, THE LOCKING SYSTEM FOR THE WINDOW IS NOT WORKING CORRECTLY 'CAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY HOLDING IT OPEN WITH THAT OR HOLDING IT CLOSED WITH THAT BLOCK RIGHT THERE.
NEXT, THAT IS THE FIX TO THE EXPOSED ELECTRICAL.
UM, THEY COVERED IT WITH, THEY JUST COVERED IT.
AND THAT IS A BETTER VIEW FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THAT DOOR THAT HAS THE DUAL LOCK NEXT.
AND THAT IS A, A BETTER VIEW OF THE BACKSIDE OF THAT STRUCTURE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, DOOR ROTTED DOOR FRAMES AND THE EXPOSED ELECTRICAL THROUGHOUT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.
NEXT, UM, RIGHT, IF YOU LOOK PAST THE, THE ROT ON THE CORNER OF THE HOUSE, YOU'LL SEE THAT HE SPLICED INTO THE RISER, UM, UH, RIGHT BEHIND THAT ELECTRICAL NEXT.
AND THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW OF THE, UH, ROT TO THE STRUCTURE AND THE, UH, WINDOW FRAMES AND THAT ALSO THE BROKEN WINDOW.
NEXT, THAT IS THE INTERIOR SURFACE THAT HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTED.
NEXT, AND THAT IS THE EXPOSED ELECTRICAL INSIDE.
NEXT, AGAIN, THAT MORE EXPOSED ELECTRICAL, UM, THAT FROM THE CEILING WHERE THE FIXTURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED NEXT.
AND THAT'S THE ELECTRICAL PANEL NEXT.
AND THIS IS ANO, THIS IS A VIEW FROM THE OTHER ANGLE OF THAT, THAT ROOM THAT WAS ADDED TO THE BACK OF THE STRUCTURE.
YOU CAN SEE THE, THE DOOR FRAME THERE AT THE SLIDING GLASS DOOR.
NEXT, THE, UM, ON MAY 21ST, 2024, AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS MADE AS PART OF A DART ACTION, AND THE VIOLATIONS WERE NOTED.
PHOTOS WERE TAKEN, AND NOTICES WERE ISSUED.
ON MAY 28TH, 2024, WE HAD MEETINGS WITH EACH OF THE OWNERS TO EXPLAIN THE VIOLATION AND ISSUE THE NOTICES ON AUGUST 2ND, UH, THE CITY HAD THE PROPERTY CLEANED FOR THE FIRST TIME.
ON JANUARY 31ST, WE DID THE REINSPECTION.
UH, THERE WAS SOME WORK DONE, BUT THE VI, MOST OF THE VIOLATIONS STILL REMAINED.
AND THE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN ON FEBRUARY 26TH, THE CITY HAD THE PROPERTY CLEANED A SECOND TIME.
AT THIS TIME, THERE IS NO WATER CURRENTLY ACTIVE AND NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FOR ANY REPAIRS.
THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER BE FOUND IN VIOLATION OF THE SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SUBSECTIONS 3 0 4
[00:20:01]
0.13, WINDOW, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES, 3 0 4 0.15, DOORS 3 0 5 0.2 STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, 3 0 5 0.3.PLUMBING SYSTEM HAZARDS, 5 0 5 0.3 SUPPLY WATER, 6 0 4 0.3.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAZARDS, 7 0 2 0.1.
GENERAL MEANS OF E EGRESS AND THAT THEY BE ORDERED TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY REPAIRS.
OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND THE PROPERTY TO BE ORDERED VACANT UNTIL THE REPAIRS ARE COMPLETED.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
UM, DID YOU MENTION 3 0 4 0.3 0.1 THAT WAS DONE ON THE 31ST OF THE FIRST 31ST 25, 3 0, 4 0.313 WINDOWS, SKYLIGHTS, AND DOOR FRAMES.
NO, GO BACK TO THE SHEETS PLEASE.
THE LAST ONE IS DONE ON A DIFFERENT DATE FOR THE WINDOW GLAZING.
I DID NOT MENTION THAT ONE, BUT THAT WE DO HAVE, THAT IS IN VIOLATION, RIGHT? THAT'S ON A SEPARATE, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING 'CAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR IT GO IN, BUT IT'S UP HERE.
YOU SAID IT WAS ABATED AGAIN? IT WAS ABATED TWICE.
DO YOU HAVE THE COST? UH, I DO.
THE, UM, THE FIRST ONE WAS 1,166, THE SECOND ONE WAS 611.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, NO.
UM, DO BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME SAPD OFFICERS FOR THIS CASE, IS THAT CORRECT? HELLO, MY NAME IS MICHELLE RICHARDSON.
I'M A POLICE OFFICER WITH SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, AND I AM OVER THE AREA OF THIS ADDRESS, THE 1407 AR VISTA DRIVE.
UM, THE OWNER, THE, THE HUSBAND SAUL, HE, UM, HE'S GOT, WE'VE DEALT WITH HIM WITH SEVERAL CALLS THERE WITH MENTAL HEALTH AND DRUG ISSUES, WHICH HAS CAUSED A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS.
UM, A LOT OF NEIGHBORS HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME WORRIED ABOUT THEIR OWN SAFETY, AND THEN WHEN HE GETS INTO HIS FITS HE'LL CAUSE NOT DAMAGE NOT ONLY TO HIS OWN PROPERTY, BUT OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY AS WELL.
SO WE'VE HAD THAT KIND OF HISTORY, THE, WITH THIS ADDRESS, ALONG WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT VIOLATIONS.
SO THIS HAS BEEN ONGOING SINCE LAST YEAR, OBVIOUSLY, AS Y'ALL CAN SEE.
UM, AND I DO KNOW TOO THAT HE HAS AN, AN ACTIVE PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST HIM, UM, ON PROTECTING HIS, HIS WIFE.
SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHY SHE'S NOT HERE TODAY OUT OF CONCERN THAT HE MIGHT SHOW UP.
SO I JUST WANTED TO LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL FOR ME? SO, GO AHEAD.
IS ANYONE LIVING, WAS ANYONE LIVING IN THE PROPERTY LIKE IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS AT LEAST? I'M NOT SURE I'VE SEEN.
I KNOW HE HAS BEEN IN AND OUT.
UM, BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW, HE HAD A LADY THERE LIVING WITH HIM FOR A LITTLE BIT.
UM, AND SOME KIDS WE CONTACTED CPS TWICE.
THEY'VE HAD TWO DIFFERENT CASES THERE WITH THE KIDS.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S GONE TO.
UM, BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE KIDS IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS THERE, BUT I KNOW HE HAS, THERE'S RECORDS OF HIM BEING THERE.
SO EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN A NOTICE TO VACATE BEFORE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR GUEST SERVICE.
UM, UM, ON THIS PROPERTY, DO YOU HAVE A MA'AM? OH, SORRY, WHAT? YEAH, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE STILL ASKING QUESTIONS OR NOT.
THE COMMENT WAS, THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR SERVICE.
UM, DO YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF THE CALLS MADE WITHIN THE TWO YEARS? YES, THERE IS A LIST OF HISTORY.
I DON'T HAVE IT ON MY PERSON TODAY.
DID WE BRING THAT TODAY OR NO? YEAH.
DID WE BRING THE HEAD CALL HISTORY? NO, I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME TODAY.
UM, BUT LIKE I SAID, IT'S A LOT OF MENTAL HEALTH CALLS, DISTURBANCES, UM, FROM DIFFERENT, FROM SEVERAL DIFFERENT NEIGHBORS.
UM, HE'S ALSO MADE CALLS TO THAT WHEN HE GETS INTO HIS FITS, UM, THAT DON'T, HE'LL MAKE CLAIMS THAT DON'T REALLY MAKE SENSE.
SO WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF, LIKE I SAID, MENTAL HEALTH AND DISTURBANCE CALLS OUT THERE, AND THEN DAMAGE TO PROPERTY, LOUD NOISE COMPLAINTS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UH, WHEN YOU, IT'S BASICALLY BETWEEN THE COUPLE? NO, WELL, JUST
[00:25:01]
SOME OF THAT, BUT THEN THE NEIGHBORS COMPLAINING TOO.YEAH, BECAUSE HE'S CAUSING DISTURBANCES WITH THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL, BASICALLY ABOUT THE COUPLE.
IT'S NOT LIKE SOME OF THE ONES WE GET WHERE PEOPLE KEEP COMING IN AND OUT.
SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S REALLY MM-HMM
YEAH, IT WAS MAINLY THE COUPLE, BUT THEN, YEAH.
CAN WE CHAIR, WE ALSO HAVE OFFICER WARRINGTON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
WHAT I WILL SAY IS, OH, UM, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE COUPLE WHO'S ARGUING.
SO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER, SHE LIVES ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF AWAY.
SHE'S 17, A HUNDRED BLOCK OF ARROYO VISTA.
HE'S PRETTY MUCH AT THE HOUSE BY HIMSELF.
UM, AGAIN, WE'VE HAD THE NOTICE TO VACATE.
THE ONLY TIME HE ISN'T IN THE RESIDENCE IS SOMETIMES HE'LL GET ARRESTED, DRUG POSSESSION OR WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE.
HE WON'T BE IN THE HOME FOR PERIODS OF TIME UNTIL HE GETS RELEASED AND THEN HE SHOWS BACK UP THERE.
UM, AND AGAIN, THE CALLS WILL BE LIKE, HE'LL SAY THAT SOMEONE SHOOT LASERS.
SO IF YOU LOOKED AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, HE'S GOT ALL KINDS OF LIKE TARPS AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF.
IT'S COVERING THE HOUSE TO BASICALLY IN HIS MIND, WHEN HE GETS IN THESE EPISODES, UM, HE HAS A DRUG HISTORY METH.
UM, HE STARTS THINKING THAT SOMEONE'S LIKE TRYING TO SPY ON HIM, LASERS, ALL THAT STUFF, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF WHEN PEOPLE ARE KIND OF IN THAT, IN THAT STATE OF MIND.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.
AND AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
DO WE HAVE AN OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? CORRECT? NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
MIND YOU, IT'S TWO TWO MOTIONS BECAUSE THERE'S TWO SEPARATE DATES.
THERE'LL BE SEVEN ON THE FIRST MOTION AND THEN ONE ON THE SECOND MOTION.
UH, IT'D BE, THE FIRST ONE WILL BE 5 21.
AND THERE SHOULD BE SEVEN OF THOSE ON THE FIRST MOTION.
I MOVE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1407.
AURORA VISTA DRIVE IS IN VIOLATION OF THE SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, UH, CODES 3 0 4 0.1530 5.230 5.330 4.30 6.3 AND 7 0 2 0.1.
AND THIS WAS A NOTICE THAT WAS GIVEN ON 5 21 24.
I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY IS TO BE DEMOLISHED WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY IS SECURED AND IT, THERE'S NO UTILITIES, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO CUT THOSE OFF, MR. CHAIR.
AND I, I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IS WE, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE DONE SOME SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS.
UM, IF THIS BOARD BELIEVES THAT THOSE, THAT PROPERTY IS IN VIOLATION AND, UM, UH, YOU CAN ORDER REPAIR, UM, BASED ON HOW MANY DAYS YOU BELIEVE, UM, IF THIS BOARD CHOOSES, THEY CAN HAVE THIS PROPERTY REVIEW AS A DP.
THEY BELIEVE THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT.
UM, BUT IT WOULD MAINLY BE TO, UH, REPAIR AND ADDRESS THE, UM, ALLEGED S-A-P-M-C VIOLATIONS.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THOSE, UH, THOSE SECTIONS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, IT WOULD BE TO ADDRESS THOSE.
AGAIN, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED AS A DEEP, AS A DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE, YOU HAVE THE, UM, THE, THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
BUT ABSENT YOU BELIEVING THAT IT WOULD BE TO ADDRESS THE, UH, THE VIOLATIONS.
UH, MAY I ASK A QUESTION OF COUNSEL? MOST DEFINITELY.
SO IF YOU SAY IT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED WITHIN 30 DAYS AND NOTHING HAPPENS, THEN IT COMES BACK HERE.
'CAUSE YES, IT, IT WOULD, UM, I, I, I DON'T, AND I, I'LL I'LL ASK, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO, TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
I THINK THAT THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY TO
[00:30:01]
BE VACATED UNTIL, UH, CERTAIN, UM, UM, PARAMETERS WERE MET.SO, UM, THIS BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THAT.
UM, UH, BUT YES, YOU, YOU ARE, YOU ARE CORRECT.
UM, IN THE SENSE IT WOULD BE, UM, TO ASK THE PROPERTY TO BE REPAIRED AND IF AND IF NOT AND, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WAS NOT GETTING ANY COOPERATION.
UH, YES, THEY WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE THE OPTION OF BRINGING IT BACK TO THIS BOARD.
UM, FOR OTHER S-A-P-M-C VIOLATIONS AND OR, UM, UH, AS A DANGEROUS PREMISE, I MOVE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1407 AR ROYA VISTA DRIVE IS IN VIOLATION OF SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY CODES 3 0 4 0.1 5, 3 0 5 0.230 5.350 5.360 4.3, AND 7 0 2 POINT I MOVED.
THE PROPERTY IS TO BE REPAIRED AND CLEANED UP WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CODE OFFICER.
THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE SECURED TO KEEP OTHERS OUT EXCEPT FOR THE OWNER.
DID YOU SAY 5 0 4 0.3? YOU WENT FROM FIVE THREE.
WILL YOU SCROLL BACK? UH, RIGHT THERE.
I JUST WANTED MAKE, 'CAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR THAT ON THERE WHEN YOU WERE READING ABOUT, BUT THAT'S SO WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR.
SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO REPAIR WITHIN 30 DAYS.
UH, MAINTENANCE CODE VIOLATIONS, 3 0 4 0.15.
6 0 4 0.70 2.1 WITH ORDER OF VACATE AND ALL UTILITIES.
CUT AND SECURE DID YOU SAY? AND SECURE.
UH, IS THERE A SECOND, ROBERT? COPY.
MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO GO AHEAD CONFIRM AT, AT THE BEGINNING.
I, I DIDN'T HEAR, UM, THAT THIS BOARD WAS ORDERING A VACATE.
I DIDN'T HEAR IT FROM MS. WEINER.
I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, UH, THE INITIAL, UM, UM, MOTION WAS INCLUDED.
MOTION PASSES WITH THE VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.
AND WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT CASE.
WE STILL HAVE, THAT'S THE NEXT CASE.
THE, THE, THE THREE OH, THE 3 0 4 0.17 WILL BE THE NEXT CASE THAT WE'LL HAVE TO PRESENT.
SO NOW YOU CAN DO IS, UH, MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR THE NEXT, UH, PART OF THIS CASE.
I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1407 ARROYO VISTA DRIVE IS IN VIOLATION OF SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY CODE 3 0 4 3 1 AND IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
I ALSO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS STILL IN VIOLATION AND, AND THE REPAIRS SHOULD BE DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS.
ALONG WITH THE PREVIOUS, MAYBE THAT STATEMENT.
THE PREVIOUS, DID YOU TALK ABOUT THE, THE PREVIOUS SECURITY? SECURITY THAT WAS, UH, IN THE LAST MOTION, HAVE THE PROPERTY SECURED, HAVE THE UTILITIES CUT AND THE PROPERTY VACATED.
[00:35:01]
NEXT MOTION FOR THIS CASE WOULD BE ON FOR THE DATE OF 1 3 1 2 5.IT, IT, UH, 30 DAY REPAIR ON THE ITEM OF PMC CODE.
CUT ALL UTILITIES AND SECURE THE PROPERTY.
MOTION PASSES WITH THE VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.
NOW WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT CASE.
I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T READ THE TITLE IN THERE.
UH, IT'D BE 6 0 1 ARBOR ARBOR PLACE.
MY NAME IS SERGIO QUINTANILLA, DANGEROUS PREMISES OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
I WILL BE PRESENTING THIS, THIS CASE ON BEHALF OF THE INITIAL OFFICER RAMIRO RAMIRO MORALES.
UH, THE STRUCTURE BEING PRESENTED TODAY IS LOCATED AT 6 0 1 ARBOR PLACE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF DEMOLITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE ARTICLE EIGHT.
UH, THIS CASE IS THE FIRST TIME BEING HEARD BEFORE THE BOARD.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS NCB 2155 BLOCK TWO LOT S 1 21 0.8 FEET OF 24, LOCATED IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE.
THE OWNER ON RECORD IS BARON DANIEL W WITH THE MAILING ADDRESS OF 1 35 EAST HIGHLAND BOULEVARD.
THE OWNER ON RECORD IS NOT PRESENT TODAY.
DOES THE BOARD WISH TO PROCEED? YES.
NO PHONE NUMBERS WERE FOUND, NOR HAVE I SPOKEN WITH THE OWNER.
THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFIRMED ON JULY 31ST, 2024.
THE PROPERTY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION.
THE FOLLOWING IS A TIMELINE OF EVENTS REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION PROCESS.
THE FIRST INSPECTION REGARDING 6 0 1, OUR REPLACE WAS CONDUCTED ON JANUARY THE TWO, THE 24TH OF 2024.
UH, ORIGINAL NOTICE WAS MAILED ON FEBRUARY THE FIRST OF 2024, AND THE CERTIFIED RECEIPT WAS NOT RETURNED, UH, WAS NOT RETURNED, UH, BY, I'M SORRY, WAS RETURNED BY FEBRUARY THE THIRD OF 2024 ON FEBRUARY THE 19TH OF 2025.
THE NOTICE OF THE, FOR THE BSB HEARING WAS MAILED TO THE OWNER AS OF MARCH 5TH, 2025.
NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED, HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED ON FEBRUARY 20TH, 2025.
THE NOTICE FOR THE BSB HEARING WAS POSTED AT 6 0 1 ARBOR PLACE.
NO SCOPE OF WORK OR FINANCIAL PROOF OR LETTER OF CREDIT OR ENGINEER'S REPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS OF MARCH 5TH, 2025.
THERE ARE NO PERMITS ON FILE FOR 6 0 1 ARBOR PLACE.
THE PICTURES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED FOR TODAY'S PRESENTATION WERE TAKEN ON FEBRUARY THE FOURTH OF 2025 AND MARCH THE FIFTH OF 2025.
THE FIRST PHOTO IS OF THE FRONT ELEVATION SHOWING A SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BUILT IN 1940 WITH POST AND BEAM FOUNDATION, STONE MASON, STONE MASONRY SIDING, AND WOOD FRAMING.
UNDERNEATH THE ROOF IS A SHINGLE CROSS GABLE ROOF WITH LOW PITCH IN THE REAR.
UH, FROM THIS PHOTO, YOU CAN SEE THE, SOME OF THE SMOKE DAMAGE ON THE FRONT RIGHT SIDE OF THE PORCH AND THE WORN OVERHANG AND THE ROOF SHINGLES.
I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE BOARD THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO ENTRIES TO THIS STRUCTURE ON THIS SIDE OF THE, OF THE HOME.
TO THE LEFT OF THE CENTER WINDOW IS THE FIRST DOOR, UM, WHERE I WILL BE MAKING ENTRY.
AND TO THE RIGHT OF THE, THAT SAME WINDOW IS THE SECOND DOOR.
UH, THEY'RE BOTH FACING TO THE RIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE FOLLOWING PHOTO IS A CEILING VIEW UNDER THE PORCH COVER, SHOWING THE BURNT AND MISSING WOOD MEMBERS EXPOSING THE INTERIOR TO THE ELEMENTS.
THE NEXT PHOTOS OF THE RIGHT ELEVATION WHERE YOU SEE SMOKE DAMAGE ON THE STONE WALL, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE BOARDED UP WINDOW WHERE THE STONE IS DETACHING, EXPOSING THE, UH, THE WOOD UNDERNEATH,
[00:40:01]
UH, THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS.A CLOSER LOOK AT THE WINDOW, YOU CAN SEE CRACKS IN THE STONE WALL.
AND, UH, THERE'S LARGE PORTIONS OF THE STONE THAT ARE MISSING THAT HAVE DETACHED.
THE NEXT PHOTO IS OF THE REAR ELEVATION.
THE MASONRY STONE IS MISSING ON THE RIGHT REAR SIDE, UH, THE EXPOSED WOOD HAS SMOKE AND FIRE DAMAGE.
THE OVERHANG AND ROOF ARE ALSO SUSTAINED SMOKE, SMOKE AND FIRE DAMAGE.
THE NEXT PHOTO IS OF THE LEFT ELEVATION, SHOWING BROKEN WINDOWS AND DETERIORATED ROOF OVERHANG.
AND THE FOLLOWING PHOTO IS OF THE REAR SIDE OF THE LEFT ELEVATION.
THE STONE MASONRY WALL HAS ATTACHED EXPOSING THE DETERIORATED WOOD SIDING UNDERNEATH, UH, THE WALL AND ROOF.
BOTH HAVE VISIBLE SIGNS OF SMOKE AND FIRE DAMAGE.
THE ROOF ALSO SUSTAINED DAMAGE FROM THE FALLEN TREE BRANCH THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO.
I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE BOARD THAT WE DO HAVE A CASE PENDING TO REMOVE THAT TREE AND TO REMOVE THE DEBRIS THAT'S ON THE, THAT'S AROUND THE HOME.
UH, THE NEXT PHOTO IS A CLOSER LOOK AT THE DETERIORATED EXPOSED WOOD SIDING WHERE THE STONE WALL WAS DETACHED.
UH, YOU CAN SEE THE LACK OF WEATHER PROTECTION AND AN OPENING ALONG THE BOTTOM EXPOSING THE FOUNDATION TO THE ELEMENTS, THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS OF THE, OF MY ENTRY INTO THE STRUCTURE FROM THAT FIRST DOOR ON THE FRONT ELEVATION.
UM, AS SOON AS YOU OPEN THE DOOR, THERE'S TRASH AND DEBRIS MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO ENTER THE STRUCTURE.
UH, POSING OBVIOUS EGRESS CONCERNS.
THE NEXT PHOTO IS A CLOSER LOOK INTO THE ROOM WHERE YOU CAN SEE SMOKE DAMAGE ON THE WALLS AND CEILING.
UH, THERE'S A HALLWAY RIGHT THERE WHICH LEADS TO A BEDROOM IN THE BACK, WHICH IS OUR NEXT PHOTO.
HERE YOU CAN SEE THE BEDROOM FULL OF TRASH AND DEBRIS, GRAFFITI ON THE WALLS AND, UH, SIGNS OF VAGRANT IS VISIBLE.
THE NEXT PHOTO IS A LOOK AT THE SCATTERED RUBBISH ON THE FLOOR, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO ENTER THE ROOM.
AND THE FOLLOWING PHOTO IS OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA THAT WAS FOUND ON A DRESSER SHOWING THAT VAGRANTS ARE ENTERING THE HOME AND USING NARCOTICS.
THE NEXT PHOTO IS OF MY ENTRY THROUGH THE SECOND FRONT DOOR, WHICH ALSO SHOWS SIGNS OF SMOKE AND FIRE DAMAGE.
AND THE FOLLOWING PHOTO IS A VIEW FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK OF THE HOME.
UH, ONCE AGAIN, SMOKE, FIRE DAMAGE IS VISIBLE.
SHEET ROCK IS DETACHING AND MISSING IN SOME AREAS.
UH, TRASH AND DEBRIS IS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE.
THE DOORWAY TO THE LEFT LEADS TO THE SIDE OF THE HOME THAT WE JUST VIEWED.
I WASN'T ABLE TO CROSS OVER TO THIS SIDE OF THE HOME BECAUSE THAT THRESHOLD RIGHT THERE IS BEING BLOCKED.
THE NEXT PHOTO IS OF THE RIGHT FIRST, FIRST ROOM TO THE RIGHT.
UH, THE ROOM IS FULL OF TRASH.
UH, SHEET ROCK IS MISSING AND THE EXPOSED WOOD MEMBERS SHOW SMOKE AND FIRE DAMAGE.
THE FOLLOWING PHOTO SHOWS MORE OF THE SAME.
THE NEXT ROOM IS FULL OF TRASH AND DEBRIS AND THE EXPOSED WIND MEMBERS ARE BURNT AND CHARRED.
AND THE FINAL PHOTO IS OF THE LAST ROOM IN THE, IN THE REAR SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
UH, TIRE AND DEBRIS ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT.
SHE ROCK IS MISSING FROM THE WALLS AND THE CEILING AND, AND EX UH, EXPOSING THE WOOD MEMBERS.
UH, YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE CEILING RAFTERS OF BOWING AND NATURAL LIGHT IS ENTERING, UH, THE HOME THROUGH THE COMPROMISED ROOF SYSTEM.
THIS IS A SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND NEGLECTED CONDITION THAT HAS SUSTAINED FIRE DAMAGE.
THE STONE MASONRY EXTERIOR WALL CONTAINS STEPPING ALONG THE JOINTS.
STONE HAS DETACHED IN SOME AREAS AND COLLAPSED FROM THE EXTERIOR.
THE EXTERIOR REAR ELEVATION EXPOSED WOOD MEMBERS ARE DETERIORATED AND WINDOW FRAMES ARE MISSING OR DAMAGED.
THE ROOF AND OVERHANG ARE WORN AND HAVE SMOKE AND FIRE DAMAGE.
TRASH AND DEBRIS IS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR, WHICH ALSO SUSTAINS SMOKE AND FIRE DAMAGE.
AND THE PROPERTY HAS A HISTORY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND ILLEGAL DUMPING.
TO RECAP, THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 6 0 1 ARBOR PLACE IS IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE ARTICLE EIGHT, CHAPTER SIX DASH 1 56.
SUBSECTIONS 1 2 4 5 7 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, AND 18.
IN WHICH ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE WHICH HAS ANY OR ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OR, OR DEFECTS HEREAFTER DESCRIBED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE A DANGEROUS BUILDING AND A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH CONDITIONS OF DEFECTS OF, OF DILAPIDATION, SUBSTANDARD, OR UNFITNESS FOR HUMAN HABITATION POSE A THREAT OR POTENTIAL THREAT TO LIFE, HEALTH, PROPERTY, OR HUMAN SAFETY STAFF RECOMMENDS DEMOLITION.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION FOR OF, UH, 6 0 1 ARB PLACE.
UM, WAS HISTORICAL PRESERVATION AWARE OF ALL THIS ROCK AVAILABLE? POSSIBLY, YES.
[00:45:01]
WHAT, UM, THEY, THEY FOUND IT TO NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION AFTER THEIR REVIEW.ANYBODY ELSE? I JUST, I ASSUME THERE'VE BEEN A LOT OF SQUATTERS THERE.
YEAH, JUST LOOKING AT THE TRASH.
I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE AN OFFICER FOR THE CASE, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
BOARD OFFICER ADA IS SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH CENTRAL SAFE.
SO IN REGARDS TO 6 0 1 ARBOR, IT'S A LOCATION THAT WE'VE MADE IN THE PAST YEAR.
WE'VE HAD OVER 30 CALLS FOR SERVICE THERE.
WE'VE BEEN THERE MULTIPLE TIMES IN REGARDS TO THE, THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE FIRES THERE.
THERE'S BEEN ILLEGAL DUMPING ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS WHERE THEY FILL UP THE ENTIRE BACKYARD WITH TRASH.
SO WHENEVER WE GO OVER THERE TO GO CLEAR IT, WE'RE STEPPING OVER AND THROUGH TRASH PILES.
UM, WE'VE LOCATED INDIVIDUALS INSIDE, I'D SAY ABOUT 90% OF THE TIMES THAT WE'VE MADE THE LOCATION.
UH, THERE'S BEEN DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A CRIMINAL TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT ON FILE, IT WAS BECAUSE THE OWNER HASN'T COOPERATED.
UH, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO ARREST THEM DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT SIGNED ON FILE.
WE'VE LOCATED DRUGS AND PARAPHERNALIA INSIDE THE LOCATION.
UM, EVERY TIME WE GO IN THERE, IT'S A DANGER 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO CLEAR IT FOR THEM TO SECURE IT.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE DAMAGE TO THE ROOF AND THE DAMAGE TO THE FLOORING, IT MAKES IT HARD FOR US TO GO THROUGH THAT LOCATION TO CLEAR IT.
SO IT'S A PRETTY DANGEROUS RESIDENCE TO CLEAR.
UM, THE CALLS FOR SERVERS HAVE BEEN IN REGARDS TO PEOPLE PASSING THROUGH, PEOPLE PARKING THEIR BIKES, PEOPLE PARKING THEIR VEHICLES, THE FIRES, AND THEN ALSO THE TRASH DUMPING AT THE LOCATION.
UM, LIKE I SAID, EVERY TIME WE'VE BEEN THERE, THERE'S BEEN PEOPLE INSIDE AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE PRETTY COMFORTABLE TO THE POINT TO WHERE THEY HAVE A LOT OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY THERE.
THEY EVEN LOCK IT FROM THE OUTSIDE WHENEVER THEY LEAVE.
SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE FOR US FOR A LONG TIME NOW.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
ANY UH, QUESTIONS FOR THE OFFICER? NO.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC MOTION ON THE FLOOR? MR. ROBERT TAPPY.
I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 0 1 ARBOR PLACE, SAN ANTONIO 7 8 2 0 7 IS A PUBLIC NEWS PER CITY CODE CHAPTER SIX, ARTICLE EIGHT, SECTION SIX DASH 1 57, WHICH IS NOT FEASIBLE TO BE REPAIRED AT THIS TIME AND IS IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE CHAPTER SIX, ARTICLE EIGHT, SECTION SIX DASH 1 56, SPECIFICALLY SUBSECTIONS 1 2 4, 5 7 8, 11, 12, 15, 17 AND 18 MOVED THAT THE PROPERTY BE DEMOLISHED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS ORDER SECURED FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR 6 0 1 ARBOR PLACE.
UM, IS THAT IT RIGHT? ALRIGHT.
IT IS FOR THE SUBSECTION OR SECTION 6 1 5 6 SUBSECTIONS 1 2 4 5 7 8 11 12 15, 17, 18 IS UH, DO I HAVE A SECOND? ROBERT BINKY.
COMMENTS? UH, I HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
DOES A SECOND ACCEPT WE ACCEPT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ALSO IS FOR UTILITIES TO BE CUT.
COMMENTS, OTHER ROLL CALL ROBERT TAPIA.
MOTION PASSES WITH THE VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.
UM, SO THAT'LL BRING US TO OUR NEXT CASE AT, UM, 27 81 WEST JET ROAD.
[00:50:09]
GOOD MORNING BOARD FOR THE RECORD.MY NAME IS JOSHUA MARTINEZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT.
THE PROPERTY BEING PRESENTED TODAY IS LOCATED AT 27 81 WESTJET ROAD FOR VIOLATIONS UNDER SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SECTIONS 3 0 2 0.7 0.1 FENCES.
ALL FENCES FACING THE STREET FRONTAGE AND THE PREMISES ARE ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC WAY.
AND THOSE FENCES THAT ARE REQUIRED BY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL ORDINANCES SHALL BE MAINTAINED STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND IN GOOD REPAIR.
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE CORRECTED.
ANY FENCES OR A PORTION THEREOF OUT OF VERTICAL ALIGNMENT BY MORE THAN 15 DEGREES ROTTED.
FIRE DAMAGE OR BROKEN WOOD IN SUPPORT POSTS OR CROSSMEMBER SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED.
BROKEN FIRE DAMAGE OR MISSING WOOD SLABS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED, BROKEN OR SEVERELY BENT.
METAL POST OR TORN CUT OR RIPPED METAL FENCING MATERIALS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED.
ANY FENCES OR ANY PORTION THEREOF.
HAVING LOOSE BRICKS, STONES, ROCKS, MORTAR, MASONRY OR SIMILAR MATERIALS SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED.
THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS SHALL NOT PROHIBIT A FENCE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF BE FROM, UH, BEING REMOVED IF THE REMAINING PORTIONS OR SAFE ARE SAFE AND IN GOOD CONDITION.
AND THE ERECTION AND MAIN MAINTENANCE OF A FENCE IS NOT OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS CB 4 180 9 P DASH ONE P DASH ONE A P DASH ONE BABS 1 71 SOUTHSIDE STUDY AREA THREE ANNEXATION LOCATED IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT FOUR.
THE OWNER ON RECORD IS PRESENT PHILIP M. ROSS WITH A MAILING ADDRESS OF 1 0 0 6 HOLBROOK ROAD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8 2 1 8.
THE INSPECTION TIMEFRAME FIRST INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025.
THE OFFICER OBSERVED WOODEN FENCE DAMAGED AND LEANING TOWARDS CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
A REINSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED WITH A WARRANT BEING EXECUTED, FENCE WAS ROTTED, DAMAGED AND DETER AND SHOWING SIGNS OF DETERIORATION WITH UH, ALSO LEANING MORE THAN 15 DEGREES.
PHOTOS TAKEN OF THE FENCE WITH MEASURING TOOL AND NOTICE BEING POSTED ON THE PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2025.
OWNER WAS REQUESTED TO APPEAL, HAS REQUESTED TO APPEAL THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION FEBRUARY 14TH, 2025.
WE WENT AHEAD AND PROCEEDED WITH THE BSB REVIEW ON FEBRUARY, 1825.
FENCE REMAINS IN VIOLATION REGARDING MATERIALS BEING USED ON FEBRUARY 20TH, 2025.
BSB NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY PHOTOS TAKEN ON FEBRUARY 28TH, 2025.
THE FENCE REMAINS IN THE SAME CONDITION.
UPDATED PHOTOS TAKEN FOR BSB REVIEW, THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN ON THE, ON JANUARY 24TH, 2025, JUST SHOWING THE NOTICE OF POSTING, WHICH WE PLACED ON THE FENCE.
NOW MOVING TO FEBRUARY 28TH, 2025.
THIS IS GONNA BE A FRONT CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FENCE.
YOU'LL SEE HERE THE, UH, MAIN GATE, NEXT PHOTO.
NOW GETTING CLOSE, YOU'LL SEE SOME DAMAGE.
YOU'LL SEE PLYWOOD BEING USED FOR THE FENCE AS FENCING MATERIAL.
IT'S ALSO DAMAGED WITH SIGNS OF DETERIORATION ROTTING.
NEXT PHOTO, YOU'LL SEE MORE PLYWOOD BEING USED AS A FENCE WITH METAL, UM, SHEET THAT'S, THAT'S STARTING TO SHOW MAJOR SIGNS OF RUST.
IN THIS PHOTO RIGHT HERE, YOU'LL SEE AGAIN MORE PLYWOOD WITH A METAL SHEET.
UH, IT'S ALL, IT'S CURRENTLY LEANING IN TO IN TOWARDS THE PROPERTY WITH A LARGE AMOUNT OF TREES, UM, LAYING ON TOP OF IT.
IN THAT SAME AREA, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE USE A MEASURING TOOL SHOWING THAT IT'S MORE THAN 15 DEGREES.
NOW GOING TO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT IS, UH, ANOTHER CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE ENTIRE FENCE.
YOU'LL SEE MORE SLATS THAT ARE SHOWING SIGNS OF DETERIORATION ROTTING.
YOU'LL SEE ANOTHER FENCE BEING PLACED ON THERE, OTHER TYPES OF PLYWOOD BEING USED AS WELL.
NOW MOVING OVER A LITTLE BIT MORE.
YOU'LL SEE SOME SLATS MISSING.
YOU'LL SEE DETERIORATION WITH THE SLATS, YOU'LL SEE, UH, ROTTING AS WELL.
NEXT PHOTO, MOVING AGAIN TO ANOTHER SECTION.
[00:55:01]
YOU'LL SEE THAT THE, UH, SLATS ARE NOT ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND, WHICH IS ALSO BEING USED BY PLYWOOD BEHIND IT.NEXT PHOTO IN THIS AREA AS WELL, YOU'LL SEE AGAIN RODING DETERIORATION TO THE FENCE, UH, WITH THE, ON THE SLATS, UH, WITH THE, UM, SOME IN SOME AREAS WHERE THEY'RE BREAKING APART AS WELL.
NEXT PHOTO IN THAT SAME AREA WHERE THE, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE DID USE A MEASURING TOOL WHERE IT'S SHOWING THAT IN THIS PHOTO IT'S NOT AT 15 DEGREES, BUT IT IS GETTING VERY CLOSE TO THE 15 DEGREE MARK.
SO THIS FENCE IS STILL MOVING TOWARDS THE STREET.
MOVING FURTHER DOWN, YOU'LL SEE AGAIN SOME HOLES IN THE, TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE FENCE YOU'LL SEE SOME DAMAGED SLATS, ROTTING DETERIORATION.
UH, TOWARDS THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU'LL SEE A LARGE HOLE.
IN THIS PICTURE HERE, YOU'LL SEE AGAIN ON THE TOP YOU'LL SEE THAT SOME OF THE STATS ARE DAMAGED.
THEY'RE BROKEN ROTTED, AND AGAIN, MORE SIGNS OF DETERIORATION.
THIS PHOTO WAS TAKEN SHOWING THAT THE FENCE IS LEANING MORE THAN 15 DEGREES.
AND WE USE A MEASURING TOOL TO SHOW THAT IT'S OVER 15 DEGREES AS WELL.
AGAIN, MORE DETERIORATION, ROTTING TO THE FENCE.
YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE SLATS ACTUALLY COMING OFF OF THE, THE POST THE CROSS POSTS ARE WOOD MEMBERS.
MOVING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN.
THIS IS TOWARDS THE END OF THE, THE PROPERTY LINE.
AGAIN, JUST MORE DETERIORATION TO THE FENCE ROTTING AS WELL AS, UH, BROKEN SLATS TOWARDS THE TOP.
AND AT THE END OF THIS PHOTO HERE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE FENCE IS CURRENTLY LEANING TOWARDS THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
UH, IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO USE A MEASURING TOOL TO SHOW HOW MUCH IT WAS LEANING, BUT IT, IT WAS A CONCERN THAT WE WENT AHEAD AND ADDED THIS PHOTO IN THERE AS WELL.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FENCE IS TO BE REPAIRED WITH THE APPROPRIATE MATERIAL.
THIS DOES CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION FOR 27 81 WESTJET ROAD.
ANY QUESTIONS TO THIS? UH, CODE OFFICER DEFENSE ANN WEINER, UM, WHAT IS THE FENCE? WHAT'S ON THE PROPERTY? UH, WHEN I DID SPEAK WITH THE OWNER, HE MENTIONED THAT THAT'S HIS ART.
BUT THE MAJOR CONCERN THAT WE HAVE IS THIS FENCE ITSELF.
AGAIN, THAT IS SHOWING SIGNS OF DETERIORATION.
IT'S IN VIOLATION OF SAN ANTONIO PROPER MAINTENANCE CODE.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY? UH, YES.
WHEN WE EXECUTED THE WARRANT, WE DO HAVE SEVERAL OTHER CASES OPEN FOR THIS PROPERTY.
ANYBODY ELSE? IT'S ROBERT TAP.
SO WITH THE, THE, THE DISCUSSION OF THE DEFENSE, HAVE WE DISCUSSED HIS AESTHETICALLY CONCEPT OF WHAT THE FENCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT AND WHAT IT, WHAT I MEAN HOW DOES THE CITY APPROACH THE ARTISTIC SIDE OF THIS WHEN? SO WE'VE SPOKEN MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE PHONE.
UH, ALSO ON THE DAY WE EXECUTED THE WARRANT, UH, THAT WHICH WAS VERY BRIEF 'CAUSE HE DID HAVE TO LEAVE FOR A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT.
I, I'LL LET HIM DISCUSS THAT PART ON THE, ON THE ARTISTIC SIDE.
BUT, UH, WHEN WE WERE TALKING, MY MAIN CONCERN WAS THE FENCE ITSELF AND JUST AGAIN, UM, REQUESTING AFTER EXPLAINING TO HIM WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR WHEN IT COMES TO THE REPAIRS.
BUT THAT'S WHEN HE, THAT'S WHEN HE MENTIONED HE'S GONNA WANT TO APPEAL THE CASE, WHICH I WENT AHEAD AND FORWARDED HIM TO THE CORRECT PEOPLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
YOUR FIRST PICTURE UP THERE WHEN YOU FIRST POSTED FROM THE STREET FOR CONTEXT, CAN WE HAVE THAT SLIDE BACK UP? IT'S NUMBER ONE, I MEAN, UH, FIVE.
IT'S GONNA SHOW THE STREET AND THEN THE GATE, WHAT YOU SHOWED EARLIER.
ALRIGHT, GO BACK TO THE NEXT ONE.
'CAUSE THAT SHOWS FROM THIS THERE.
CAN YOU BLOW THAT ONE UP? CAN YOU ZOOM IT? YOU CAN'T.
IF YOU LOOK TO THE LEFT WHERE YOU HAVE THE GATE, I'M SORRY, TO YOUR RIGHT WHERE YOU HAVE THE GATE, I'VE BLOWN MINE UP.
AND THAT'S WHERE WHEN YOU TAKE THE SECOND PICTURE, YOU SEE ALL THOSE TREE BRANCHES AND ALL THE STUFF ON THE CITY PROPERTY.
'CAUSE THIS IS A CITY STREET, CORRECT? THIS IS THE CITY RIGHT AWAY.
LET ME SEE IF I, UM, OH, ALRIGHT.
[01:00:01]
THAT RIGHT THERE.THAT'S IN FRONT OF HIS FENCE THAT YOU SHOW IN THE SECOND SLIDE.
SO IF WE CAN SHOW THE SECOND SLIDE, THE CLOSEUP, THE NEXT ONE AFTER THIS WOULD BE YOUR CLOSEUP NOW.
IF YOU ROLL, YEAH, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ROLL.
YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE A ROLLER, DO YOU? 'CAUSE YOU'RE GETTING THE TREETOP THERE.
UM, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS, BECAUSE THAT IS CITY PROPERTY IN FRONT OF HIS AREA RIGHT THERE.
NOW THE CITY DOES, AS YOU SEE IS, IS CLEANED AS MUCH AS THE CITY DOES.
WHEN THEY RUN MORES THROUGH THERE, THEY DON'T TAKE BRUSH OUT.
RIGHT HERE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE RIGHT SIDE, PUT THAT LITTLE HAND ON THE RIGHT SIDE RIGHT THERE.
ALL OF THAT IS TECHNICALLY CITY'S BRUSH.
THAT'S THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH MR. ROSS, WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE FOR THE, ON FEBRUARY 24TH OR JANUARY 24TH, RIGHT.
HE WAS ACTUALLY CUTTING THAT AND MAINTAINING THAT AREA, BUT ONLY IN FRONT, NOT THAT BRUSH FAR AS YOU CAN SEE, HE DID NOT MAINTAIN THAT THERE'S A LARGE AMOUNT OF TREE LIMBS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA.
SO DID THIS WASN'T ADDRESSED ONLY THE FENCE.
WE, WE DO HAVE AN A, A VACANT, OVERGROWN PROPERTY CASE OPEN FOR THIS PROPERTY.
SO IT'S ADDRESSED IN ANOTHER, OKAY.
SO WHEN YOUR ONLY, UM, ISSUE IS DEFENSE FOR THIS CASE, IT'S, IT'S REGARDING THE FENCE ITSELF.
AND THAT IS FROM WHAT WE CAN SEE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT GO WHERE THAT TELEPHONE POLE IS THAT, UM, YES.
WHERE IF YOU ZOOM OUT, YOU'LL SEE THE T POLE ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
RIGHT? THAT'S MORE OR LESS WHERE HIS PROPERTY LINE ENDS.
AND THEN WHEN YOU SHOW THE OTHER PICTURES SHOWING THE LEFT SIDE, IT'S YES, A DISTANCE.
THE FURTHER, THE FURTHEST AWAY TELEPHONE POLE ON THE LEFT SIDE, ON THIS PHOTO HERE, THAT TELEPHONE POLE IS PO POST IS MORE OR LESS RIGHT WHERE HIS PROPERTY LINE IS LOCATED AT.
AND THE FENCE INCLUDES THE GATE? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. ROBERT? AND THE FENCE INCLUDES WHAT MATERIAL, MR. CHAIR AND, AND BOARD.
I, I WANNA MAKE, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, THIS PROPERTY'S SOLELY UNDER NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT BRINGING IT TO YOU AS, HEY, THERE'S A VIOLATION HERE.
UM, THEY HAVE POSTED NOTICE AND I BELIEVE, UH, THE OWNER, MR. AND I APOLOGIZE MR. ROSS IS APPEALING WHETHER THAT NOTICE IS PROPER.
SO THAT IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD TODAY, WHETHER, WHETHER NOTICE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO MR. ROSS WAS PROPER.
SO IT'S NOT ABOUT, IT'S JUST ABOUT THE NOTICE.
WELL, I FOR THAT, I JUST WANTED TO GET THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING HERE FOR NOTICE.
NO, COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE BOARD UNDERSTOOD.
AT, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THERE IS NO, THERE'S A, THERE'S A NOTICE, A VIOLATION, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BELIEVES THERE'S A VIOLATION AND THEY'RE GIVING, UM, MR. ROSS NOTICE, MR. ROSS IS SAYING, HEY, YOUR NOTICE ISN'T VALID.
WE HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER TO SPEAK FOR THE CASE.
MR. ROSS, IF YOU CAN PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
PHILLIP MRO, 27 81 WEST JED ROAD AND MAILING ADDRESS, 1 0 0 6 HOLBROOK ROAD, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, ALSO KNOWN AS VICTORIA'S BLACK SWAN INN.
I HAVE OTHER RESIDENCES, BUT THEY'RE NOT RELEVANT TO THIS PARTICULAR APPEAL.
ALL RIGHT, SIR, YOU CAN GO IN, UH, YOUR TESTIMONY, YOUR TESTIMONY FOR THIS.
UM, AS I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS PRESENTATION OVER THE LAST, UH, FEW WEEKS, UH, I REALIZED THAT, THAT WHAT I'M DOING IS RATHER UNUSUAL IN THE EXPERIENCE OF THIS BOARD AS FAR AS APPEALING THE NOTICE OF ALLEGED VIOLATION.
AND MY INTENT IS, AS I ALWAYS HAVE, WHENEVER I'M ADDRESSING A CITY LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY, TO TRY AND GIVE YOU THE BEST ADVICE THAT I CAN WITH REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME YOU HAVE THAT YOU MAY WANT TO LISTEN TO ME, SPEAK TO YOU, BUT I GIVE YOU THE ASSURANCE THAT I'M SPEAKING NOT ONLY TO YOU, BUT TO A LARGER AUDIENCE.
[01:05:01]
UH, ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ISSUES THAT I PERCEIVE ARE EXISTING IN THIS, IN THIS PROPOSED ACTION, WHICH IS TO GIVE ME NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE.UH, I GREW UP AND WAS EDUCATED INITIALLY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
UM, I GREW UP IN THE DECADE AFTER WORLD WAR II.
I'M 75 YEARS OLD, AND MY EDUCATION WAS IN THE, UH, GRAMMAR SCHOOLS, THE, UH, PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, UH, INCLUDING A HIGH SCHOOL SEMINARY IN MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA, AND GRADUATING FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY IN 1972 WITH A DEGREE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE FIELD.
AFTER GRADUATING FROM, UH, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND SUCCEEDING AND AVOIDING THE DRAFT TO NOT BEING, UH, DRAFTED INTO THE VIETNAM WAR, I DETERMINED THAT I WAS GOING TO LEAVE CALIFORNIA, WHICH WAS BECOMING OVERGROWN AND MORE COMPETITIVE AND HIGHER PRICED THAN I WANTED TO DEAL WITH AS A YOUNG ADULT.
I MET MY WIFE IN LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA ABOUT, OH, MAYBE FOUR YEARS AFTER I GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE.
UH, SHE WAS INJURED IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT PRIOR TO OUR MARRIAGE, AND WE MOVED TO NEW YORK CITY FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS SO THAT SHE COULD GO TO A SPORTS MEDICAL CLINIC AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO, UH, GETTING BACK SURGERY AND, UH, NECK SURGERY FOR BROKEN VERTEBRAE IN HER NECK AND BACK.
UH, SHE FORTUNATELY WAS ABLE TO RECOVER.
WE MOVED TO SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS AFTER TAKING A, UH, A TWO WEEK BUS TRIP AROUND THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES AND ACROSS CANADA.
AND I HAD PREVIOUSLY, UH, TRAVELED THE WHOLE COUNTRY, UH, BY TRUCK OR BUS OR OTHERWISE, AND GOT A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHERE I WAS LIVING.
UH, THE NATURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALSO THE BORDERING COUNTRIES, MEXICO AND CANADA.
I'VE SEEN HOW PEOPLE LIVE IN THOSE COUNTRIES JUST ABOUT EVERYWHERE AND THE NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES.
I'VE ALSO TRAVELED ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF THE GLOBE, UM, INCLUDING THE SOVIET UNION, CENTRAL AMERICA, UH, HAWAII, UM, MOST OF EUROPE AND, UH, AND ENGLAND.
AND I, I BRING TO YOU A PERSPECTIVE OF SOMEBODY THAT HAS STUDIED ART, STUDIED ARCHITECTURE, UH, PERSONALLY STUDIED, UH, HUMAN HISTORY AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT.
AND I BELIEVE I HAVE A UNIQUE PERCEPTION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE VARIETY OF LIFESTYLES AND APPROACHES TO LIFE THAT PEOPLE HAVE, UH, GOING BACK THOUSANDS OF YEARS BECAUSE I'M INTERESTED IN COLLECTING, UH, PRE-COLUMBIAN ART, UH, ANCIENT CHINESE ART, ANCIENT INDIAN ART.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NOTICED THE, THE NECKLACE I'M WEARING.
IT'S NOT REALLY APPROPRIATE FOR A MALE TO BE WEARING THIS NECKLACE.
BUT I JUST WANTED, I JUST FELT LIKE NOT WEARING, WELL, I COULDN'T GET TO MY NECK TIES THIS MORNING BECAUSE THEY'RE BURIED IN STUFF IN MY OFFICE AND I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE TAKING TWO HOURS TO GET TO, UH, APPROPRIATE CLOTHES.
BUT I BOUGHT THIS NECKLACE FROM A, AN ESTATE SALE AT VOTE AUCTION FROM MARY SHACK, MARGIE SHACKLEFORD, WHO WAS A WORLDWIDE TRAVEL PERSON, SIR.
SO CAN YOU GET YOU TO WHAT YOU'RE PROTESTING THE VIOLATION OF? YES, I UNDERSTAND.
THIS IS A, A QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD AND THE PROCEDURE IS LESS FORMAL HERE THAN IN COURT, WHICH I SPENT 34 YEARS AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY OF LAW, SOLE PRACTITIONER.
AND I HAD A VARIETY OF OTHER CASES, AND I WOULDN'T PRESUME TO, UH, DISRESPECT THE COURT BY ENGAGING IN A RATHER FAR-FLUNG AND WIDE PRESENTATION OF MY BACKGROUND.
UH, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS BOARD, JUST FROM THE VERY OUTSET TO KNOW WHO YOU'RE DEALING WITH.
[01:10:01]
UH, I WOULD PRESUME THAT ONE OR TWO OR THREE OF YOU MAY HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHO I AM, BUT I'M NOT TAKING THAT FOR GRANTED.AND I KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WILL LOOK BE LOOKING AT THE RECORDING OF THIS HEARING, WHICH I'M TOLD IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD, WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
WHENEVER ANYBODY BECOMES AWARE OF THIS AND WANTS TO DO SOME RESEARCH TO SEE HOW IT GOT STARTED, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO FIND THE RECORD.
AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A VIDEO TAPE RECORDING OR NOT, BUT, UH, IT'S VIDEO AND AUDIO.
IN FACT, IT'S BEING LIVE STREAMED RIGHT NOW, AND I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.
THEY SHOULD, UH, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE THAT KIND OF A RECORD IN EVERY PUBLIC HEARING, UH, WHETHER IT BE JUSTICE, THE PEACE COURT, MUNICIPAL COURT, THIS TYPE OF A, OF A HEARING, UH, STATE COUNTY COURT, DISTRICT COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, TEXAS SUPREME COURT, ALL THE WAY, BECAUSE IT, THE TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE AND COMMUNICATION IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, AND RECORD KEEPING IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
UM, I WAS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN, UH, MR. ANDIS OBSERVATION ABOUT THE, UH, FIRST PHOTO THAT, UH, JOSHUA MARTINEZ POSTED ON THE, ON THE SCREEN.
I HAVE, UH, A LOT OF DOCUMENTS THAT I SUBMITTED TO JUDY KRUM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU, BUT I DON'T, I DIDN'T BRING A THUMB DRIVE AND A COMPUTER TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT 'EM TO YOU MYSELF.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRESENTED, BUT, UM, WELL, SIR, THIS IS ROBERT TOP.
WE NEED TO FAST FORWARD TO HOW WE PLAN TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATION.
WHAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN IS ONLY THE CASE BEFORE US, WHICH IS YOUR APPEAL.
I KNOW THAT NOT THE HISTORIES OR ANYTHING ELSE.
I KNOW, AND YOU KEEP GOING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
SO WOULD YOU PLEASE STAY ON THE TOPIC OF THE APPEAL THAT YOU FILED? I MAY BE MIS MISINFORMED.
MR. MARTINEZ TOLD ME THAT I WOULD HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS I WANTED TO SPEAK MR. MR. CHAIR, THIS IS LEGAL.
UM, WE, UM, HAVE APPROVED THE DOCUMENTS THAT MR. ROSS WANTS TO SHOW.
UM, AND MR. ROSS, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO BRING A THUMB DRIVE.
WE, WE WILL PRESENT THOSE DOCUMENTS TO YOU.
UM, BUT, UH, UH, THE CHAIR DOES HAVE, UM, THE RIGHT TO ASK YOU TO, UM, IF HE BELIEVES THAT YOU ARE KIND OF, UH, GOING OFF TRACK, HE MIGHT ASK YOU OCCASIONALLY, UH, TO, UH, FOCUS ON WHAT HE BELIEVES IS, IS THE ISSUE.
SO YOU DO, I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT YOU DON'T, YOU HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU NEED.
UH, BUT I, I WOULD HOPE THAT NEITHER PARTY SHOULD BE SURPRISED IF ONE OR THE OTHER SAYS, HEY, CAN YOU MOVE, UH, TOWARDS THE ISSUE THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD BE MOVING TOWARDS.
AND OF COURSE, YOU CONTINUE TO, UH, UH, PROVIDE YOUR ARGUMENT AND, AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY, BUT YOU WILL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO, TO SAY WHAT YOU NEED TO.
AND I'M ASSUMING THAT, THAT NONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKING THE DECISION IN THIS MATTER HAVE A LEGAL, LEGAL EDUCATION AS I DO A JURIS DOCTOR, AND THAT YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT AWARE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF, UH, THIS NOTICE OF VIOLATION AS FAR AS THE LARGER PICTURE THAT I SEE, THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, BUT ALSO ANYBODY THAT VIEWS THE RECORD OF THIS HEARING, UH, JUST AS AN EFFORT TO GET YOUR ATTENTION AS TO, UH, THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT I'M PRESENTING TO YOU, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY SOUND LIKE IT IS NOT RELEVANT OR EVEN MATERIAL TO ANY ISSUE THAT YOU ARE CALLED ON TO DECIDE.
UM, IT'S MY BELIEF THAT IF THE FULL MEASURE OF POLICE ENFORCEMENT THAT IS BEING DIRECTED TOWARDS ME AND MY PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY PURSUED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, THAT THE COST OF ABATEMENT WOULD PROBABLY BE IN EXCESS OF A MILLION DOLLARS.
NOW, ALL YOU'RE BEING PRESENTED WITH AT THIS POINT IS A DILAPIDATED FENCE THAT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED, THAT IS ALLEGED TO BE ON MY PROPERTY AND MY RESPONSIBILITY.
YOU'RE NOT BEING PRESENTED WITH ALL THE OTHER CLAIMS THAT I'VE BEEN, UH, MADE AWARE OF BY THE CITY, THAT MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE CITY IS POISED TO TRY AND DESTROY MY ENTIRE RETIREMENT PLAN THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE LAST 45 YEARS.
[01:15:01]
CHAIR, GO AHEAD.I, I DO WANNA MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ASKED FOR THIS APPEAL AND WHAT YOU ARE APPEALING IS WHETHER PROPER NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO YOU.
THAT IS THE ONLY ISSUE THAT IS IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD.
AND WHILE I, I, I SAID THAT YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO ON, ON BEHALF IN REGARDS TO THE APPEAL.
UM, WHAT IS NOT IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD IS ANY OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION THAT THE CITY'S IS OR MIGHT, OR HAS BROUGHT AGAINST YOU OR YOUR PROPERTY.
THE ISSUE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD SOLELY IS, WAS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, UM, FOR THE FENCE PROPER.
UM, AND SO WHILE AGAIN, I WANT TO RESPECT YOUR, YOUR, YOUR RIGHT, AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, SPEAK YOUR CASE, UH, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO A LARGER PICTURE THAT'S NOT IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD OR RELEVANT AS TO WHETHER NOTICE WAS PROPER OR NOT.
AND THAT DOES NOT CONVINCE ME THAT WHAT I HAD PREPARED TO SPEAK TO YOU, WHICH IS JUST IN MY MIND, I HAVEN'T WRITTEN ANYTHING DOWN, AND I'M JUST PRESENTING THIS AS IT COMES TO ME WHILE I'M SPEAKING TO YOU.
BUT THIS IS SORT OF THE SAME TACTIC THAT THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO USED WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO SELL THE APPLEWHITE RESERVOIR TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE BUSINESS AND POLITICAL COMMUNITY.
IT WAS JUST ONE SMALL PIECE OF A MUCH LARGER 50 YEAR WATER PLAN, WHICH MADE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AND ULTIMATELY WAS POLITICALLY DEFEATED.
AND I PERSONALLY ENGINEERED THE DEFEAT OF THE FOY RESERVOIR.
I WAS THE PLUMBER THAT DRAFTED THE REFERENDUM ORDINANCE THAT WAS VOTED ON IN 1990 TO ABANDON THE APPLE WIDE RESERVOIR.
THE SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM WASTED PROBABLY A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS ON THAT PROJECT BEFORE IT WAS FINALLY POPULARLY ABANDONED TWICE AT POPULAR ELECTIONS.
THIS IS THE SAME THING THAT THE CITY IS DOING TO ME AT THIS POINT.
THEY'RE USING THE POLICE ACTION TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ME FOR MY ARTISTIC EXPRESSION ON THE FENCE THAT YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THAT WERE TAKEN BY CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS.
NOW, THE WAY CODE ENFORCEMENT IS DONE IN THIS CITY, IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND I HAVE ABOUT 45 YEARS EXPERIENCE WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, IS IT'S VERY ARBITRARY.
AND TO MY LEGAL MIND, THERE'S A QUESTION OF EQUAL PROTECTION BEING VIOLATED BY THE WAY THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT IS DONE.
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS ARE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY BY ANONYMOUS COMPLAINANTS.
AND IF THE BASIS OF THAT COMPLAINT IS DISCRIMINATORY OR VIOLATION OF A PERSON'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THERE CAN BECOME A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IN ITS OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE, UH, BASIS OF THIS COMPLAINT AGAINST ME.
IT'S NOT THE CONDITION OF MY FENCE.
AND I'LL SHOW YOU THE LOCATION OF MY FENCE.
ONE NEIGHBOR HAS ABOUT 200 ACRES ACROSS JET ROAD FROM ME, INCLUDING ABOUT TWO ACRES ON THE RIVERSIDE OF THE ROAD.
THAT NEIGHBOR HAS BEEN ANTAGONISTIC TO ME EVER SINCE I MOVED ONTO THAT PROPERTY BACK IN 19, UH, 88.
UH, MAY I STOP YOU JUST FOR A MINUTE? YES, SIR.
ON THE MAP YOU HAVE UP THERE, YOU ARE THE RED DOT CORRECT? YOU CAN LOOK UP, UP HERE, SIR.
YOU ARE THE RED DOT CORRECT? UH, AS REFERENCE TO WHAT? SO I CAN GET YOUR INFORMATION.
YOU'RE THE RED.AT THE TOP RIGHT THERE? YES.
SO WHEN YOU TALK, UH, WHAT'S THE ROAD, UM, JET ROAD TO FROM THE MAP? IS IT THE ONE IN FRONT OF YOU BELOW OR IS IT THAT LITTLE, THAT BLUE LINE'S? A RIVER, A CREEK, RIGHT? OR IS THAT A ROAD? THERE'S NO ROAD THERE.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS ROAD DOWN HERE AT THE BOTTOM, THAT'S JET ROAD, RIGHT? YES.
IF, IF I HAD A POINTER, I COULD SHOW YOU, BUT, UH, RIGHT HERE IS YOU, UH, YEAH.
THAT'S NOT THE PLAT, RIGHT? THAT BEAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT THAT HAS MY PROPERTY.
SO THIS IS JET ROAD, RIGHT? YES.
[01:20:01]
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBOR OVER HERE, ACROSS FROM YOU, CORRECT? OVER HERE, YES.WELL, I WE DON'T NEED HIS NAME.
THAT'S HIS NAME SO I CAN VISUALIZE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND HE, YOUR NEIGHBORS AND ALL THAT.
AND HE WAS IN A FEDERAL LAWSUIT WITH THE CITY WHEN THE CITY ANNEXED THAT AREA THAT HE AND I ARE IN TO, UH, DEFEAT THE ZONING, THE FARM AND RANCH ZONING THAT, UH, WAS OVERLAID ON HIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ZONING ON MY PROPERTY.
BUT HE WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN CHANGING THE ZONING.
AND HE'S LIMITED TO SELLING HIS PROPERTY IN 25 ACRE HOME SITES.
IT'S THE SMALLEST THAT, UH, HOME SITE ON THAT SIDE OF JET ROAD THAT IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING.
NOW, I'VE BEEN TOLD BY MY NEIGHBOR ON THE RIVERSIDE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF JET ROAD, UH, JEFF MOLINA, THAT THERE IS A NEW ZONING REGULATION THAT PREVENTS ANY NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WITHIN A MILE OF THE TOYOTA FACTORY.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE CITY IN ITS ACTION, WHICH IS STARTING WITH AN ATTACK ON MY FENCE, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST VULNERABLE PART OF THE PROPERTY, UH, THAT I HAVE, THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO PREVENT ME FROM BUILDING TWO HOUSES ON MY PROPERTY.
THERE ARE TWO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, BOTH OF THEM, AND, UH, CONDITION THAT IS GENERALLY REGARDED AS NOT HABITABLE, BUT THAT'S NOT MY PURPOSE.
I ALSO HAVE TWO ACRES OF OUTSIDE STORAGE OF, UH, BUILDING MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT FIXTURES, UH, VEHICLES, ET CETERA, THAT I ACCUMULATED OVER A PERIOD OF ABOUT 40 YEARS THAT I HAVE OWNED THIS PROPERTY AS MY RETIREMENT PLAN TO BUILD MY DREAM HOME, WHICH IS NOT ANYBODY ELSE'S DREAM HOME.
AND I'M HERE, WE'RE ON THE FENCE CHAIR.
UM, ATTACH, UH, THE DOCUMENTS ON THE SCREEN ARE THE DOCUMENTS THAT MR. ROSS, UH, PROVIDED FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION.
RIGHT? IF I CAN HAVE MR. ROSS NARRATE EACH DOCUMENT AS I PULL THEM UP.
WE WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT'S BEYOND THE FENCE.
WE'RE INTERESTED IN THIS APPEAL.
I JUST ASKED REFERENCE FROM THE DO TO WHERE YOU'RE TALKING THESE DOCUMENTS IN FRONT OF US.
IF YOU WOULD EXPLAIN THESE, THESE DOCUMENTS AND HOW THEY RELATE TO YOUR APPEAL OF THE VIOLATION.
THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU SAID THEY ISSUED YOU AN ILLEGAL VIOLATION.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND HOW THIS RELATES TO THAT VIOLATION.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE HERE TO EXPLAIN.
SO THE DOCUMENTS ON THE SCREEN IS WHAT YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT.
'CAUSE THAT DOES NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS VIOLATION.
NO, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT MY OPINION.
YOUR, YOUR APPEAL IS FOR THE ISSUING OF THE VIOLATION.
OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S IRRELEVANT.
I I I DO WANNA MAKE SURE BOTH PARTIES ARE CLEAR.
UH, CHAIR THE BOARD AND MR. ROSS, THERE HAS BEEN NO VIOLATION, NO CITATION ISSUED.
IT IS SOLELY THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT MR. ROSS'S FRONT OF THIS BOARD AND APPEALING.
THAT NOTICE ON THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS NOT PROPER.
AND, AND, AND MR. ROSS, THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU PROVIDED, UM, THEY ARE TO GET THEM INTO RECORD, YOU, YOU WOULD NEED TO, UM, EXPLAIN THEM.
SO, UH, WE WOULD HOPE THAT, UH, YOU GIVE AN EXPLANATION SO THEY CAN BE PROPERLY IDENTIFIED IN THE RECORD THAT YOU WANT THIS BOARD TO HAVE OF, OF YOUR HEARING.
I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE, UH, TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE TEXAS RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH REGARD TO INTRODUCING DOCUMENTS INTO A LEGAL MATTER.
BUT I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.
UH, BUT I WILL ASSUME THE EVIDENCE RULES ARE, ARE SOMEWHAT LAXED IF YOU WANT TO PRESENT THEM, PRESENT THEM.
WE'RE NOT, THERE ISN'T A, UM, A, A FORMAL, UH, UH, PROCEDURE IN REGARDS TO PRESENTING THEM.
THEY ARE, ARE RELEVANT TO THE CLAIM THAT, UH, YOU ARE MAKING THAT NOTICE WAS NOT, UH, PROPER.
UM, SO, UH, AS THEY'RE, UH, AS THEY'RE POSTED UP THERE, UH, I I I BELIEVE IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, UM, TO THE BOARD FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT.
AND THAT'S WHY I TOOK THE TIME, UH, WHEN I WAS GIVEN A CALL BY MR. MARTINEZ, UH, A COUPLE DAYS AGO, TELLING ME THAT I NEEDED TO SEND THESE DOCUMENTS IF I WANTED TO HAVE THEM CONSIDERED TO JUDY KRUM THAT DAY.
I ALREADY HAD OTHER THINGS THAT I WAS WORKING
[01:25:01]
ON THAT DAY, BUT I MADE TIME TO GO THROUGH AND FIND A LOT OF DOCUMENTS THAT I CONSIDER TO BE EITHER MATERIAL THAT IS LEADING TO THE DISCOVERY OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE OR RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE.UM, BUT THE REASON I'M TRYING TO, UH, DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CONTEXT OF THIS NOTICE OF VIOLATION IS THAT IF THE CITY PURSUES EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE THREATENING ME WITH IS TO FILE SUIT IN FEDERAL COURT TO PROTECT MY FEDERALLY PROTECTED CIVIL RIGHTS.
AND THIS, MR. ROSS, IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, THIS IS LEGAL AND I I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT IS TRUE WHEN IT HAPPENS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO.
BUT TO PREEMPTIVELY, UH, TRY TO CLAIM THAT THAT'S HAPPENING AND THEREFORE ASKING THIS BOARD TO ACT ON THAT PREEMPTION, UM, I WOULD BELIEVE WOULD BE PREMATURE.
I'M NOT ASKING THEM TO ACT ON THAT PREEMPTION.
I AM JUST BRINGING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE PUBLIC BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WHAT I'M SAYING MAY NOT BE, UH, UNDERSTANDABLE TO ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM AT THIS TIME.
BUT ULTIMATELY, UH, I INTEND TO BE VINDICATED.
AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS RECORD, I WANNA LAY OUT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS PROPOSED ACTION BY THE CITY THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO EMBARK ON.
AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE BLINDSIDED, BUT I KNOW AND FROM EXPERIENCE THAT EVERY TIME I GIVE GOOD ADVICE TO CITY COUNCIL, THEY DO THE OPPOSITE THING.
UM, AND I'M USUALLY, UH, NOT PAID ATTENTION TO AT THE BEGINNING OF A LEGAL CONTROVERSY.
AND, UH, THAT GENERALLY WORKS IN MY FAVOR.
BUT THE, THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO BE LOOKING, THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH ISSUES ABOUT MALFEASANCE AND MALPRACTICE WHEN THEY ULTIMATELY, WHEN ALL THE RELEVANT ISSUES COME TO LIGHT.
UM, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE FIRST SLIDE THAT MR. MARTINEZ PRESENTED THAT, UH, MR. ANDIS WAS QUESTIONING HIM ABOUT.
I WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTION THAT ARE CORRECT ANSWERS AS OPPOSED TO WHAT MR. MARTINEZ WAS IMPLYING AND STATING.
UH, CAN YOU GO BACK TO MR. MARTINEZ, UH, FIRST SLIDE ABOUT THE, WITH MY FARM GATE AND THE, UH, SIR, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FENCE.
IN FACT, IF YOU, THE SLIDE THAT I WANNA SHOW YOU IS BEFORE THAT SLIDE, SINCE YOU WANNA GO TO THE SLIDES, CAN WE GO TO THE SLIDES? THE FIRST PAGE, THE ACTUAL NOTICE, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE HAVE TO GET PAST THE, YOUR, UM, REQUEST BEFORE WE CAN TALK FENCE.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE CODE COMPLIANCE VIOLATED OR FALSELY GAVE YOU THIS DOCUMENT, THE DOCUMENTS UP ON THE SCREEN.
THAT'S ALL WE CAN TALK ABOUT HERE.
NO, THAT'S NOT ALL WE CAN TALK ABOUT.
IT'S THE DOCUMENT THAT THEY GAVE YOU IS WHAT YOU APPEALED.
THAT'S ALL WE CAN TALK ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
WELL, I WANNA GO, ANY OTHER ISSUES.
YOU HAVE TO TALK TO THE LEGAL OFFICE BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT AN APPEAL BASED OFF OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU.
YOU SAID IT WAS, IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS.
WE'RE NOT HERE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS.
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, CORRECT? NOTHING ELSE.
YE YES, I I DO WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
THERE WAS A NOTICE OF VIOLATION GIVEN TO MR. ROSS.
MR. ROSS BELIEVES THAT THAT NOTICE WAS IMPROPER.
UM, I BELIEVE WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO IS ARTICULATE HOW HE BELIEVES IT'S IMPROPER.
UM, AND THAT IS WHY HE'S BRINGING UP HIS CIVIL RIGHTS.
HE BELIEVES HIS CIVIL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, THEREFORE, HE BELIEVES NOTICE WAS IMPROPER.
AND MR. ROSS, IF I'M, IF I'M INCORRECT, PLEASE CORRECT ME ON THAT.
I MIGHT BE SIMPLIFYING IT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS, THAT IS WHAT HE IS WHAT HE'S STATING.
UM, COUNSEL AND MR. ROSS, ANYONE IS ALLOWED TO APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT WHAT IS DECIDED HERE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
THE IT IS A DISTRICT, MUNICIPAL, THE MUNICIPAL, IT'S ANY, ANY DECISION THIS BOARD MAKES, UM, CAN BE APPEALED TO DISTRICT COURT.
[01:30:01]
HOWEVER, I DO WANNA MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND.UM, I DON'T BELIEVE I, I DO NOT.
I'D, I'D HAVE TO LOOK, I I'VE NEVER SEEN SOMEBODY, UH, APPEAL, AN APPEAL, UH, UH, A, UM, A A A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THERE IS, THERE IS NO VIOLATION YET.
BUT WHAT HE'S APPEALING IS NOTICE WAS NOT PROPER.
UM, AND, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FILE, UH, FOLLOWS NOTICE.
UM, SO HE'S, HE NEEDS TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION AS TO WHY THAT NOTICE WAS IMPROPER.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT, UM, HE'S TASKED TO DO HERE TODAY.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS IT SAYS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
WELL, WE ARE NOT A BOARD THAT DECIDES WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE IN THE AMENDMENTS.
WE'RE JUST HERE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO DECIDE THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THIS FENCE THAT IS FALLING DOWN.
'CAUSE HIS APPEAL IS THAT THE BUILDING, UH, DSD DID NOT PROPERLY GIVE HIM A LEGAL NOTICE.
HE'S, HE'S, HE'S CHALLENGING THIS.
SO WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT A VIOLATION.
'CAUSE IN REALITY, UNTIL WE ISSUE THIS OUT, THEN IT, WE DEAL WITH THE NEXT PART.
I, I CAN TELL THIS BOARD, THERE IS NO VIOLATION YET.
HIS PROPERTY IS NOT IN VIOLATION IN REGARDS TO THE FENCE.
BUT WHAT HE WANTED TO SAY IS, HEY, YOU GUYS ARE TELLING ME MY, YOU GUYS ARE GIVING ME NOTICE THAT MY FENCE IS IN VIOLATION.
UH, THE NOTICE THAT YOU GAVE ME WAS IMPROPER.
AND TODAY HE'S TASKED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU HOW THAT THAT NOTICE WAS IMPROPER.
BUT IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT AS A BOARD? YES.
THIS BOARD CAN DETERMINE BASED ON HIS EVIDENCE THAT, UH, NOTICE WAS IMPROPER.
HE'S CORRECT OR NOTICE, UM, UH, NOTICE WAS PROPER AND THEY CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD.
UH, STEPS FOR THE NOTICE JUST SO I MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY.
IT SAYS HERE THAT IT WAS GIVEN TO YOU IN PERSON AND THEN ALSO ADDED TO THE PROPERTY ON THAT FENCE.
IN THAT PICTURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
AND THAT'S THEN THE QUESTION THAT, THAT WAS THEN NOT CORRECT.
UM, CAN WE GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT IS THE CORRECT STEPS ON THE CITY'S BEHALF TO NOTIFY AN OWNER SO THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON THAT? DEFINITELY COUNSEL, STAFF.
CAN I GET YOU GUYS TO, UM, UM, EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD YOUR NOTICE PROCEDURES, UH, SO THEY UNDERSTAND HOW A NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND WHETHER THEY, THEY CAN DETERMINE IF NOTICE WAS PROPER AND WHETHER IT WAS FOLLOWED UNDER LAW.
WELL, MAY, MAY I ASK THIS TO COUNSEL? SINCE APPARENTLY THE APPEAL WAS ON THE NOTICE WHEN HE ADDRESSED IT, HE ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE, NOT THE NOTICE.
SO CAN WE READDRESS THE, BECAUSE REMEMBER HE MENTIONED THE FENCE AND ALL OF THAT.
SO CAN WE JUST ADDRESS THIS AND HOW IT YES, YOU CAN.
YOU CAN ASK, UH, YOU CAN ASK STAFF ANY QUESTION THAT YOU WANT AND DIRECT.
DIRECTLY ASK QUESTIONS TO ANSWER YOUR, THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE.
'CAUSE IT WAS GIVEN AS A VIOLATION.
I, I, I BELIEVE WHAT WE DO ON AN S-A-P-M-C, WHEN THERE'S APPEAL, HE'S GOING TO PRESENT, HEY, THIS WAS THE, UH, THE VIOLATION WE BELIEVE WAS THERE, WHICH IS OF COURSE THEY GIVE NOTICE OF THAT.
UM, SO WE DO GIVE THAT INFORMATION.
UM, BUT AGAIN, YES, IT DOES NEED TO FOCUS ON HOW NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND WAS IT DONE PER, PER CODE.
AND I'M SORRY FOR THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A, A DISCONNECT AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY GETS IT.
SO YOU CAN COME BACK UP AND EXPLAIN, BECAUSE THERE'VE BEEN A DISCONNECT.
SOME IT, IT APPARENTLY NO, NO, IT APPARENTLY IS THAT.
I WANT THAT ON THE RECORD AS WELL.
SO HE'LL COME UP AND EXPLAIN THE PROCESS.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE CHALLENGING.
YOU'RE NOT CHALLENGING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS PROCESS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT AGAIN AND HE CAN RE WE'LL ASK HIM QUESTIONS ON THE PROCESS.
AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT WHAT I'M PRESENTING TO YOU IS SOMETHING YOU'VE PROBABLY NEVER RUN INTO BEFORE.
NO, WE'VE RUN INTO IT, BUT IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
SO IF YOU COULD, IF YOU COULD SIT AND THEN WE CAN LAY OUT THE PROCESS AND THEN THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE CHALLENGING.
BUT BEFORE WE'RE THROUGH HERE TODAY, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT I AM ALLEGING.
BUT, AND WHAT MY DEFENSE IS AND WHY I'M RIGHT FOR WELL, THAT'S AGAIN, AS YOU SAY, FOR US TO DETERMINE.
CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND FOR THE BOARD AND FOR THE AUDIENCE OUT THERE, THE PROCESS IS, THE ONLY THING ON THIS RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT WAS THE PROCESS, THE STEPS.
IF YOU WOULD WALK THROUGH THE STEPS FROM THE DATE OF VIOLATION, WHERE IT GOES OVER HERE, AND THEN WHERE IT GOES FROM THERE TO THERE.
[01:35:01]
OF JUST THE PAPER.SO COULD YOU FILL US IN ON THAT? THE FIRST INSPECTION THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE OFFICER WAS JANUARY 20, JANUARY 16TH.
HE WENT OUT THERE AND MADE THE LOCATION.
ONE MOMENT, BECAUSE YOU'RE BACK UP HERE.
NAME RECORD IS JOSHUA MARTINEZ, CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR.
THE OFFICER MADE THE INSPECTION ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025 AFTER HE OBSERVED A FENCE THAT WAS DAMAGED AND LEANING.
HE DID TAKE PHOTOS AND PROVIDED IT TO THE SUPERVISOR, WHICH WAS ME.
I REQUESTED THAT WE GO BACK OUT THERE ON JANUARY 24TH TO EXECUTE A WARRANT FOR OTHER CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP TO MY ATTENTION FROM, FROM A PHONE CALL.
SO WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE, THAT'S WHEN WE USED THE MEASURING TOOL.
WE CHECKED THE FENCE, UH, WENT INTO DEPTH WITH THE FENCE TO MAKE SURE TO SEE IF IT'S POSING ANY CONCERNS.
WHICH AGAIN, IS IT LEANING MORE THAN 15 DEGREES? IS THE, IS THE SLATS ROTTED? ARE THEY DETERIORATED? ARE THEY BROKEN? THESE WERE ALL MEETING THE SAP, THE SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE 3 0 2 0.7 0.1.
SO BECAUSE IT MET THAT CODE, WE WENT AHEAD AND POSTED A NOTICE FOR THAT VIOLATION ON JANUARY, JANUARY 24TH, 2025.
ON THE NOTICE, WE GAVE THE OWNER 10 DAYS TO COME IN COMPLIANCE BY MAKING THE REPAIRS TO THE FENCE.
DURING THAT TIME, ME AND MR. ROSS HAVE SPOKEN SEVERAL ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
SO BEFORE WE EVEN MOVED FORWARD, AFTER, AFTER THE 10 DAYS HAD EXPIRED, WE HELD OFF ON PROCEEDING WITH THAT CASE.
SO WE CAN GIVE HIM THE TIME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPEAL.
SINCE HE DID MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO ME OVER THE PHONE.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION.
DID YOU POST NOTICE OF THE VIOLATION ON THE PROPERTY? WE POSTED THE NOTICE ON THE FENCE, WHICH YOU'LL SEE HERE ON THE, IN, IN THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE.
DID YOU PROVIDE NOTICE TO MR. ROSS, UH, BY HAND DELIVERY? NO.
WE ALSO PROVIDED THE NOTICE IN AN EMAIL BECAUSE HE WAS MENTIONING ON THE PHONE CONVERSATIONS AND EMAIL THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICE YET.
SO WE DID SEND A NOTICE OUT ON, LET ME GET THAT DATE FOR YOU REAL QUICK.
ON FEBRUARY 14TH, THE NOTICE WAS SENT OUT AGAIN TO MR. ROSS AS WELL.
WE ALSO WENT AHEAD AND I BELIEVE WE, UH, CHECKING THE DATE TO SEE IF, WHEN WE PROVIDED IT ON AN EMAIL, WE DID SEND HIM AN EMAIL AS WELL WITH THE NOTICE SO THAT HE WAS GETTING IT A LITTLE FASTER SINCE HE WAS HAVING HARD TIMES GETTING, HE WAS HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME RECEIVING IT IN THE MAIL.
SO WE WENT AHEAD AND RESENT IT, CERTIFIED MAIL ON THE 14TH OF FEBRUARY.
AND THEN WE ALSO SENT HIM A, AN EMAIL WITH THE NOTICE.
YOU SAID YOU SENT IT CERTIFIED MAIL.
DID YOU GET A, A, UH, THE GREEN CARD BACK? DO YOU KNOW IF YOU DID AT THIS TIME? I HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT YET.
UM, THE DAY THAT YOU POSTED, UM, CAN YOU GIMME THE DATE THAT IT WAS POSTED AT THE PROPERTY? LIKE THE PICTURE SET, THE PICTURE THAT YOU HAVE? IT WAS POSTED ON JANUARY 24TH, THE NOTICE, AND THEN WE SENT IT CERTIFIED MAIL OF FEBRUARY 18TH.
THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS, WHEN YOU SAY EMAIL WAS WHAT DATE? SURE.
THAT, THAT WAS CLOSE TO THE, WHEN HE SAID HE RECEIVE IT, RIGHT? I'M TRYING TO FIND, YES.
I'M TRYING TO SEE WHEN WE SENT THAT EMAIL OUT TO HIM.
CHAIR, THIS IS JUDY KRUM, IF I MAY GO AHEAD.
UH, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS EMAILED TO MR. ROSS ON FEBRUARY 14TH, AND ALSO THE NOTICE FOR THE BB HEARING WAS EMAILED AS WELL ON FEBRUARY 19TH.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE WAS THREE DELIVERIES POSTED, GROUND, MAIL, EMAIL, AND THE ONLY ONE THAT SHOWS NOT RECEIVED WAS GROUND MAIL.
CERTIFIED, LET ME, LET ME PUT IT THAT WAY.
THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT'S STILL NOT SHOWN.
THE LETTER TO MR. ROSS ON HOLBROOK ROAD SHOWS THAT THE LETTER WAS CLAIMED ON, UM, FEBRUARY 18TH.
SO THEY WOULD THEN, THEY'VE BEEN DELIVERED AND RECEIVED AT LEAST AT ONE ADDRESS BY CERTIFIED.
YOU HAVE AN EMAIL AND THEN YOU HAVE A POST.
IS THERE ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CODE OR POLICIES TO DELIVER? IT'S, IT'S REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE TO MAIL OUT THE NOTICE, UM, CERTIFIED.
AND THAT'S NOT JUST TO HIM, IT'S ANY OTHER
[01:40:01]
PERSONS THAT HAD CONTACT WITH THAT PROPERTY, PRIOR OWNERS, YES.ET CETERA, ET CETERA? CORRECT.
SO IT WASN'T JUST SENT TO HIM.
WE SENT IT TO THE OWNER ON RECORD, WHICH AT THIS TIME THE OWNER ON RECORD IS MR. PHILIP ROSS.
SO IF THERE WERE OTHERS, IT WOULD'VE BEEN SENT TO THEM AS WELL? YES.
NOW, AFTER THE NOTICES, DID YOU TALK AT ANY TIME TO ARRANGE A MEETING LIKE MOST, LIKE SOME OF THE CASES DO IN THE OFFICE WITH THE APPEAL? HE, WE HAVE NOT MET IN PERSON.
THE ONLY TIME WE MET IN PERSON WAS ON JANUARY 24TH, WHICH AGAIN, WE SPOKE VERY BRIEFLY BECAUSE HE DID HAVE TO LEAVE FOR A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT.
HE WAS ON SITE CUTTING THE GRASS WHEN WE HAD PULLED UP TO THE LOCATION.
AGAIN, I SPOKE WITH HIM VERY, VERY SHORTLY.
HE ENDED UP MENTIONING THAT HE HAD TO LEAVE.
THE SMALL CONVERSATION WAS, UM, ME EXPLAINING TO HIM WHY WE'RE ON SITE.
UM, BUT AGAIN, HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT THAT HE COULDN'T MISS, SO HE HAD TO LEAVE THAT TO THAT.
SO THAT'S WHY THE NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT AS WELL HAND GIVEN TO HIM ON THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH HIM ON THE PHONE WHEN HE TOLD YOU HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE CERTIFIED MAIL.
AND HE, AT THAT TIME WAS SEVERAL DAYS AFTER HE DECIDED TO APPEAL, CORRECT? YES.
WAS THAT THE ONLY PART OF THE CONVERSATION WAS HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE MAIL, SO THAT'S WHEN YOU EMAILED HIM? OR WAS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THERE FOR US? UH, NO.
WE DID SPEAK ABOUT THE CASES ITSELF A LITTLE BIT.
UH, I DID EXPLAIN ABOUT MAINLY THE FENCE BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT THE, HE WAS APPEALING.
SO WE MORE, WE FOCUSED MORE ON THE FENCE.
I ALSO EXPLAINED TO HIM RECENTLY ON, UH, THIS WEEK, ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3RD, I BELIEVE IT WAS, UH, EXPLAINING THE PROCESS OF THE, OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD AND ALSO EXPLAIN TO HIM WHAT HE WOULD, IF HE, THERE'S ANYTHING HE WANTS TO PROVIDE TO THE BOARD, HE CAN GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AND TO, TO BE REVIEWED AS WELL.
AT ANY TIME AFTER HE MENTIONED HE WANTED AN APPEAL, DID YOU DISCUSS THE PROCESS AS YOU ARE TODAY WITH HIM ABOUT HOW THE, HOW THIS VIOLATION WAS ISSUED, THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT, HOW IT'S ISSUED STEP? DID HE EVER ASK THE STEPS OF THE PROCESS THIS? NO, HE DID NOT ASK THE STEPS EXACTLY.
AGAIN, WE JUST TALKED SHORTLY ABOUT, UM, THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE AND WHY A NOTICE WAS GIVEN REGARDING THE VIOLATION THAT WE OBSERVED IN THE CONVERSATION.
HE ONLY TALKED ABOUT THE FENCE, NOT THE VIOLATION THAT HE WAS APPEALING.
THE, THE, THE ACTUAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
WE ALSO MENTIONED THE, UH, DANGEROUS PREMISES CASE THAT WAS OPENED.
WE ALSO MENTIONED THE OVERGROWN PROPERTY CASE THAT WE HAVE OPEN AS WELL.
OTHER THAN THAT, WE WON'T GO INTO THE OTHER CASES.
WHEN HE SAID HE WANTED TO APPEAL, WHEN YOU TALKED TO HIM ON THE PHONE, DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE WANTED TO APPEAL? WAS IT THE PROCESS OR WAS IT THE ACTUAL NOTICE ON THE, ABOUT WORKING ON THE FENCE? HE MENTIONED THAT HE WANTS TO APPEAL IT BECAUSE HE, BECAUSE THIS IS HIS ART AND THAT IT'S NOT A VIOLATION IN HIS EYES.
SO HE'S NOT APPEALING THE DOCUMENT.
HE'S APPEALING THE FACT THAT YOU GAVE HIM A NOTICE FOR THE FENCE THAT HIS S ON HE, HE ASKED TO APPEAL THE CASE JUST BECAUSE HE, FROM DAY ONE WHEN WE MENTIONED THE CONCERNS, HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VIOLATIONS THAT WE WERE BRINGING UP TO HIM.
SO FROM DAY ONE, HE'S BEEN, UH, MENTIONING THAT HE WANTS THE APPEAL AND HE LEFT THE APPEAL OPEN.
DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY TARGET ONE PART.
SO HE, HE, HE'S APPEALING, HE APPEALED.
HE IS, HE IS FROM DAY ONE WANTING TO, HE DID NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THE VIOLATIONS THAT WE BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION.
UH, THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAD, EVEN WITH OTHER CASES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE WORK THAT WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW WITH HIM.
BUT REGARDING DEFENSE ITSELF, YES.
HE HAS NOT, UM, MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT MAKING REPAIRS.
HE JUST DOESN'T AGREE THAT THIS IS A, NOT A VIOLATION IN HIS EYES.
AND THAT FROM DAY ONE, AGAIN, HE WAS MENTIONING THAT HE JUST WANTS TO PEEL IT, WHICH, BECAUSE HE MADE THAT STATEMENT, WE WERE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CASE AND WE WERE GIVING HIM THE TIME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPEAL PROCESS BEFORE WE DID ANYTHING WITH OUR CASE, UH, UH, UH, LEGAL.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S NOT TRYING TO APPEAL THE PROCESS.
HE'S JUST APPEALING THE NOW WHAT HE SAID IN ALLEGED VIOLATION.
[01:45:01]
HE'S TRYING TO APPEAL THE VIOLATION.I, I, UM, I, I, I, I, I THINK MR. ROSS IS CAPABLE.
I THINK HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S HAPPENING.
UM, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO, TO FILE AN APPEAL AND, AND ADDRESS IT.
AND, AND, UM, I GET ATTACKS, NOT I, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO, TO PRESENT HIS CASE.
UM, I, I THINK MR. ROSS IS, IS UNDERSTANDS THAT HE'S APPEALING NOTICE.
UH, BUT I ALSO BELIEVE, AND THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, THAT, UM, HE'S TRYING TO BRING UP AND MAKE A POINT ABOUT A BIGGER PICTURE IN REGARDS TO PROPERTY, WHICH IS, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE.
SO AGAIN, IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD IS WHETHER NOTICE WAS PROPER.
UM, WE DO WANNA ALLOW, THIS IS AN OPEN MEETING.
WE DO WANNA ALLOW MR. ROSS HIS TIME TO, UM, UM, PRESENT HIS CASE.
UM, AND I'VE, I'VE SAID TO YOU, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT HE'S VEERING OFF, YOU CAN, UH, POLITELY AND WITH RESPECT DIRECT HIM BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A WELL-INFORMED DECISION.
YOU HAD QUESTIONS, CORRECT? GO AHEAD.
UM, NO, I WAS READING THE LETTER THAT MR. ROSS SENT TO JUDY CRUM.
AND IN THAT HE SAID WHEN HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, IT WAS NOT IN SAN ANTONIO AND THAT IT WAS ANNEXED.
AND HE FEELS HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN, GRANDFATHERED TO BE ABLE TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS WITH HIS PROPERTY AS HE DID BEFORE IT BECAME SAN ANTONIO.
AGAIN, THIS, THIS IS A MUCH BIGGER ISSUE THAN I THINK THIS BOARD HAS THE, THE AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH.
DID, DID, UH, DID YOU HEAR THAT AT ALL? WHEN IT COMES TO ANNEXATION, WE'RE ASKED.
WE ALWAYS ASK THE CITIZENS IF THEY HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS OR EVEN REGARDING GRANDFATHER OR NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS TO DO, TO COME DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, TO SPEAK WITH OUR, OUR TEAM WHEN IT COMES TO THE NONCONFORM RIGHTS TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO OR WHAT THEY QUALIFY FOR.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE A STEP WAS MISSED BEFORE IT CAME HERE.
NO, NOT, NOT FROM OFFICER MARTINEZ.
UM, WITH MR. ROSS, IF HE WANTED TO APPEAL THE SAYING THAT HE'S GRANDFATHERED IN AT THE TIME THAT WE DID MAKE THE LOCATION FROM OUR INITIAL INSPECTION AND THEN AS, AS WELL AS THE SECOND INSPECTION IN JANUARY, WE DID CONFIRM THAT THERE WAS NO NON-CONFORMING RIGHTS ON FILE AT THIS TIME.
SO WE DID MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE DID CHECK BEFORE MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION AND AREA.
SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO SEE IF, IF THE OWNER DID HAVE A NONCONFORMING RIGHTS REGARDING MAYBE THE FA IN, IN ANY KIND OF CASE THAT WE COME ACROSS.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT YOU DID THAT.
AND THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN.
I I WAS ADDRESSING THAT, BUT I WAS SAYING, I WAS JUST READING THAT LETTER THAT WAS SENT THAT SORT OF STARTED THIS WHOLE BALL ROLLING.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE CODE? NO, THANK YOU.
I THINK YOU MAY HAVE TO SIT DOWN 'CAUSE WE MAY HAVE SOME THANK THIS.
MR. ROSS, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME BACK UP AND RESTATE, I GUESS WE CAN JUST TAKE HIS NAME INTO THE RECORD THAT WE NEED HIS ADDRESS TOO.
I BELIEVE WE ALREADY HAVE IT IN THE RECORD IF HE HAS STATED IT ALREADY.
ALRIGHT, SO AGAIN, THE DOCUMENT ON THE SCREEN IS THE INITIAL, WHAT YOU'RE FILING AGAINST.
UNDERSTAND IT'S ABOUT THE FENCE, BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
'CAUSE WE HAVE TO GET THROUGH THIS BEFORE WE GET TO THAT IN ANOTHER TIME.
'CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT.
IT'S ABOUT THE DEFENSE AND YOU BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT BEEN ISSUED PROPERLY.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW, THE DOCUMENTS YOU HAD UP EARLIER, WE'LL GO BACK TO THOSE DOCUMENTS AND YOU CAN EXPLAIN THOSE DOCUMENTS IF THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THIS.
WE'LL SEE THAT PICTURE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
NOW THE FIRST ONE WAS THE MAP AND WE'LL SKIP TO THE MAP AND GO INTO YOUR DOCUMENTATIONS AND THEN YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE DOCUMENTATIONS TO US.
I THINK WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE CLARIFICATION ON BECAUSE WE DID JUMP INTO THE FENCE SO IT KIND OF MUDDIED THE WATER.
SO DOES THIS HELP YOU FOCUS ON JUST THAT DOCUMENT AND WHAT YOU BELIEVE NOT TO BE FAIR ABOUT IT? OKAY.
GO AHEAD WITH YOUR PRESENTATION, STARTING WITH THE DOCUMENTS ON THE SCREEN IF YOU WANNA READ 'EM OR I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THAT ONE, BUT THAT ONE WILL PROBABLY BE EASIER, SIR, IF YOU WOULD.
UH, THE DOCUMENT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS A NOTICE OF LIZ PENDANTS AGAINST, UH, THE SUBJECT TRACK BACK IN DECEMBER OF 1989
[01:50:01]
WHEN THE CITY SUED MY PROPERTY TO CONDEMN IT FOR THE APPLEWHITE RESERVOIR.UH, THAT DOCUMENT, I BELIEVE HAS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS PREPARED BY AN ENGINEER AND THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY.
IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, THERE SHOULD BE A MEETS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION RIGHT THERE.
EXHIBIT, THAT EXHIBIT DESCRIBES MY PROPERTY.
I QUESTION WHETHER THE NOTICE THAT WAS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION RELATED TO THE PROPERTY THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THAT DOCUMENT, WHICH IS THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT I PURCHASED BACK IN 1988 AND THE CITY CONDEMNED IN 1989.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN READ MEETS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, BUT WHAT MR. MARTINEZ WAS DESCRIBING AS THE CITY'S PROPERTY IN FRONT OF THE FENCE ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S, THAT WAS IN THAT PICTURE.
UH, ONE MOMENT WHEN YOU, WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY FROM THE ROAD, THAT FIRST PICTURE OF THE FENCE.
WHEN YOU'RE SAYING SOUTHEAST, WHICH WAY WOULD THAT BE AS REFERENCE TO ME.
SO THAT WOULD BE THAT FIRST TELEPHONE POLE IN THAT PICTURE? YES.
THERE'S A LOT OF TELEPHONE POLES IN THAT PICTURE.
ONE OF THEM BELONGS TO CPS, THE OTHER'S BELONG TO WELL, THE PERSON RIGHT THERE THAT SHOWS IN THE PICTURE YOU'RE TALKING, THAT ONE IS YOUR SOUTHEAST PROP, UH, OF YOUR PROPERTY.
UH, NO, I WOULDN'T AGREE WITH THAT.
UH, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT PICTURE AND I CAN POINT OUT TO YOU, WHICH IS THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MY PROPERTY AND I WOULD POINT OUT TO YOU, WHICH IS THE, UH, LOCATION OF MR. CHICO'S PROPERTY THAT'S IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY BETWEEN ME AND THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THAT PART OF THE PICTURE.
SO WE'LL GO TO THAT PICTURE AND WE ONLY ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR LINE, NOTHING ELSE OTHER THAN YOUR FOUR CORNERS OF YOUR PROPERTY RIGHT AT RIGHT NOW.
WE'LL GO TO THE FACE, WE'LL GET REFERENCED ALL THE BRUSH THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BEING LOCATED ON THE CITY EASEMENT.
THAT'S, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY ON THE DOCUMENT.
BUT I'M GOING BACK 'CAUSE I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. MARTINEZ.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO IN IS DONE.
SO I'M ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE, WHICH HE STATED INCORRECTLY.
AND YOU MISPERCEIVED MR. CHAIR.
HE DOES, I DO WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
HE DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, MR. ROSS, IT'S RELEVANT AS TO WHETHER NOTICE WAS PROPER AND I I WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY ON POINT WAS NOTICE PROPER.
IF WE GO PAST THAT, I'M GONNA HAVE TO INTERRUPT.
I'M TALKING NOT JUST ABOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE NOTICE.
THAT BRUSH IS NOT ON MY PROPERTY.
I'M GONNA STOP YOU RIGHT THERE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WANT TO EXPAND THE, THE, THE DEFINITION OF NOTICE TO FIT WHAT YOU WANT TO ARGUE, BUT THE ISSUE IS THIS WAS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION PROPER IN REGARDS TO FENCES.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD.
I'M NOT STATING TO YOU THAT ANY OTHER ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE ISN'T VALID.
WHAT I AM STATING THE ONLY RELEVANT ISSUE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD IS, WAS NOTICE IN REGARDS TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR THE DEFENSE PROPER.
I UNDERSTAND WHETHER YOU WANT TO ARGUE THE SUBSTANTIVE, UH, ISSUES OF THAT IS, IS NOT RELEVANT WHETHER PROPER NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO YOU.
NOW YOU CAN AGREE WITH WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT'S A VIOLATION OR NOT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT NOTICE WASN'T PROPER.
SO THAT'S WHAT THE ISSUE IS HERE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD, SIR.
OH, WELL, WHAT I'M ADDRESSING HERE IS THAT YOU GAVE ME NOTICE OF A VIOLATION THAT WAS NOT ON MY PROPERTY.
AND TO ME, THAT'S NOT NOTICE OF A VIOLATION ON MY PROPERTY.
AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO CORRECT IS YOU'RE MISSING INFORMATION FROM MR. MARTINEZ THAT THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT BELONGS TO THE CITY WENT UP TO THAT FENCE LINE THAT WAS DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
THE RIGHT OF WAY FROM THE CITY GOES WITHIN SIX FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE ROAD, NOT ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY.
I'M, I'M GONNA HAVE TO, SIR, WOULDN'T THAT BE WHETHER THERE WAS A VIOLATION OR NOT? NOT WHETHER NOTICE WAS PROPER NO.
IT WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT, WHETHER THERE'S A VIOLATION.
NO, IT'D BE WHETHER THERE WAS A NOTICE OF AN ALLEGED VIOLATION.
WELL, A AGAIN, THE ISSUE IS BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE STATING IS THE ARGUMENT IS WHETHER THAT'S A VIOLATION OR NOT.
BECAUSE IF, IF, IF, IF IT'S NOT YOUR LAND, THEN THEREFORE IT WOULDN'T BE A VIOLATION AGAINST YOU.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN NOTICE WAS, WAS IMPROPER.
[01:55:01]
YES, IT WOULD BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT A VIOLATION, AN ALLEGED VIOLATION BY ME.THE NOTICE IS INTENDED TO GIVE ME NOTICE OF A VIOLATION BY MYSELF.
AND IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU PERCEIVE TO BE A VIOLATION THAT'S NOT ON MY PROPERTY.
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN, SIR, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE NOTICE.
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE VIOLATION YET, SIR.
IT'S WHETHER THE NOTICE WAS PROPER TO YOU.
WE'RE NOT GONNA RESOLVE THIS ISSUE BY ME AND YOU AGREEING ON ANYTHING.
UH, I'M GONNA GO BY THIS MEETS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION THAT WAS, THIS WAS PRODUCED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN 1989 DESCRIBING MY PROPERTY AT THAT TIME.
AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF YOUR NOTICE, WHICH YOU CLAIM WAS A VALID NOTICE.
AND IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SCREEN.
THIS IS THE COVER FACEBOOK PAGE OF THE PHILIP MROS TRUST, WHICH RELATES TO THE SUBJECT MATTER FENCE, WHICH I DON'T DESCRIBE IT AS A FENCE.
I DESCRIBE IT AS A JUNK ART WALL.
AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A DISTINCT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FENCE ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, WHICH APPLIES AGAIN, MR. CHAIR AND, AND MR. ROSS, BECAUSE YOU WANT TO CALL IT A DIFFERENT WORD.
UM, THAT THAT DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T NEGATE THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
THAT AGAIN, IS, IS, UH, AN ISSUE THAT IS GOING TO BE ADDRESSED IF THE PRO, IF THE IS, IF THIS ISSUE GOES TO COURT, IT'S NOT, AGAIN, THAT HAS, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOTICE.
AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CITY SHOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU A NOTICE FOR, UH, I BELIEVE YOU CALLED IT A JUNK WALL.
I, I I JUNK ART WALL, DRUNK ART WALL.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S DEFINED, UM, IN CODE, UH, OR IN THE UDC.
UH, BUT I DO BELIEVE OFFENSES, UH, AND, AND AGAIN, UM, YOU'RE TRYING TO ARGUE THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES, NOT THE, WHETHER NOTICE WAS PROPER.
NO, ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED, ITS OFFENSE LEGALLY BY THE DEFINITION IN THE CITY CODE.
IT DOES NOT APPLY THE SAME TO MY JUNK YARD WALL AS IT DOES TO AN ORDINARY RUN OF THE MILL FENCE THAT'S IN A SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS.
I ONLY HAVE THREE NEIGHBORS WITHIN A A HALF A MILE, AND I'M TWO NEIGHBORS AWAY FROM THE CITY LIMITS OUT IN THE COUNTRY.
AND YOU CANNOT APPLY THE RULES RELATED TO FENCES.
TO ME, WHERE I AM IN MY CONTEXT, THE SAME AS YOU DO IN THE CITY, AND A NOTICE OF A VIOLATION THAT DOESN'T APPLY IS NOT A LEGITIMATE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
MAY I ASK A QUESTION? OKAY, SIR.
THAT'S WHERE WE'LL STOP RIGHT THERE BECAUSE THAT'S YOUR POINT, RIGHT? THAT'S THE POINT.
YOU'RE SAYING THIS ISSUE IS NOT A BASED OFF OF WHAT YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE IS.
CAN THE STAFF INDULGE ME AND PULL UP A CITY MAP FOR THE PURPOSE OF WHERE IT SHOWS THE CITY BEING AND WHAT HAS BEEN ANNEXED? AND IT SHOULD SHOW HIS PIECE IN THE CITY LIMITS? YES.
UH, MR. ANDES, I DO BELIEVE THAT, UM, MR. ROSS AND MR. ROSS CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, HE'S ALREADY ADMITTED THAT HE'S WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
I'LL STIPULATE I'M WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
HE'S STIPULATED, HE'S WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
SO IT, IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE CITY ORDINANCE DO APPLY TO HIM, UM, IF HE'S IN WITH, WITHIN CITY LIMITS.
BUT WHAT YOU MIGHT BRING UP IS A PLA OF WHERE MY PROPERTY IS.
WELL, NOW HOLD ON WITH THAT SAID, WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE BOARD NOW.
DID YOU HAVE ONE TO OKAY, GO AHEAD AND START.
SO AS WE WERE LOOKING AT THE PICTURES, AT FIRST WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT FENCE AND THEN FENCE THAT WASN'T THERE AND FENCE THAT WAS LEANING.
AND THEN I SAW WHERE THE ART WAS.
I RECOGNIZED THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE DOING.
HOWEVER, THERE'S A LARGE PORTION OF THAT FENCE THAT IS JUST BOARDS AND IT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE FENCE.
I MEAN, I COULD SAY THIS IS ART, THIS IS MY PIECE OF ART RIGHT NOW, BUT A FENCE THAT IS LEANING MORE THAN 15 DEGREES IS AGAINST CITY CODE.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET BACK TO THE DOCUMENT, NOT RESPOND, WHAT THE ALLEGED AS YOU KEEP SAYING, BUT THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND SAY IT'S A VIOLATION.
YOU KEEP CONTRADICTING YOURSELF.
MAY I, ON THE DOCUMENT WAS THE DOCUMENT WAS ISSUED PROPERTY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, NOT THE ARTWORK AND ALL THAT.
NOW IS THERE QUESTIONS ON MY RIGHT SIDE? NO.
[02:00:01]
ALRIGHT.SINCE YOU KEEP JUMPING BACK TO DOCUMENTS, YOU STATED EARLIER THAT THE DESCRIPTION, WHICH IS REQUIRED ON THE DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO US, YOU SAID THEY'RE NOT IN ALIGNED WITH WHAT YOU HAD ON THIS LAWSUIT BACK WHENEVER.
CORRECT? BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S A DIFFERENT DESCRIPTION OF THE PLOT OF LAND VERSUS WHAT THE CITY'S PUT ON THE CORRECT.
DO YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION FIRST AND WILL I GET A CHANCE TO NO, YOU WILL NOT GET A CHANCE TO ANSWER ANYTHING ABOUT THE FENCE BECAUSE IT IS ABOUT THE DOCUMENT AND THE PRESENTATION OF HOW THE CITY GAVE YOU THE DOCUMENT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE IN HERE FOR.
THAT DOCUMENT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
YOU SAID EARLIER THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF YOUR LAND ON THAT LAWSUIT DOES NOT MATCH THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE CITY SAYS IT IS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT? MR. MARTINEZ TESTIFIED, AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT UNDER OATH AND THERE'S NO SIR IS UNDER OATH IN HERE.
UH, IS IT YOU'RE TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF A A AREA WHERE ANYTHING YOU SAY, ESPECIALLY A CITY OFFICIAL IS ASSUMED AN OATH.
HEY, SO THEIR WORK PERJURY WOULD APPLY MR. CHAIR AND, AND MR. ROSS.
I, I, AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BOARD, UM, IS ABLE TO ADDRESS AT HAND, WHICH IS WHETHER NOTICE WAS PROPER.
UM, THIS IS, UM, AN OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE REGULAR RULES OF COURT DO NOT, UH, APPLY HERE.
NO ONE IS UNDER OATH, ALTHOUGH, UM, UH, I DO BELIEVE MR. MARTINEZ IS, HAS, HAS BEEN, UM, TRUTHFUL.
UM, SO, UH, AGAIN, THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE BASED WAS NOT AS PROPER.
UM, I BELIEVE, AND, AND, AND, AND STAFF CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, THE NOTICE THAT THEY PROVIDE AND THE INFORMATION THAT THEY OBTAIN IS BASED ON WHAT'S IN THE BEXAR COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
UM, IF MR. UH, ROSS WOULD LIKE TO ARGUE THE MEETS AND BOUNDS OF A PROPERTY AND BELIEVE THAT THE DESCRIPTION IS IS INCORRECT OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THAT IS HIS HIS CHOICE.
BUT AGAIN, THAT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER, UM, THE NOTICE THAT WAS NOT ONLY, UM, HAND DELIVERED TO YOU, BUT ALSO POSTED ON YOUR PROPERTY WHETHER IT WAS, UM, PROPER.
AND, UM, WHAT WE'RE HOPING IS THAT MR. ROSS, YOU PROVIDE SOME TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT THAT NOTICE PROVIDED TO YOU WAS IMPROPER.
UM, AND IIII, I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT THE BOARD IS STILL LOOKING FOR THAT INFORMATION.
SO I'M TRYING TO, AGAIN, YOU HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU NEED, BUT I'M TRYING TO LET YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE SOMETHING TO THE BOARD THAT GIVES THEM A REASON TO AGREE WITH YOU AS TO WHY THE NOTICE WAS IMPROPER.
THAT'S WHAT I'M ATTEMPTING TO DO.
AND CALLING SOMETHING AN ART BOARD AS COMPARED TO A FENCE, I DON'T BELIEVE IS, IS, IS GOING TO WORK, SIR, WITH THIS, OKAY, ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH, YOU SEE MY FARM GATE, IT'S A FIVE FOOT HIGH METAL FARM GATE.
THAT FARM GATE IS ON MY PROPERTY, ON MY PROPERTY LINE.
IT'S WAY BACK, SET BACK FROM THE ROADWAY OR THE EDGE OF THE PAVEMENT.
THE TELEPHONE POLE THAT IS JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THAT FENCE IS MY PROPERTY LINE.
YOU SEE HOW FAR BACK AWAY FROM THE EDGE OF THE ROAD IT IS, IT'S GOT A TRIANGLE OF PROPERTY THAT BELONGS TO MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE ROAD.
IT'S NOT ALL THAT BRUSH LINE IN FRONT OF MY FENCE TOWARDS THE ROAD IS FACING THE ROAD, BUT IT'S NOT ON MY PROPERTY.
I'M BEING CITED FOR A VIOLATION OF A FENCE ON MY PROPERTY.
BUT ALL THAT, UH, TIN AND BRUSH THAT'S PILED UP AGAINST IS BASICALLY A BRUSH LINE.
I'D LIKE THE RECORD TO BE CLEAR THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN CITED.
THERE'S BEEN A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
OKAY? THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION DOES NOT RELATE TO MY PROPERTY, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
IT RELATES TO FROM THE RIGHT OF THAT FENCE CORNER OF THAT GATE TO THE RIGHT ALL THE WAY.
AND IT'S A LONG TRIANGLE IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE PERIMETER OF MY PROPERTY IS MARKED BY ABOUT A HALF A DOZEN, 12 INCH DIAMETER,
[02:05:01]
40 FOOT TALL TELEPHONE POLES THAT I PLANTED.THEY'RE NOT CITY PROPERTY, THAT'S MY PROPERTY LINE.
AND THEY'RE CONNECTED WITH, UH, ANGLE IRON IS BASICALLY MY FENCE ON MY PROPERTY.
I'M NOT BEING CITED FOR A VIOLATION FOR THAT FENCE ON MY PROPERTY.
I'M BEING CITED FOR, UH, A BRUSH LINE ON THAT PORTION THAT'S IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY, BUT IT'S LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY OF ERNEST DEONE.
IF THERE'S A VIOLATION, IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM, IT'S HIS.
AND IT'S A FALSE VIOLATION THAT I'M IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE FOR THAT PORTION OF THE FENCE FOR ABOUT 75 FEET BETWEEN THE, THE PROPERTY LINE AT THE EDGE OF THAT FENCE AND THE, UH, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MY PROPERTY.
YOU, YOU'RE NOT CITED JUST FOR THAT ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTS, THE DOCUMENT CITES YOU FOR THE, THE ALLEGED VIOLATION ON THE DOCUMENT THAT WE ARE HERE TO HEAR.
IT'S NOT FOR A PORTION, IT'S FOR THE WHOLE FRONT.
I'LL ADDRESS THE ENTIRE FENCE WELL OR JUNK ART WALL THAT I'M BEING CI FOR, OR BEARCAT HAS IT MARKED.
AND IF YOU HAVE A PLOT OF YOUR LAND ON A DEED, IT'LL SHOW WHAT IT IS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
YOUR CITING ON THE DOCUMENT, IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE DISTANCE OFFENSE FROM GATE TO WHATEVER.
AND THIS, IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION ACROSS DEFENSE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS ON THERE, CORRECT? YES.
AND MR. MARTINEZ DREW YOUR ATTENTION INITIALLY TO THIS 75 FEET ON THE, IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF MY PROPERTY, AND IMPLIED THAT THAT BRUSH LINE WAS MY PROBLEM.
THAT BRUSH LINE'S NOT ON MY PROPERTY.
HE CALLED IT A FENCE AND HE CALLED IT A BUNCH OF BRUSH.
BUT WHATEVER IT IS, MY FENCE IS THE TELEPHONE POLES NORTH OF THE LINE THAT HE WAS DRAWING YOUR ATTENTION TO.
THAT'S BETWEEN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE ROAD AND PRIVATE PROPERTY.
AND THEN IF YOU GO FROM THE GATE TO THE LEFT, THERE'S ABOUT 250 FEET OF WHAT USED TO BE A WOOD FENCE, BUT NOW IS A JUNK ART WALL.
AND I'VE BEEN WONDERING FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, 25 YEARS, WHEN SOMEBODY WOULD NOTICE THAT THAT FENCE IS NOT ON MY PROPERTY.
THAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND INITIALLY I WRECKED THAT FENCE IN RESPONSE TO A, AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT THAT I WAS OPERATING IN THE ILLEGAL JUNKYARD ON MY PROPERTY.
AND THAT WAS WHEN I WAS IN BEAR COUNTY.
AND THAT WAS ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO.
AND THE COMPROMISE BEAR COUNTY TRIED TO TELL ME THAT I WAS OPERATING IN ILLEGAL JUNKYARD.
I EXPLAINED TO HIM, THIS IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
THERE'S NOTHING FOR SALE ON THAT PROPERTY.
IT'S AN ACCUMULATION OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT FOR MY OWN PERSONAL USE.
AND BEFORE I WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THERE WAS NO QUESTION THAT I WAS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO MAINTAIN MY PROPERTY THE WAY I DID.
BUT THE COMPROMISE WAS INSTEAD OF MOVING THE PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT WAS CLOSEST TO THE ROAD BACK 50 FEET FROM MY SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, I WOULD ERECT AN EIGHT FOOT TALL PRIVACY FENCE.
AND I GOT USED MATERIAL THAT PEOPLE WERE THROWN AWAY IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN, BIG SECTIONS OF CEDAR FENCE THAT WERE STILL USEFUL.
AND I HAD A CLIENT THAT TRADED ME A BUNCH OF SALVAGE SIGNPOSTS, WHICH WERE REALLY HEAVY GAUGE METAL GALVANIZED.
I POUNDED THEM WITH A SLEDGEHAMMER INTO THE, WHAT USED TO BE THE ROAD BED OF JET ROAD, UH, 50 YEARS AGO.
BUT BECAUSE THE ROAD WAS MOVED FURTHER SOUTH AND AWAY FROM THE RIVERBANK, THAT PROPERTY WAS AN OLD ROAD BED, BUT IT WAS ON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY AT THE TIME.
BUT I POUNDED THOSE POSTS IN, AND THOSE POSTS ARE IN PERFECT CONDITION.
UH, THE FENCE, THE WOOD PART OF THE FENCE IS ATTACHED THEM.
AND WHERE THE FENCE IS LEANING A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS THE ROAD, THAT'S BECAUSE TREES DIED THIS LAST YEAR ALL OVER THIS WHOLE PART OF THE COUNTRY, UH, BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER AND THE DROUGHT CONDITION.
AND THERE ARE SOME TREES, SOME JUNK TREES THAT ARE LEANING AGAINST MY FENCE.
AND I HAVEN'T HAD THE TIME TO CUT THOSE TREES AWAY,
[02:10:01]
UH, DISPOSE OF THEM AND STRAIGHTEN UP THE FENCE.BUT THAT FENCE IS SOLID AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A DANGER TO ANYBODY BECAUSE THERE'S A 15 DEGREE LIEN ANYWHERE.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE MEETS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT FENCE IS NOT ON MY PROPERTY LINE.
IT'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT THE CITY ACQUIRED FROM BEAR COUNTY ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO WHEN THAT AREA WAS ANNEXED AS PART OF THE SOUTH SIDE ANNEXATION AREA, UH, SUBJECT TO OVERLAYS THAT WERE NEGOTIATED WITH TOYOTA WHEN THEY FIRST MOVED TO TOWN.
AND THERE'S RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT KIND OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE, UH, BE DONE WITHIN TWO OR THREE MILES OF THE TOYOTA FACTORY.
AND I'M WITHIN THAT AREA WHERE NO NEW HOUSES ARE BEING ALLOWED.
UH, MY PROPERTY IS ZONED RESOURCE PROTECTION ZONE, AND THERE'S ALLOWED ONE HOUSE FOR EVERY 10 ACRES.
BUT PRIOR TO ANNEXATION, I HAD TWO RESIDENCES ON THAT PROPERTY.
SO I'M ENTITLED TO HAVE TWO RESIDENCES ON MY 2.75 ACRES.
IT MAY BE FOR COUNSEL, IT MAY BE FOR OFFICER MARTINEZ.
SO IF THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT IS NOT HIS PROPERTY, IT'S THE CITY PROPERTY, COULDN'T THE CITY JUST PLAN TO TAKE THAT DOWN AND CLEAR ALL THE BRUSH AND TAKE THAT PART OF THE FENCE AWAY?
THE CITY HAS NOT, I I DO WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
UM, BUT IIII, I I DON'T THINK IT'D BE PRUDENT FOR US TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW.
UM, THEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE, UH, CITY COUNCIL'S WATCHING THIS AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL ANSWER OR SOMEONE WILL ANSWER.
UH, BUT AT THIS TIME, AGAIN, WHAT THE ISSUE IS IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD IS, UH, WAS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION PROPER PERIOD, PERIOD.
IT APPEARS TO ME JUST BY THE CITY CODE THAT IT WAS PROPER.
LET ME ASK, LET ME, LET ME REFRESH SOMETHING HERE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING YOUR FENCE, AND LET'S JUST USE AS A REFERENCE.
IN HERE, THIS IS THE FENCE LINE.
THE, THE ONE THAT'S THE NOTICE WAS ABOUT, OKAY.
YOU'RE SAYING YOUR ACTUAL FENCE LINE IS, AND WE'LL USE THE ROOM AS A REFERENCE.
YOU SAID 50 FEET FROM HERE, FROM THIS OLD FENCE.
NO, I'M SAYING THAT THE COUNTY TOLD ME THAT MY PERSONAL PROPERTY NEEDED TO BE STORED 50 FEET AWAY FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY IF I DIDN'T HAVE A PRIVACY FENCE, BUT IF THERE WAS A PRIVACY FENCE INSTEAD OF JUST THE BARBED WIRE FENCE THAT'S ON MY PROPERTY LINE, THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE TO MOVE ANY OF MY PERSONAL PROPERTY AWAY FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE ROAD.
UH, SO INSTEAD OF JUST A BARBED WIRE FENCE, WHICH IS A TYPICAL FENCE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, NOBODY HAS PRIVACY FENCES OUT THERE EXCEPT ME.
SO THAT FENCE USED TO BE A BARBED WIRE FENCE.
IT STILL IS A BARBED WIRE FENCE.
THE, MY PROPERTY PERIMETER IS SURROUNDED BY A BARBED WIRE FENCE.
THE FENCE THAT YOU ARE, SHOULD BEING SHOWED PICTURES OF IS IN FRONT OF MY BARB WIRE FENCE.
IT'S, IT'S IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY, BUT IT WAS IN THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY BEFORE THE CITY ANNEXED IT.
SO BASICALLY THE COUNTY DEEDED MY FENCE THAT, THAT WOOD FENCE, WHICH ISN'T MINE TO THE CITY.
AND THE CITY HAS OWNED IT FOR 20 YEARS.
AND I'VE BEEN WONDERING WHEN ANYBODY WOULD WAKE UP AND REALIZE, HEY, YOU KNOW, THIS FENCE IS NOT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
IT'S MY DONATION FOR PUBLIC ART TO THE CITY, BUT IT'S THE CITY'S PROPERTY, NOT MINE.
I COULD NOT, AND YOU COULD NOT ORDER ME TO TAKE DOWN THAT FENCE BECAUSE IT'S CITY PROPERTY.
CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE DEALING WITH CITY PROPERTY AND HOW IT'S MAINTAINED.
ACTUALLY, LEMME, LEMME GO BACK.
IN THIS ROOM, WE'RE HERE FOR A PIECE OF PAPER KNOWN AS A NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT YOU SAY WAS NOT PROPER.
YOU JUST SAID THAT THE COUNTY TOLD YOU IN ORDER TO KEEP THE STUFF BACK THERE, YOU HAD TO PUT UP A PRIVACY FENCE.
YOUR CHAIN LINK FENCE IS STILL UP AND YOU NOT CHAIN LINK FENCE THE BARB WIRE.
I'M SORRY, BARB WIRE MY CORRECTION THERE.
[02:15:01]
BARB WIRE FENCE IS STILL UP.AND YOU PUT THE OTHER FENCE IN FRONT OF THAT FENCE, CORRECT.
SO YOU DID IT ON, AT THAT TIME, COUNTY LINE.
SO YOU BUILT A FENCE ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY? ON COUNTY PROPERTY.
DID THEY GIVE YOU PERMISSION? IT'S NOT A DONATION.
DID THEY AUTHORIZE IT? UH, THERE WAS NO FORMAL AUTHORIZATION, BUT THEY TOLD ME THAT FENCE.
THIS IS THE CODE COMPLIANCE, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR BEXAR COUNTY 35 YEARS AGO.
HE TOLD ME THE EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE THAT I ERECTED IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY, BUT NOT ON MY PROPERTY.
'CAUSE I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF HE CAME BACK AND LOOKED, OR MAYBE HE DROVE BY AND NEVER LOOKED TO SEE IF THAT PRIVACY FENCE WAS ON MY PROPERTY OR ON COUNTY PROPERTY.
WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT THAT YOU'RE OPERATING A PRIVATE JUNKYARD ANYMORE.
WE'RE NOT GONNA TRY AND REGULATE YOUR USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THEN 20 YEARS AGO, THE CITY ANNEXED THAT AREA, INCLUDING MY PROPERTY RE THEY IMPLIED ZONING FOR THE FIRST TIME AND ALL THE CONSTRUCTION ON MY PROPERTY FROM THE FENCE TO THE, THE STRUCTURES, UH, IT WAS ALL IN A IN PLACE THE SAME AS IT IS TODAY WHEN THE CITY ANNEXED AND IMPOSED NEW ZONING REGULATIONS.
SO I HAD TWO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME, AND TWO ACRES OF OUTSIDE STORAGE.
WHEN ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO, CODE COMPLIANCE STARTED COMING AROUND AGAIN.
THEY SAID I COULD ONLY HAVE A THREE FOOT PRIVACY FENCE IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY.
AND THIS WAS MAYBE BEFORE MR. MARTINEZ'S TIME, BUT I BEGAN TO REALIZE THAT I WAS GONNA HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE CITY TRYING TO ENFORCE CITY'S ZONING ON MY PROPERTY.
IT THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH MY GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS.
AND THEY TOLD ME, YOUR PRIVACY FENCES CAN ONLY BE THREE FOOT HIGH ACROSS THE FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY.
I SAID, NO, IT'S, IT WAS LEGAL WHEN IT WAS ERECTED AND IT'S GRANDFATHERED TODAY.
AND SO I DECIDED I WAS GONNA CREATE A JUNK ART WALL, AND IF THE CITY CAME AFTER ME, IT WOULD BE BECAUSE OF MY PROTECTED EXPRESSION.
AND THE CITY BACKED OFF FIRST.
THEY SAID THAT I HAD ILLEGAL OUTSIDE STORAGE.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE DRIFTING THE DOCUMENT.
WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND.
THIS IS, WE DON'T NEED BACKGROUND.
WE'RE NOT HERE FROM MR. CHAIR FOR THE DOCUMENT, MR. CHAIR AND MR. ROSS.
UM, I'M GONNA ASK IF THERE'S ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT YOU ARE GOING TO PROVIDE THIS, THIS BOARD, UH, SHOWING HOW THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS IMPROPER.
UM, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU, YOU'RE WANTING TO GO BACK AND GIVE HISTORY.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT'S CONTEXT, BUT THAT'S NOT FOCUSED ON SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AS TO WHETHER THAT PIECE OF PAPER, THAT NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS PROPER OR IMPROPER.
YOU ARE STATING IT'S IMPROPER.
UH, I, I I, I'D LIKE FOR US, I'D LIKE TO GET US FOCUSED BACK ON WHETHER THAT NOTICE WAS PROPER OR NOT.
NOT WHAT THE COUNTY DID NOT WHEN THE COUNTY OWNED THE PROPERTY.
NOT WHEN TOYOTA CAME IN, BECAUSE THOSE, THOSE ARE 30 AND 20 YEARS AGO.
SO I I, AGAIN, MR. CHAIR AND MR. ROSS, I'D LIKE FOR US TO, TO GET FOCUSED BACK TO WHETHER NOTICE A VIOLATION WAS PROPER.
AND I I I MEAN ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR.
BUT, UH, I, I BELIEVE THAT WHILE THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES GOING ON WITH YOUR PROPERTY THAT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS, THIS IS NOT THE, THE PROPER FORUM.
AND I'VE COUNTED THERE'S 15 PEOPLE, MOST OF WHOM ARE ON SALARY SITTING THROUGH THIS HEARING.
AND THIS IS NOT AN IMPORTANT ENOUGH ISSUE TO BE PURSUED WITH THE KIND OF INTENT THE CITY HAS AS THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL.
BUT SINCE WE'RE HERE NOW AND WE'RE LIMITED TO THE ISSUE, WHETHER I HAVE, WE, WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE ON RECORD.
I WANNA MAKE SURE AND CRYSTAL CLEAR, ESPECIALLY 'CAUSE THIS IS STREAMING, YOU WANT EVERYBODY TO SEE THERE'S NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS BOARD THAT IS GETTING PAID OR IS GETTING ANY COMPENSATION FOR BEING HERE.
THEY'RE HERE 'CAUSE THEY'RE APPOINTED.
WELL, I I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE SURE AS YOU STREAM AND YOU PROVIDE INFORMATION, THE INFORMATION THAT YOU PROVIDE IS ACCURATE.
ARE THERE OTHER PERSONS HERE THAT, THAT, THAT WORK FOR THE CITY? YES, I AM.
BUT PLEASE DO NOT MAKE IT SEEM THAT THE DECISION MAKERS HERE GET COMPENSATED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
THERE'S A BACKGROUND CHECK AND THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TRAINING.
SO PLEASE DO NOT DIMINISH WHAT THEY DO.
I THINK IT, IT'S, IT'S UNFAIR.
I RESPECT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY LOOKING AT THIS.
MY STATEMENTS THROUGH AN ATTORNEY'S EYES, SIR, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTORNEY'S EYES.
THIS HAS TO DO WITH WHAT, WHAT IS FACT AND WHAT IS FACTUAL IS THE PERSONS THAT ARE HERE TO MAKE THE DECISION DO NOT GET PAID IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM OR COMPENSATED.
[02:20:01]
IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ASSUME OR MAKE ANYBODY THAT'S STREAMING THIS.I DID NOT IMPLY THAT YOU ALL ARE GETTING PAID.
I SAID A MAJORITY OF THE 15 PEOPLE IN HERE ARE ON SALARY, EXCLUDING YOU FIVE.
TO BE MORE CLEAR, I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION ON THIS SIDE, ON THIS SIDE OF YOUR BARRIER, YOUR FENCE.
I BELIEVE EVERYBODY BUT ME IS ON SALARY.
AND THAT WAS MY POINT, IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF RESOURCES BEING APPLIED TO THIS HEARING, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IT'S A WASTE OF CITY MONEY.
WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN IS AN ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT FROM THE FIRST TIME THE CITY CONDEMNED MY PROPERTY.
UH, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT THE CITY IS ENGAGED IN WITH THIS VERY FIRST STEP, WHICH IS VERY PRELIMINARY, IS TO INVERSELY CONDEMN MY PROPERTY AGAIN.
AND I ALREADY HAVE ONE INVERSE CONDEMNATION CASE PENDING AGAINST THE CITY.
UH, PRESENTLY THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS.
AND SO FOR MY OWN INTEREST AND THE INTEREST OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, I WOULD WANT TO SHORT CIRCUIT AN ACTION, WHICH I FORESEE IS GONNA BE ANOTHER INVERSE CONDEMNATION DISPUTE BETWEEN ME AND THE CITY WHEN THE CITY HAD TO QUIT THE APPLEWHITE RESERVOIR AS A RESULT OF MY POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND, AND POPULAR VOTE TWICE.
MR. ROSS, I'M SORRY, YOU CUT ME OFF.
I I DID CUT YOU OFF, SIR, BECAUSE APPLEWHITE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER NOTICE IN REGARDS TO THE ALLEGED ALLEGATION OF, OF A VIOLATION FOR OFFENSE, UM, WAS VALID OR NOT.
IT, IT, IT JUST, IT IT WASN'T, I'M RESPONDING TO, I BELIEVE A STATEMENT BY SOMEBODY ON THIS BOARD THAT YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE LARGER ISSUE OF THE CONTEXT.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU WANTING TO GIVE THEM LEGAL ADVICE AS TO WHAT THEY, THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE JURISDICTION TO DO.
BUT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD TODAY IS WHETHER THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS PROVIDED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WAS VALID.
AND I'M, WHAT, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IS THE FIRST STEP IN A PROCESS WHICH YOU HAVE AUTHORITY TO GO MAKE THE FIRST STEP BY APPROVING WHAT THE BOARD, WHAT THE, UH, CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICERS HAVE INSTIGATED WITH THIS NOTICE YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE VALIDITY OF THAT NOTICE, WHICH I'M SAYING IS THE FIRST STEP TO CONDEMN THIS PROPERTY A SECOND TIME.
AND IT COST THE CITY A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS THAT THEY HAD TO PAY FOR MY DAMAGES AND EXPENSES THE FIRST TIME.
THAT'S NOT COUNTING THE HALF A MILLION DOLLARS THAT DAVIDSON AND TROY CHARGES.
SIR, I'M GONNA INTERRUPT YOU NOW.
IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN WE ASK YOU INFORMATION, YOU RAMBLE.
SO IF WE ASK QUESTIONS, WE WANT DIRECT ANSWERS AND IT SEEMS LIKE, IT SEEMS THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO ASK BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT PAST THE FUTURE.
WE'RE IN THE PRESENT AND THE PRESENT IS IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD ON THIS DOCKET THAT WE GET SAYS AN APPEAL.
SO ON THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS POSTED ON YOUR FENCE THAT YOU RECEIVED BY EMAIL AND THAT SOMEBODY HAD SIGNED FOR, NOBODY SIGNED FOR IT.
I RECEIVED IT, BUT IT WASN'T ASKED TO SIGN.
WE SHOW ONE THAT WAS SIGNED FOR, NO, THERE WASN'T SIGNED FOR THE POSTMAN DELIVERS CERTIFIED MAIL TO MY MAILBOX WITHOUT REQUIRING A SIGNATURE.
AND I DON'T DISPUTE, I STIPULATE THAT I RECEIVED THAT CERTIFIED MAIL.
NOW YOU WERE NOTIFIED THREE DIFFERENT WAYS, CORRECT? YES.
THE ALLEGED VIOLATION WAS NOTED ON THERE, CORRECT? YES.
THE SIGNATURE OF THE OFFICER AND THE BADGE NUMBER I DO BELIEVE IS ON THERE.
IS THAT HOW YOU GUYS DO IT? SO THAT WOULD BE ON THERE.
SO IF WE CAN PUT THE DOCUMENT BACK UP THERE, YOU'RE STATING THAT THAT WAS IMPROPERLY GIVEN TO YOU.
I'M SAYING THAT THE NOTICE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT DID NOT APPLY TO MY PROPERTY.
BUT YOU NEVER SAID THAT TO THE CODE OFFICER, IS THAT CORRECT? LET ME ASK YOU THE QUESTIONS AND YOU JUST SIMPLY ANSWER 'EM.
DID YOU, AT ANY TIME IN THE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE CODE OFFICER AND YOU STATE THAT THAT WAS NOT YOUR PROPERTY? YES.
DID YOU AT ANY TIME TALKING TO THE CODE OFFICER WHEN YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO APPEAL THIS STATE, THE REASONS WHY IT WAS INVALID DOCUMENT? UM, WE NEVER DISCUSSED THAT IN DETAIL.
[02:25:01]
OKAY.IF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT AN APPEAL AND YOU RECEIVED THREE OF THEM AND YOU TALKED ABOUT THE APPEAL WAY BEFORE HE NOTIFIED YOU, OTHER THAN THIS WRITTEN ONE, CORRECT.
IT WAS NOTIFIED ON YOUR FENCE, THEN THE OTHER TWO FOLLOWED.
UH, COULD YOU REPHRASE THAT? ALL RIGHT.
IT WAS COMPLEX QUESTION WHEN THE DOCUMENT WAS POSTED ON YOUR FENCE.
SO YOU WERE AWARE OF THE VIOLATION, THE ALLEGED VIOLATION, THE DOCUMENT, LET'S, LET'S JUST SAY THE DOCUMENT FOR THE, WHEN THE DOCUMENT, I WAS AWARE OF THE PIECE OF PAPER.
DID YOU NOTIFY HIM AT THAT TIME THAT YOU WANTED TO APPEAL? I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS AT THAT TIME OR IF IT WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.
SO YOU DID RECEIVE A WRITTEN, IT WAS WITHIN 10 DAYS YOU RECEIVED A WRITTEN NO, UH, NOTICE BY MAIL AND YOU RECEIVED AN EMAIL, BUT YOU DID NOTIFY THAT YOU WANTED TO APPEAL.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY? YES.
AT ANY TIME DID YOU PUT IN WRITING IN YOUR APPEAL? DID YOU WRITE THE APPEAL OUT TELLING THE STAFF THAT YOU WANTED TO APPEAL? DID YOU SPECIFICALLY SAY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON MY PROPERTY.
IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF MY SUMMARY RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL, I COULD REVIEW IT FOR MY MEMORY.
BUT I DID NOTICE SOMEWHERE IN THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT I GOT FROM CODE COMPLIANCE THAT SOMEBODY SAID THAT THE DISPUTED FENCE WAS WITHIN, I BELIEVE, FIVE OR SIX FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE ROAD.
AND TO ME, THAT INDICATED THAT SOMEBODY FINALLY WOKE UP AFTER 35 YEARS AND DISCOVERED THAT THE DISPUTED FENCE WAS NOT ON MY PROPERTY.
IT WAS ACTUALLY ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, WHICH I KNEW FROM WHEN I FIRST ERECTED IT 35, 40 YEARS AGO.
IT WAS, MY FENCE IS A BARBED WIRE FENCE.
THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING FENCE, WE'RE TALKING TO PAPER.
IT'S NOT THIS FENCE, IT'S NOT THIS FENCE THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THAT PAPER.
AGAIN, YOUR VERBAL RESPONSE, THE REASON FOR, FOR APPEALING IN THE WRITTEN PART.
DID YOU WRITE THAT IN THERE WHEN YOU WROTE THEM AND SAID, I WANT TO APPEAL THIS IN WRITING? 'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO DO IT IN WRITING.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE A NOTICE OF APPEAL.
I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO STATE THE GROUNDS FOR YOUR APPEAL IN THE NOTICE.
BUT DID YOU TELL THE CODE OFFICER IN ANY OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS THE SPECIFIC REASON WHY YOU WANTED TO APPEAL? YOU JUST SAID APPEAL.
I THINK ALL I'M REQUIRED TO DO IS GIVE NOTICE.
I ASKED HIM BECAUSE I WAS INFORMED BY MR. MARTINEZ THAT THERE WAS SOMEBODY IN THE STAFF OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD THAT WOULD PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN DRAFTING AN APPEAL OR FILING AN APPEAL BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HAD TO DO AN APPEAL OF A NOTICE OF ALLEGED VIOLATION.
AND MR. MARTINEZ DIRECTED ME TO JUDY CRUM, WHO TOLD ME BASICALLY THROUGH EMAILS AND PHONE CONVERSATIONS, THE PROCESS OF FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL AND APPEARING BEFORE THE BOARD.
AND THEN THE DAY BEFORE, WELL, THE DAY THAT I HAD TO PROVIDE ALL MY DOCUMENT, ALL MY DOCUMENTS, I GOT A CALL IN THE AFTERNOON FOR MR. MARTINEZ, AND I APOLOGIZE.
I WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOR TWO WEEKS ALL UP UNTIL LAST WEEKEND AT ABOUT 10 O'CLOCK ON SATURDAY NIGHT, UH, IN COSTA RICA GETTING SOME MAJOR DENTAL WORK.
AND I WASN'T IN COMMUNICATION.
WITH ALL THAT SAID, FOR THIS HEARING, AGAIN, YOU'RE DRIFTING AWAY FROM WE THE BSB, THIS IS THE BSB.
WE DON'T HAVE STAFF THAT IS DSD THAT DOES ALL THE PAPERWORK AND THEN GIVES IT TO US.
NOW, THERE IS A PART, IF I REMEMBER, WHEN YOU DO THE APPEAL, YOU HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY EXPLAIN WHY YOU'RE APPEALING, NOT JUST THE FACT I WANT TO APPEAL.
WHEN YOU WANTED TO APPEAL THIS, DID YOU GO GET ANY DOCUMENTATION SAYING THAT ALLEGED ISSUE ON THE DOCUMENTS WAS NOT ON YOUR PROPERTY? UH, DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY, WHEN MR. MARTINEZ TOLD ME THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO PRESENT DOCUMENTS, I ASSEMBLED DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEGED FENCE IS NOT ON MY PROPERTY.
I GAVE THAT INFORMATION PRIOR TO THIS HEARING.
AND IF I CAN GO THROUGH MY DOCUMENTS, I'LL JUST POINT 'EM OUT TO YOU, MR. CHAIR, THIS IS LEGAL.
WHETHER UH, HE'S GUILTY OF THAT VIOLATION OR NOT, IS THAT, IS THE ISSUE THAT HE WANTS THIS BOARD TO ADDRESS.
[02:30:01]
THAT IS NOT A IMPROPER NOTICE.THAT'S LIKE THE, THE ANALOGY I WOULD USE IS, UM, AN OFFICER ISSUE, SOMEBODY A SPEEDING TICKET.
HE'S LIKE, I WASN'T DRIVING THE CAR, OR I WASN'T SPEEDING, THEN YOU WOULD GO TO TRIAL ON THAT.
THE FACT THAT THE CITATION WAS ISSUED DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT WAS IMPROPER.
SO THE CITATION, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU, SIR, YOU HAVE NOT, UH, ACKNOWLEDGE.
I I I THINK WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS, IS, IS NOT PROPER NOTICE, IS ACTUALLY WHAT IS GOING TO BE ADDRESSED.
IF THIS ISSUE GOES TO COURT OR TRIAL.
IT DOESN'T MEAN NOTICE WASN'T PROPER.
WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING IS IT'S NOT YOUR, IT'S NOT YOUR FENCE.
YOU'RE NOT ARGUING THAT NOTICE ISN'T PROPER.
THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
AND THIS, IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD TODAY, THERE IS NO RIPE VIOLATION FOR THEM TO MAKE A DECISION ON.
THEY ARE HERE TO MAKE A DE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER PROPER NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO YOU THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BELIEVES THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION.
NOW, YOU MIGHT DISAGREE THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION, BUT THE ISSUE IS WHETHER NOTICE WAS PROPER, DID YOU GET FAIR NOTICE THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A VIOLATION? NOT WHETHER IT'S AN ACTUAL VIOLATION OR NOT.
AND YOUR ARGUMENT IS IT'S NOT A VIOLATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY FENCE.
WOULDN'T THAT BE FAIR TO SAY, SIR, I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR LEGAL OPINION, BUT MY DISAGREEMENT DEAR.
BUT MIKE, YOUR MY, I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR LEGAL OPINION, BUT MY DISAGREEMENT IS NOT GONNA AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THIS HEARING.
WHAT'S GONNA AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THIS HEARING IS IF THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS NOTICE WAS DIRECTED TO THE WRONG PERSON AND THAT IT WAS AN INVALID NOTICE, WHICH THEY CAN RULE TODAY ON THAT BASIS, THAT IF I GET A NOTICE OF A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY, THAT'S NOT PROPER NOTICE.
THE PROPER PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING IS NOT BEING NOTIFIED.
AND THE PROPER PARTY TO THIS PROCEEDING IS THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
BECAUSE THEY ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE TELLING ME YOU THINK IS IN VIOLATION.
AND THIS IS MY FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO IMPRESS ON YOU THE FACT.
AND SIR, THAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT IS, THAT IS A, THAT IS FOR THE TRIER OF FACT.
AND THIS BOARD IS NOT HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER, UH, IT WAS A VIOLATION OR NOT.
THEY'RE HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER NOTICE WAS PROPER.
SO I I I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I, I, UM, THAT'S NOT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD.
WHETHER, NO, SIR, IT'S NOT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD IS WHETHER NOTICE WAS PROPER, NOT WHETHER THERE WAS AN ACTUAL VIOLATION OR NOT.
YOU DON'T THINK NOTICE TO THE WRONG PARTY IS ANY PROBLEM.
BUT IF THE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD UNDERSTAND, SIR, THAT'S THAT AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS BEING STATED.
WHEN A, WHEN A OFFICER STOPS YOU FOR A SPEEDING TICKET, HE GIVES A NOTICE TO THE DRIVER.
AND IF THE PASSENGER'S NOT WEARING A SEATBELT, HE'LL GIVE NOTICE TO THE PASSENGER.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT GONNA COME BACK AND SAY, I WASN'T PRESENT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I DID NOT, THERE'S NO WAY THAT THE CITY CAN PROVE A VIOLATION AGAINST ME BECAUSE I DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING ACCUSED OF BEING IN VIOLATION.
AND THAT'S NOT PROPER NOTICE TO ME BECAUSE I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FENCE THAT YOU SAY NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED ALL MOMENT.
I CAN'T REPAIR CITY PROPERTY, SIR, WITHOUT AN ORDER AND A CONTRACT WITH CITY, CITY COUNCIL.
WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS THE FENCE NOW.
WOULD YOU PLEASE STEP BACK? I THINK, UH, CODE HASN'T ISSUE.
HE NEEDS TO, SO WOULD YOU PLEASE OKAY.
STEP BACK AND JUST TURN IT OVER TO HIM FOR A SECOND, PLEASE.
BOARD CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR JOSHUA MARTINEZ.
I JUST WANNA, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED, UM, THE EMAIL OF WHEN HE, WHEN, WHEN HE WAS APPEALING.
I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THE DATE.
WHEN HE DID SEND THAT EMAIL TO JUDY KRUM, IT WAS FEBRUARY 3RD, 2025, WHERE HE DOES STATE IN THE EMAIL THAT HE WANTED TO APPEAL THE CASES THAT HE WAS, HE HAD RECEIVED NOTICE FOR VIOLATION.
AND FROM THAT POINT IS WHERE WE CONTINUED, UH, HAVING A DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH TO TRY TO GET IT ALL TAKEN CARE OF TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS DONE PROPERLY, AS WELL AS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE IT SET FOR, UH, FOR TODAY'S DATE.
SO HE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED THE, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PIECE OF PAPER? YES.
ON THE EMAIL HE STATED THAT HE WANTED ASSISTANCE, UH, WITH PREPARING APPEALS FOR THE THREE CASES THAT WERE FILED AGAINST, UH, ME LAST WEEK IS WHAT HE STATED.
I WANNA START THE APPEAL PROCESS BEFORE THESE CASES GO ANY FURTHER.
SO HE'S GOT TWO OTHERS, WHATEVER THEY ARE SEPARATE.
TWO OTHER CASES THAT WE'RE, WE ALSO HAVE
[02:35:01]
PENDING FOR THE PROPERTY, BUT REGARDING THE FENCE, THIS WAS PART OF THAT APPEAL.AND THE ONLY THING, AGAIN, THAT'S AN ALLEGED VIOLATION.
THE, THE DOCUMENT SAYS AND WAS GIVEN IN THE PROPER STEPS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.
'CAUSE HE SAID SPECIFICALLY IN THERE THAT HE WANTS TO APPEAL THE PROCESS THAT YOU HANDED HIM THAT PAPER.
IT SAYS, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE IF WE CAN PULL UP THE, SO THE BOARD CAN RE REVIEW THE, THE, THE EMAIL FOR FEBRUARY 3RD.
IF YOU CAN PLEASE BRING UP THE APPEAL NOTICE.
IT STATES, I BELIEVE IT'S GONNA BE ON FOR FEBRUARY 3RD.
I THINK IT'S TOWARDS THE BOTTOM.
UH, THAT'LL BE THIS, THIS IS THE ONE I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS EMAIL HERE WHERE HE MENTIONS TO, TO JUDY THAT I HAD ADVISED HIM, UM, REGARDING TO REACH OUT TO HER TO, BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT AT THAT POINT IS WHEN HE HAD MENTIONED TO ME THAT HE WANTED TO PEEL THE CASES.
SO I DID ADVISE HIM TO REACH OUT TO JUDY TO HELP HIM WITH THAT PROCESS.
AND THAT'S WHERE THIS EMAIL COMES IN, WHERE HE EMAILED HER REQUESTING THAT HE WANTED TO PROCEED WITH APPEAL.
IT'S JUST HE WANTED TO PROCEED WITH AN APPEAL.
ESTHER, WE CAN PLEASE SCROLL UP.
UM, THE REQUEST FROM MR. ROSS, HIS ACTUAL APPEAL WAS SUBMITTED ON FEBRUARY 12TH.
HOWEVER, WE DID HAVE CONTACT, UM, SINCE FEBRUARY 3RD.
MR. ROSS WAS GOING OUT OF TOWN DURING THIS TIME.
COUNSEL QUESTION, WOULD IT BE AUTHORIZED OR, UH, ALLOWED IF I ASKED MS. UH, CRUM A QUESTION SINCE SHE'S HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE INDIVIDUAL? SURE.
IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS, EITHER BY PHONE OR TEXT, OTHER THAN WHAT WE SEE HERE, WAS THERE A MENTION OF A SPECIFIC REASON OF APPEAL? JUDY CREW, AGAIN, WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, MR. ROSS DID MENTION THAT HE WANTED TO APPEAL THE NOTICE BECAUSE HIS PROPERTY WAS GRANDFATHERED.
UM, WE HAVE THE LATEST APPEALED UP ON THE SCREEN WHEN THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN YOU AND MR. UH ROSS IN, IN THE CONVERSATION, HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO LUMP THE THREE APPEALS TOGETHER.
SO HE NEVER SPECIFICALLY STATED WHY HE WANTED TO APPEAL ANY OF THEM.
HE WAS TRYING TO APPEAL THREE NOTICES THAT HE HAS RECEIVED.
UM, WE DID MENTION TO HIM THAT ONLY THIS S-A-P-M-C WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD FOR A APPEAL.
AND HE STILL DID NOT GIVE YOU A REASON FOR THIS PARTICULAR APPEAL OTHER THAN THE FACT HE SAID APPEAL.
UM, THE APPEAL IS ON THE SCREEN.
ESTHER, WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT.
THIS WAS RECEIVED BY MR. ROSS ON FEBRUARY 12TH.
IN THE APPEAL PROCESS, WHEN YOU RECEIVE AN APPEAL, WHOEVER RECEIVES THEM, IS THERE ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST THE THING SAYING, I HEREBY DECLARE I WANT TO APPEAL? OR IS THERE ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES THE REASON FOR APPEAL?
[02:40:02]
UM, THE APPEAL MUST BE FILED NOT LATER, WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE AND THE APPEAL MUST CONTAIN A BRIEF STATEMENT IDENTIFYING THE NOTICE OF ACTION BEING APPEALED, DESCRIBE THE RELIEF, SOUGHT AND CONCLUDING WITH THE STATEMENT AS TO WHETHER THE ORDER SHOULD BE REVERSED, MODIFIED, OR OTHERWISE SET ASIDE.NOW, FOR THE RECORD, IT SAYS MUST BE STATED FOR THE REASON OF THE APPEAL.
A BRIEF STATEMENT MUST BE INCLUDED, UM, WITHIN THE APPEAL.
IN FAIRNESS TO MR. ROSS, HE DOES HAVE A PS AS I MENTIONED ON THE PHONE, UH, UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THE CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ARE MOTIVATED BY DISCRIMINATION OR RETALIATION BASED ON PRIOR OBJECTIONS TO SIMILAR NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS REGARDING MY GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS, JUNK ART WALL, JUNK ART HOUSE, AND JUNK ART YARD.
THEREFORE, I I SUBMIT THAT THERE ARE FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AT ISSUE.
THAT IS, THAT IS WHAT HE STATED.
UM, I, AND I, I, I, I STATE THAT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE HIS FULL STATEMENTS, UM, UM, ON RECORD.
I DON'T WANT, UH, MR. ROSS TO, TO FEEL THAT, UM, WE DID NOT INCLUDE EVERY STATEMENT THAT HE MADE TO MS. CRI.
SO THAT'S WHY I, I INCLUDED THAT PART.
UH, CAN THAT STAY ON THE BOARD? THANK YOU.
AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE TO COME BACK UP.
UM, MR. ROSS, WILL YOU PLEASE COME BACK UP? I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU.
YOUR APPEAL RIGHT HERE ON THE DE PS UP HERE ON THE THING OWNER IS ON THAT DOCUMENT, YOU'RE APPEALING THE FACT, AND, AND FORGIVE ME IF I USE THE WRONG TERM, THAT YOU DON'T OWN THE ALLEGED QUESTIONED FENCE THAT HAS A PROBLEM.
IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER? RIGHT? YES.
BECAUSE YOUR DOCUMENT SAYS YOU CLAIMED OWNERSHIP, SO THEN YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE.
IF I MAY EXPLAIN, TO GIVE YOU A CORRECT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, MY STATEMENT THAT I OWN THE PROPERTY RELATES TO ALL THREE APPEALS AND THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY.
I DON'T CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE FENCE PER SE.
WHAT DOES THIS SAY OR THE LAND? YOUR JUNK WALL FENCE.
YOUR JUNK WALL FENCE, DOES THAT NOT IMPLY OWNERSHIP COUNSEL, MR. CHAIR? YEAH, I, I, IT, IT, I BELIEVE IT SAYS JUNK ART WALL.
UM, AND, UH, WHETHER IT, IT IMPLIES OWNERSHIP OR NOT, THAT I'M GONNA LET THE, THE BOARD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
WELL, I READ THE REPORT WHERE IT SAYS, OFF, UH, REGARDING MY GRANDFATHER RIGHTS JUNK ART WALL, WHICH MEANS WHAT? YOU OWN IT JUST AS A LEGAL EXPLANATION.
AND YOUR COUNSEL CAN TELL YOU, I CANNOT CLAIM ADVERSE POSSESSION OF CITY PROPERTY.
AND IF I'M CLAIMING TO OWN THE JUNK YARD WALL, IT WOULD BE LEGALLY INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE EVEN IF I ERECTED THE WALL ON CITY PROPERTY, I COULD NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF IT BECAUSE THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL TO ADVERSELY POSSESS GOVERNMENT PROPERTY UNDER THE STATUTORY PRESCRIPTIONS.
WHAT DO YOU READ UP THERE? YOU ARE CLAIMING A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE FOR A WALL THAT YOU DON'T OWN, IS WHAT YOU'RE NOW SAYING AMONG OTHER THINGS.
BUT YOU'RE CLAIMING FOR SOMETHING YOU DON'T OWN AND IT'S PROTECTED OR THAT YOU HAVE ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY.
BUT THERE'S AN INTERESTING, UH, ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, WHICH I'M SURE HASN'T OCCURRED TO YOU, BUT I'M SURE THAT, UH, YOUR LEARNED COUNSEL WILL AGREE WITH ME THAT JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME.
AND AN ORDER THAT IS MADE WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS VOID FROM ITS INCEPTION.
AND UNDER THE LAW, IF YOU, AND YOU'RE, IF YOU ORDER THAT THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION IS VALID, MY RESPONSE IN COURT, IF IT EVER HAD TO GO THAT FAR, AND I'M SPEAKING TO YOUR COUNSEL THAT'S ADVISING YOU AS MUCH AS YOU AND MR. CHAIR, I, AND I APPRECIATE THAT IT'S IRRELEVANT AS TO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
UM, THAT AGAIN, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD
[02:45:01]
IS SOLELY WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD.WHETHER NOTICE IS PROVIDED, MR. IF MR. ROSS WOULD LIKE TO TAKE FURTHER LEGAL ACTION, MR. ROSS KNOWS HE HE DOES.
AND HE DOESN'T NEED YOU TO BE THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
BUT WHAT I'M PRESENTING TO YOU, AND THE REASON IS SPEAKING TO YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO DISPOSE OF THIS MATTER WITHOUT FURTHER WASTE AND EXPENSE AND DELAY BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO OR ANYBODY THAT MIGHT COME AFTER YOU IN THE PROCESS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATION.
YOU CAN SAY THIS NOTICE WAS DIRECTED TO THE WRONG PERSON.
YOU'RE ASSUMING I I'M GONNA NOT OBJECT.
I AM GOING TO, TO ME, THAT SOUNDED LIKE YOU JUST THREATENED US.
HOW COULD I THREATEN YOU? YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE FOR NO, NO, NO.
NO, YOU JUST SOUNDED LIKE YOU SAID PEOPLE WHO ARE GONNA COME AFTER US, IF I HEAR THAT RIGHT.
OH, NO, I MEANT PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA BE DECISION MAKERS THAT ARE GONNA FOLLOW YOU, NOT COME AFTER YOU, BUT FOLLOW YOU.
WELL, WHAT YOU SAID WAS COME AFTER, SO THAT WAS A JUST SEMANTICS THAT YOU MISUNDERSTOOD MY INTENT.
UH, MR. CHAIR, I, LEGAL WOULD, WOULD, WOULD ASK IF, IF MR. ROSS DOESN'T HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE TO PRESENT THAT, UH, THIS BOARD, UH, GO AHEAD AND, AND, AND MAKE A DECISION.
IT'S START IT'S STARTING TO GET ANY NEW INFORMATION, SIR, ANY NEW INFORMATION? I HAVE FILED DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY FOR PRESENTATION TO YOU, AND I INSIST ON MY RIGHT TO PRESENT THOSE DOCUMENTS.
AND I'LL DO IT BRIEFLY, BUT I NEED TO DESCRIBE THE DOCUMENTS AS THEY COME UP, IDENTIFY THEM, AND AS DO THEY BE OFFERED IN EVIDENCE? WE ALREADY HAVE 'EM IN EVIDENCE, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA HASH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE IN EVIDENCE.
ONCE WE GO HERE, THEY'RE STILL IN EVIDENCE.
BUT WE'RE GONNA ALLOW YOU TO GO THROUGH 'EM PROCESS.
BUT I'M GONNA ASK YOU THIS, THE LAWSUIT STUFF WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN, BECAUSE IT HAS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS, IT IS NOT THIS COURT'S DETERMINATION TO DECIDE YOUR PROPERTY LINE VERSUS WHATEVER WE ARE HERE FOR THE DOCUMENT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT SAYS THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT PRESENTED LEGALLY OR IN THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE REQUIRED BY STATE AND CITY? SEE, I I WAS UNDER THE MIS IMPRESSION THAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS BOARD IS TO WEED OUT MERITORIOUS UNMERITORIOUS CASES ON EITHER SIDE.
YOU CAN EITHER APPROVE, THAT'S AN APPEAL COURT.
WHAT WE ARE HERE, SIR, IS TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO US ON THE CASE HERE.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO, TO DECIDE ANYTHING OTHER, IN FACT, WE DON'T SEE ANY OF THIS.
SO WE DON'T EVEN REVIEW CASES.
WE SEE 'EM AND WE INTERPRET WHAT WE GET IN FRONT OF US AND WE DECIDE ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE CITY AND BY THE, IN THIS CASE, YOU, THIS IS WHAT WE DO.
WE DON'T INTERPRET ANYTHING BUT WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO IN A JUDICIAL SETTING.
AND THAT'S NOT TO DISPUTE PROPERTY LINES, DEEDS, OR ANY OF THAT.
IT'S TO DISPUTE THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT AND YOU HAVE A CAN COMPLAINT THAT THE PROPER PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED.
OTHER THAN THAT, ALL THE OTHER STUFF ABOUT THE LAWSUITS IS NOT RELEVANT FOR US.
IT MAY BE SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT NOT IN HERE.
WELL, WHEN I WAS SWORN IN AS AN ATTORNEY AT LAW, I WAS SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
AND I WOULD ASSUME YOU ALL TOOK A SIMILAR OATH TO BECOME MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD.
AND IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES DID NOT APPLY TO YOUR PRESIDING OVER THIS HEARING, THEN I FEEL LIKE I'M IN ESTRANGED LAND.
UM, CAN WE PLEASE, AGAIN, FOCUS ON WHETHER, UM, UH, YOU WANT TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS SPECIFICALLY THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ON THERE? CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHAT THEY ARE AND WHY YOU'VE PRESENTED 'EM AND HOW YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT HELPS YOUR CASE? SURE, I'D LIKE TO DO THAT.
THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF A PRINTOUT FROM BEAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT, UH, WITH THE, UH, DESCRIPTION OF MY PROPERTY AT 27 81 WEST JET ROAD.
AND I WOULD OFFER IT IN EVIDENCE TO SHOW, UH, THE CHARACTERISTIC OF MY PROPERTY, UH, INCLUDING VALUES AND UNDER CURRENT ZONING AND CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY.
AND WITH THAT, I WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN PRICES OR NOTHING.
THAT'S NOT OUR INTEREST WITH THIS RIGHT HERE.
OKAY? IS THERE A WAY WE CAN DO A SPLIT SCREEN
[02:50:01]
AND BRING UP THE ACTUAL STARTING OF THE COMPLAINT WHERE IT ACTUALLY GIVES LEGAL DESCRIPTION? IT IT WOULD BE ON THE ACTUAL, UH, DOCUMENTATION WHERE THEY'RE PRESENTING THE CASE.IT'S THE FIRST PART WHERE IT GIVES NAME AND THEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
IF WE CAN HAVE WHAT HE JUST PUT UP THERE AND THAT SIDE SCREENED.
I WANNA SHOW YOU SOMETHING, SIR, BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WAS NOT PROPERLY PRESENTED AND, AND LET'S DO THIS.
IT'S, IT'S PRESENTED TO THE PROPERTY.
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, RIGHT? ALL ISSUES ARE THE LAY OF THE LAND, NOT TO THE NECESSARILY THE PERSON.
THE DESCRIPTION UP HERE IS THE SAME.
IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT THIS SAME DOCUMENT.
SO YOU JUST SHOWED US WHAT THIS DESCRIPTION IS HERE.
CORRECT? AND YOU JUST SAID IT'S LEGAL ON THE, UH, BEARCAT.
WELL, THIS IS THE SAME DESCRIPTION.
THAT'S WHERE THEY SENT, OR THAT'S WHAT THAT NOTICE IS FOR.
THAT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS THE SAME ONE YOU JUST SHOWED.
AND MY PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO THAT LEGAL DESCRIPTION, DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS OWNED BY THE CITY IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY.
WELL, IF I WAS GONNA GET NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THAT FENCE, IT WOULD HAVE TO DESCRIBE THE REAL ESTATE THAT THAT FENCE IS SITTING ON IN ORDER FOR ME TO HAVE ANY INTEREST IN ANY VIOLATION REGARDING THAT FENCE.
CAN YOU SCREEN THAT? HE WANTS THE PUBLIC TO SEE IT.
I WANNA SHOW THE PUBLIC THE SAME THING.
YOU'RE ARGUING THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT THE SAME AS THE DESCRIPTION THAT YOU SHOWED US.
NO, IT'S SENT TO THE SAME, I'M SAYING THAT IT'S THE IMPROPER DESCRIPTION FOR THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY THAT THAT FENCE IS ON.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT FENCE IS ON MY PROPERTY THAT'S LEGALLY DESCRIBED.
I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE FENCE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU SAY IS NOT ACCURATE.
THIS IS THE SAME, ACCURATE, IF YOU READ WHERE IT SAYS LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THIS TWO FORMS, THEY'RE THE SAME.
I KNOW I'M NOT DISPUTING THE LEGAL, WHAT'RE GOING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE FORM.
I, I BELIEVE THAT'S A, I BELIEVE THAT'S A QUESTION OF FACT.
LET'S, CAN WE MOVE, MOVE ON ON THAT.
'CAUSE WE DON'T TALK ABOUT COST THAT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THIS COURT.
THIS DOCUMENT WAS BASED OFF OF ALL THE INFORMATION THE CITY GETS.
OKAY? THIS IS A GENERAL WARRANTY DEED WHERE MY WIFE, UH, CONVEYED HER COMMUNITY INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO ME.
AND I'M OFFERING THIS AS A, A DOCUMENT TO SHOW THE CHAIN OF TITLE TO THE LAND THAT'S BEING ALLEGED TO HAVE THE VIOLATION IN 2014.
10 YEARS AGO, MY WIFE DEEDED HER COMMUNITY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO ME.
AND THEN, OH, THIS IS A COPY OF THE DEED OF TRUST THAT, UH, IN 1987 WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, UH, PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR $30,000 AND I FINANCED 24,000 THROUGH RANDOLPH BROOKS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION.
THEY HELD THE DEED OF TRUST INITIALLY, WHICH I EVENTUALLY PAID OFF.
MAY I ASK WHY THIS IS PERTINENT TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? WELL, WHICH IS, I I DON'T THINK IT IS.
I I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS SAYING THAT YOU DON'T OWN THAT PROPERTY.
AND YOU DID SAY THAT YOU OWN THE FENCE IN YOUR EMAILS TO MS. KRUM.
WE ARE HERE TO SAY, DID OFFICER MARTINEZ ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE, UH, NOTIFICATION? THANK YOU.
NOBODY, NOBODY'S SAYING YOU DON'T OWN THAT PROPERTY.
I'M GIVING YOU A LITTLE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.
I'M TRYING TO DO ITT NEED BACKGROUND COMPLETE.
I DON'T NEED, SIR, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT WAS PUT ON YOUR FENCE THAT YOU SAY SHOULDN'T BE.
[02:55:02]
OKAY, THIS WAS THE INITIAL WARRANTY DEED WHERE I ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN 1987 FROM MANUEL SAND SANDOVAL AND THEN FINANCED IT THROUGH RANDOLPH BROOKS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION.SO I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY OFF AND ON.
I HAVEN'T OWNED IT CONTINUOUSLY FOR THE LAST, IT, IT'S IRRELEVANT HOW MANY TIMES YOU'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY.
SO THE DEEDS ARE IRRELEVANT TO US RIGHT NOW.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU WANT TO SHOW.
THEY'RE MATERIAL TO THE OWNER.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THAT WE LOOK AT IS THE DOCUMENT AND THE PROCEDURE UP TO THE DOCUMENT, EVERYTHING ELSE IS NOT IN PLAY RIGHT NOW.
ONCE WE DETERMINE THE DOCUMENT STATUS, THEN EVERYTHING ELSE COMES INTO PLAY DEALING WITH THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.
IS THAT CORRECT, COUNSEL? IT IT IS.
MR. CHAIR, ALTHOUGH IIII, I WOULD SAY I I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MR. ROSS, UM, UH, DOES HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT, UH, WHATEVER FACTS HE BELIEVES ARE, ARE RELEVANT.
I I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME THINGS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH, BUT, UM, WE DO WANT TO ALLOW HIM THAT OPPORTUNITY.
I WOULD POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THE MEETS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION FOR MY PROPERTY HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE IT WAS ORIGINALLY PURCHASED BY ME, WHICH ARE MATERIAL TO THE ISSUE OF WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY, WHERE THE FENCE IS LOCATED.
AND GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1987, WHEN I FIRST BECAME ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY, I DID NOT OWN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
BEXAR COUNTY OWNED THE RIGHT OF WAY IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY.
I I I WOULD ALSO SAY THIS IS LEGAL AGAIN, MR. ROSS, IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU'VE ALREADY STATED THAT YOU BUILT THE FENCE, YOU OWN THE FENCE, AND NOW YOU HAVE A JUNK.
YOU THAT FENCE IS NO LONGER CALLED A, A FENCE.
SO AGAIN, WHAT YOU'RE STATING IS INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE ALREADY STATED.
YOU'RE JUST RESTATING IT AGAIN, WELL NOT QUALIFY.
I PROMISE YOU, YOU ARE BEING RECORDED.
I'M QUALIFYING IT WITH THE STATEMENT THAT EVEN THOUGH I CLAIMED OWNERSHIP OF THE FENCE, I CAN'T OWN ANYTHING ON CITY PROPERTY.
THAT'S LEGAL OPINION ON MY PART AS AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER.
I DON'T CLAIM AT IN THIS HEARING THAT I'M THE OWNER OF THE FENCE.
THESE ARE THE JUDGE'S NOTES ON THE OTHER INVERSE CONDEMNATION CASE I HAVE PENDING AGAINST THE CITY.
JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM NOT A NOVICE AT THIS AND I DON'T NEED ANOTHER INVERSE CONDEMNATION CASE AGAINST THE CITY, WHICH THE CITY IS NOT ABLE TO EXTRICATE ITSELF EVEN AFTER FOUR YEARS.
THIS IS A NOTICE OF, UH, PENDENS.
THE FIRST TIME THE CITY CONDEMNED THIS PROPERTY AND THE CITY IS ALREADY ON RECORD DESCRIBING BY MEETS AND BOUNDS THE DE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT AT ISSUE IN THIS HEARING, I WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE OF A VIOLATION ON MY PROPERTY.
I WAS GIVEN NOTICE OF A VIOLATION ON CITY PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BY MEETS AND BOUNDS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY NEEDS TO REVIEW.
I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU, UH, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO RELY ON THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TELL YOU WHETHER THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT I RECEIVED RELATED TO ANY PROPERTY THAT I HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT? SO YOU DON'T DENY PUTTING UP THE FENCE, CORRECT.
AND YOU DON'T DENY ANY OF THE JUNK ART THAT'S ON THE FENCE, CORRECT? SO IS IT LEGAL FOR HIM TO PUT A FENCE ON CITY PROPERTY BOARD AND, AND, AND, AND MS. WEINER? UM, IN GENERAL, UM, PERSONS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT, UM, OR ERECT ANYTHING ON CITY PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION.
UM, HAVING SAID THAT, UM, I I, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE CITY AGREES WITH, UH, WITH MR. ROSS.
UM, SO, UM, IT, IT, IT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
BUT IN GENERAL, UH, YOU, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ERECT SOMETHING ON CITY PROPERTY, YOU WOULD NEED PERMISSION.
BUT AS POINT OF FACT, I DID NOT ERECT THAT FENCE ON CITY PROPERTY.
I ERECTED THAT FENCE ON COUNTY PROPERTY.
THE CITY ACQUIRED THE COUNTY PROPERTY.
AGAIN, MR. ROSS, I'M GONNA LET YOU KNOW, THIS IS IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE WAS PROVIDED.
LET'S PLEASE MOVE ON WITH THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU HAVE, SIR.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO, I I, I BELIEVE IMPRESSION, SHE FOLKS, I BELIEVE THAT QUESTION WAS, WAS, WAS, UH, DIRECTED TOWARDS LEGAL ME.
THIS IS, UH, MY FACEBOOK PAGE RELATED TO THE JUNK ART WALL THAT'S ON CITY PROPERTY IN FRONT OF MY
[03:00:01]
PROPERTY.AND I WOULD OFFER IT JUST AS THE, UH, FOR AS EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF GENERAL PUBLIC CONCERN AND IT'S FEDERALLY PROTECTED AS SUCH.
THIS IS A SLIDE LOOKING AT JET ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN MY PROPERTY, WHICH IS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, ABOUT, UH, 25 FEET FROM THAT TELEPHONE POLE TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PICTURE.
UH, NEXT TO MY PROPERTY IS A 25 ACRE TRACT OWNED BY, UM, MY NEIGHBOR, JEFF MOLINA, WHO HAS BUILT A MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE ON HIS PROPERTY.
UM, HE OWNS BOTH SIDES OF THE RIVER, UH, IN HIS 25 ACRE TRACT.
ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS THE PROPERTY OWNED BY JOANNA, UM, LOCKEY, AND SHE HAS ABOUT 16 ACRES.
AND THEN TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, UH, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS A, UM, IT'D BE THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CHACON RANCH, WHICH IS A 260 ACRE RANCH DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM MY PROPERTY.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IS ATTEMPTING TO APPLY A, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR A PRIVACY FENCE.
UH, I'M THE ONLY PERSON IN THE WHOLE VICINITY WITHIN PROBABLY A SQUARE MILE THAT HAS A PRIVACY FENCE IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY.
BUT THE APPLICATION OF A RULE THAT APPLIES APPROPRIATELY TO SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS HAS NO APPLICATION APPROPRIATELY IN A RURAL SETTING.
AND NONE OF MY IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, EXCEPT MAYBE THE CHA CONES, WHO DON'T LIKE TO DRIVE BY MY PROPERTY AT ALL, REGARDLESS OF ITS APPEARANCE, HAS ANY OBJECTION TO MY JUNK YARD WALL.
EVERYBODY THAT DRIVES DOWN THE ROAD AND, AND I'M WORKING OUT IN FRONT CLEANING THE WEEDS FROM THE FRONT OF THE YARD, UH, THEY ALL COMPLIMENT ME, THE METER READER, THE ELECTRIC METER, UH, THE POSTMAN STRANGERS THAT WORK AT TOYOTA THAT USE JET ROAD AS A SHORTCUT, THEY ALL EXPRESS THEIR APPRECIATION.
NOBODY HAS DRIVEN BY AND SAID THEY OBJECT TO IT OR THAT IT'S A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC.
BUT THIS PARTICULAR PHOTO GIVES YOU A VIEW TO THE WEST FROM THE, UH, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MY PROPERTY LOOKING WEST TO SHOW YOU THE CHARACTER.
THIS IS THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE.
AND WE DON'T APPRECIATE THE CITY WASTING ITS TIME AND MONEY COMING DOWN AND TELLING US HOW TO LIVE.
'CAUSE WHEN WE MOVED DOWN THERE, IT WAS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.
WE WERE FIVE MILES AWAY FROM THE CITY AND EVERYBODY ON THE SOUTH SIDE WAS AGAINST ANNEXATION.
AND I'VE SUGGESTED TO CODE COMPLIANCE THAT THEY TELL THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY ATTORNEY.
WE'RE NOT AT THAT POINT, SIR, TO WE CITY COUNCIL.
IS THE REPEAT OF THE, UH, FACEBOOK PAGE OF MY JUNK ART WALL.
WE'VE ALREADY, UH, WELL ACTUALLY, IF YOU WOULD SCROLL DOWN, THESE ARE PICTURES OF THE JUNK YARD WALL.
AND YOU KEEP SCROLLING AND, AND SHOW THE NATURE OF THE WAY I HAVE DECORATED THE WALL
AND THE DECLARATION WAS PROMPTED BY NOTICE FROM THE CITY CODE COMPLIANCE ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO, THAT THEY WERE GONNA FORCE ME TO DEMOLISH THE FENCE.
AND I COULD HAVE NO MORE THAN A THREE FOOT TALL FENCE IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY.
AND I CHANGED IT INTO A JUNK YARD WALL JUST TO RAISE THE ANTE AND EXPRESS MY, UH, FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
BUT THIS JUNK I WAS TOLD BY ANOTHER OFFICER WAS, SHE CHARACTERIZED IT AS ILLEGAL DUMPING.
AND THE FOCUS OF HER ENFORCEMENT WAS THE CHARACTER OF MY ARTISTIC EXPRESSION.
NOT BECAUSE THE FENCE WAS IN A DE DETERIORATED OR DILAPIDATED CONDITION.
THE WHOLE FOCUS, AND PROBABLY THE INITIAL COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS ANONYMOUS, AND I'M NOT TOLD WHO MADE THE COMPLAINT, WAS SOMEBODY THAT OBJECTED TO MY ARTISTIC EXPRESSION, NOT THE CONDITION OF MY FENCE, WHICH HAD BEEN THERE FOR 30 YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT NOTICE AS A VIOLATION.
SO I SUBMIT THAT THERE'S A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION AND MR. ROSS MEDICAL PROTECTION FOR CLARIFICATION.
[03:05:01]
UM, I APPRECIATE THOSE PICTURES.YOU'RE NOT HERE BECAUSE THOSE, ALL THOSE THINGS ARE ON YOUR FENCES, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR? THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WASN'T BECAUSE YOUR FENCE IS DECORATED AND AND NOW CONSIDERED A JUNK ART WALL.
IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THAT'S INCORRECT.
I'M STATING THAT THE
WERE YOU ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT WAS POSTED? WAS IT BECAUSE OF THE JUNK ART WALL OR WAS IT BECAUSE YOUR FENCE WAS, THE FENCE WAS LEANING? IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS INSTATED, BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTER.
AGAIN, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT IS IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD TODAY, IS IT DUE TO THE DECLARATION OF THE FENCE OR IS IT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE FENCE IS LEANING MORE THAN 15 DEGREES? SIR, IT'S DUE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE FENCE.
AND IF I HAVE TO PROVE IT IN FEDERAL COURT, I HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO DO I I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
CAN I, CAN I GET, UM, MR. MARTINEZ UP? I I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CRYSTAL CLEAR ON WHAT THE VIOLATION, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION THAT YOU'RE APPEALING TODAY, MR. MARTINEZ IS THE, IS THE VIOLATION FOR THE FENCE, IS IT BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE WAY THAT HE IS DECORATED THE FENCE CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR JOSHUA MARTINEZ? NO, IT'S REGARDING, IT'S THE FENCE ITSELF.
IS IT BECAUSE IT'S LEANING MORE THAN 15 DEGREES, IT'S LEANING MORE THAN 15 DEGREES.
THE PHOTOS THAT THAT, THAT, THAT MR. ROSS JUST SHOWED, WAS HE ISSUED, IS THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR THAT IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD TODAY? THE NOTICE IS FOR THE FENCE, NOT FOR THE ART.
BEFORE YOU LEAVE, MR. MARTINEZ, LEMME ASK YOU, OR EVEN STAFF, WHOEVER I'VE HEARD HIM DESCRIBE, UH, MR. ROSS DESCRIBE THIS IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
FIRST, HE DESCRIBES IT AS AN ARTISTIC WALL.
THEN HE JUST TESTIFIED THAT THE CITY DOESN'T WANT, UM, PRIVACY FENCE.
HE CALLED IT A FENCE AND HE CALLED IT AN ARTISTIC WALL.
WILL YOU PLEASE TELL, OR A DEFINITION OF WHAT A WALL IS BY WHAT IT SAYS IN THE CODE? I CAN GIVE A DEFINITION OF THE FENCE REGARDING THE CODE.
CAN YOU GIVE A DEFINITION OF A FENCE? AND IF I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A DEFINITION OF WALL IN THE CODE, CORRECT? I, IIII I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT THERE IS THE, THE, THE CONCERN AGAIN, THOUGH IS RIGHT, IS UH, WHETHER THERE'S A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FOR OFFENSE IN REGARDS TO WALL.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR, UH, MR. MARTINEZ'S HAS STATED THERE'S ANY VIOLATION IN REGARDS TO A WALL AT AT 27 81.
SO I, I I CAN UNDERSTAND HE'S U INTERCHANGING.
I I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS NOT INTERCHANGING THE, UH, THE, THE WORDING IT IS, IT IS OFFENSE THAT THEY CAN BELIEVE IS IN VIOLATION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE IT DOES STATE FENCE, BUT THE USE OF FENCE AND THEN IT REFERS TO WALL AND THE SAME BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL AND THE DEFINITION OF A FENCE, BECAUSE WE'RE ON RECORD AND HE WANTS IT NOTED.
CAN WE NOTE THE DEFINITION OF FENCE, WHICH IS ON THE DOCUMENT? CORRECT.
SO THE DEFINITION OF A FENCE ON OUR SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
SO FENCE, A TANGIBLE ENCLOSURE OR BARRIER, BUT NOT INCLUDED HEDGES, SHRUBS, TREES, OR OTHER NATURAL GROWTH ERECTED FROM THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING A BOUNDARY.
SEPARATION OF AREA MEANS OF PROTECTION TO PREVENT UNCONTROLLED AXIS FOR DECORATIVE PURPOSES OR CONCEALMENT.
THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE AN UPRIGHT STRUCTURE OF BUILDING MATERIAL, FORMING AN INNER, UH, PARTITION OR EXTERIOR SURFACE OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR ANY WALL USED IN WHOLE OR IN PART TO RESIST THE LATERAL D DISPLACEMENT OF ANY MATERIAL.
AND SUCH WALL IS REGULATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AS AMENDED BY THE CITY.
NOW IT SAYS IN THERE, AND WHAT YOU PUT ON YOUR PAPER DESCRIBES WHAT THE ALLEGED VIOLATION IS, CORRECT? YES.
THE NOTICE IS GOING TO EXPLAIN THE 3 0 2 0.7 0.1 VIOLATION, RIGHT? MM-HMM
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT.
THE NOTICE THAT WAS GIVEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE
[03:10:02]
AND YOU DEFINED IT AS A FENCE? YES.HMM? THAT WAS ALL THE DOCUMENTS.
THAT'S ALL THE DOCUMENTS REALLY.
THE LAST THING WAS ALL YOUR PICTURES.
I THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE A DEED.
UM, DID YOU HAVE A PLOT PUT ON THIS? A WHAT? THE PLOT OF YU LAND WHERE IT'S SURVEYED A PLOT.
DID YOU HAVE THAT? IT IT MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SLIDE THAT WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH WITH UH, BEAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT? NO, THAT WASN'T THE PLAT INFORMATION.
NO, THAT WAS A, THAT WAS THE FIRST SLIDE THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS THE, THAT'S NOT A PLAT.
THE PLAT IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU GET YOUR DEED.
OKAY? IT HAS THE PLAT OF YOUR PROPERTY AND THE MEASUREMENTS AND ALL THAT AND WHERE THE HOUSE SET AND ALL THAT.
DID YOU BRING THE PLAT? I BELIEVE THAT THE SURVEY, WHICH WOULD BE SIMILAR TO A PLAT, IS ASSOCIATED WITH MY ORIGINAL DEED IN 1987.
WELL, DID YOU BRING THAT? BECAUSE ALL I SEE PAPERS CONFIRM THE SAME THING THE CITY HAS WROTE.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY GO BY.
IF YOUR PLAT SHOWS DIFFERENT, LIKE IF THE FENCE IS WRONG, IT'LL ACTUALLY, LIKE EXAMPLE, MY MOM'S HAS A FENCE SETTING WITHIN SIX INCHES AND IT'S ON THE PLAT THAT'S SIX INCHES INSIDE.
AND THEN IT THAT'S ON YOUR PLA DID YOU BRING THE PLAT? 'CAUSE THAT'LL SHOW YOU EXACTLY.
AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS WE'VE SEEN SO FAR, YOU'RE SHOWING THE SAME THING.
THE CITY HAS SHOWN WHAT? THE PROPERTY, THEY DON'T GO OUT AND DO SURVEYS TO SEE IF THAT'S YOURS OR ALRIGHT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BRING IN ON AN APPEAL.
I, I BELIEVE I'M INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
BUT UH, IF THE CITY CAN SHOW THAT THAT FENCE IS ON MY PROPERTY, THEN I STAND CORRECTED.
IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE 1987 DEED FROM MR. SANDOVAL TO MYSELF THAT MAY HAVE THE SURVEY.
SIR, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY DEEDS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DOCUMENT GIVEN TO YOU.
YOU'RE SAYING IT WAS NOT GIVEN TO YOU PROPERLY? NO, I'M NOT SAYING IT WASN'T GIVEN TO ME PROPERLY.
I'M SAYING IT WAS NOT GIVEN TO ME, UH, AS A PERSON WAS STANDING TO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THAT FENCE OR THAT WALL BECAUSE I DON'T OWN THAT WALL.
I INITIALLY STATED THAT I DID OWN IT.
UH, BUT THAT WAS INCORRECT BECAUSE WHEN I, UH, UH, I REALIZED THAT THE CITY HAD DISCOVERED THAT THAT FENCE WAS ACTUALLY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THEN I REALIZED, YOU KNOW, HEY, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T STOP THE CITY FROM DOING IT WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO WITH THAT FENCE.
BUT IT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY AS A, AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO REPAIR PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY.
SO ALL THE, SO THIS NOTICE REQUIRES ME TO REPAIR CITY PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATION.
AND YOU KNOW, ALTHOUGH THE OFFENSE IS IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE IT PROVIDES SECURITY, AND THAT'S WHY I PUT IT UP THERE, WAS BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, BEAR COUNTY WAS WANTING ME TO MOVE A BUNCH OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO THE COMPROMISE WAS I ERECTED A FENCE, I ERECTED THE FENCE ON COUNTY PROPERTY, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEEDED TO THE CITY BY THE COUNTY.
THE CITY ACCEPTED THAT FENCE IN ITS CONDITION AS CITY PROPERTY WHEN THEY ANNEXED THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO, INCLUDING THIS PROPERTY.
AND MR. CHAIR, I'M GONNA HAVE TO STOP YOU.
THERE, THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME STATEMENTS THAT, UM, NOT ONLY CAN, UH, MR. ROSS NOT CONFIRM, UM, HE DOESN'T KNOW IF THE CITY ADOPTED IT.
HE DOESN'T AND THERE'S BEEN NO DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT.
WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH EACH OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT MR. UH, ROSS HAS PROVIDED, WE DO NOT NEED TO GO BACK OVER IT 'CAUSE YOU'VE PROVIDED THAT INFORMATION.
AND I'D ALSO RESPECTFULLY LIKE TO ASK IF MR. ROSS, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OTHER THAN THE INFORMATION WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO THIS BOARD BEFORE? UH, WE ASK THEM TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION IF SOMEBODY DOES HAVE ONE? YES.
UM, AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT I'VE PRESENTED TO YOU AND OFFERED IN EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE THAT ALL THIS WAS ACCEPTED, COUNSEL REVIEWED IT, WHICH IT WAS ALREADY ACCEPTED.
HE REVIEWED IT AND IT COMES HERE.
IT'S ALREADY BEEN IN EVIDENCE.
YOU GOT TO PRESENT THEM TO US.
THAT'S YOUR EVIDENCE OTHER THAN VERBAL TESTIMONY, CORRECT? YES.
SO WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH TO MAKE SURE NONE OF THEM WERE MISSED.
NOW, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SURVEY THAT SHOWS THE BOUNDARIES OF MY PROPERTY.
[03:15:01]
UM, AND IF IT'S NOT INCLUDED, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SUPPLEMENT MY INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE TO INCLUDE A PLAT OR A SURVEY TO SHOW THE BOUNDARIES OF MY PROPERTY, WHICH I SUBMIT TO YOU WILL SHOW THAT THE DISPUTED FENCE IS OUTSIDE OF MY PROPERTY LINE AND IT'S ON CITY PROPERTY THAT WAS RECEIVED BY ANNEXATION FROM BEXAR COUNTY.IT IT'S ALLEGED CITY PROPERTY.
YOU CAN'T SAY IT'S CITY PROPERTY 'CAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN TO BE.
SO IT'S AN ALLEGED, JUST LIKE YOU SAY, THE FENCE IS AN ALLEGED WE, OKAY? SO IF YOU WANNA USE THOSE WORDS AND USE IT FOR THINGS THAT YOU CANNOT CONFIRM AT THE TIME, JUST LIKE YOU WANT US TO CON SAY ALLEGED ON EVERYTHING ELSE, OKAY? SO TO BE FAIR, WE'RE GONNA RUN THROUGH THESE AND THAT PLOT IS NOT THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY OR THIS BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO GET, THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB.
WELL I WANT TO PROVIDE IT TO YOU.
I I PAID FOR A SURVEY OF MY PROPERTY WHEN I BOUGHT IT BACK IN 1987.
AND I WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT PROPERTY LINE HAS NOT CHANGED IN THE LAST 40 YEARS.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SURVEY, YOU'RE GONNA SEE THAT MY SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS ALONG THE BARBED WIRE FENCE THAT STILL EXISTS WELL OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND THE EXISTING JUNK CARD WALL THAT'S IN DISPUTE IS OUTSIDE OF MY PROPERTY LINE.
WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US IS IT WOULD'VE BEEN NICE TO HAVE TO VERBALLY OR PHYSIC PHYSICALLY SEE IT WHERE WE HAVE IT IN, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT.
WE'RE HEARING WHAT YOU SAY AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HEAR ABOUT.
WELL, YOU'VE GOTTA MEET SOME BOUNDS DESCRIPTION.
THAT'S, IF YOU CAN VISUALIZE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
BUT I'M SAYING A SURVEY WOULD BE EASIER TO VISUALIZE AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SUPPLEMENT MY PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE WITH A COPY OF THAT SURVEY.
I HAD LIKE A COUPLE OF HOURS TO PRESENT TO FIND ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT RELAYED BACK 40 YEARS TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT TO YOU TODAY.
'CAUSE MR. MARTINEZ SAID I HAD LIKE THAT DAY THAT HE HAVE, HE HAD NOTIFIED ME TO PRESENT MY EVIDENCE TO JUDY CRUM TO HAVE IT REVIEWED BEFORE THE HEARING.
AND IF I DID NOT INCLUDE THIS COPY OF THAT SURVEY, I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GIVE IT TO YOU SO YOU CAN SEE VISUALLY.
WELL SIR, YOU HAVE WHAT MY PROPERTY BOUNDARIES ARE THE RIGHT TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE OF THERE.
AND IF YOU FIND MORE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU COME IN, YOU CAN PRESENT AND THEN THE LEGAL CAN LOOK AT IT AND SAY, OKAY, BUT WE'RE HERE TO LOOK AT
WE ARE HERE FOR THE DOCUMENTS.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISPUTE PROPERTY LINES BECAUSE THAT'S NOT OUR JOB.
THAT'S WHY CITY ATTORNEYS AND THE CITY SURVEYORS WILL DEAL WITH THAT.
OUR JOB IS TO HEAR YOUR REASONING FOR APPEALING THE DOCUMENT THAT ALLEGES OFFENSE VIOLATION.
DOESN'T SAY IT'S, IT JUST SAYS THERE'RE AN ISSUE HERE AND YOU SAID, I WANNA APPEAL, THEN AUTOMATICALLY THAT'S WHERE WE GO TO AND THAT'S WHAT WE HERE FOR.
SO YOU WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BRING DOCUMENTS OR WHATEVER YOU NEEDED FOR YOUR CASE TO SAY IT'S FALSE BECAUSE THIS, AND YOU HAVEN'T, YOU'RE SHOWING US THE SAME PLOT THE CITY HAS ON THE DOCUMENTS HERE.
SO BY WHAT WE SEE HERE, WE ARE NOT, WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT YOUR LAND AND PICKING THE FOUR CORNERS.
WE LOOK AT WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS.
NOW, IF YOU HAD THE PLOT, THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
AND WE COULD SEE, AND YOU COULD SEE DEFENSIVE IF IT'S ON THE PLOT, JUST LIKE ANY EASEMENTS AND EVERYTH, THERE WOULD BE ON THE PLOT PAPERS DON'T TELL US NOTHING BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE LAY OF THAT LAND.
AND, UH, WE'RE GOING BY THE DESCRIPTION HERE, WHICH IS THE SAME DESCRIPTION YOU SHOWED US.
WELL, THERE IS A SURVEY THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO IN 1990 WHEN THE CITY CONDEMNED THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU HAD THAT, IT'S IN YOUR POSSESSION.
YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
NO, IT'S NOT IN OUR POSSESSION.
THIS BOARD DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CITY HAS ACCESS AND I'LL GET A COPY OF IT.
AND I UNDERSTOOD HIM TO GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPLEMENT MY EVIDENCE.
IF I WAS MISTAKEN, THEN YOU'RE CORRECT.
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, HE HAS SAID I CAN SUPPLEMENT MY EVIDENCE AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT A DOCUMENT THAT WAS PREPARED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CITY BY A SURVEYOR.
AND I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE SURVEY COMPANY, MR. MR. CHAIR.
I I, I DO WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
I, FIRST AND FOREMOST, THERE'S NOT ONE POINT IN TIME THAT I'VE EVER TOLD YOU THAT I WOULD SUPPLEMENT ANYTHING FOR YOU.
NO, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO SUPPLEMENT.
YOU SAID, ASKED IF I HAD ANY OTHER EVIDENCE AND I SAID YES, I DO.
YOU HAVE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE ON HAND? UNFORTUNATELY, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE CONCERN THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE OR THE ISSUE THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE IS THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A DETERMINATION TODAY.
RIGHT NOW, AS SOON AS WE'RE DONE SPEAKING.
WELL, I REQUEST THAT YOU OBTAIN EVIDENCE THAT EXISTS IN THE POSSESSION AND UNDER THE CONTROL
[03:20:01]
OF THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.A SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WAS CONDEMNED IN 1990 FOR THE APPLE WIFE PROJECT AND THEN WAS RETURNED TO ME WHEN THEY DISMISSED THE CONDEMNATION FOUR YEARS LATER.
I DO ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S RELEVANT AS TO WHETHER PROPER NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO YOU IN REGARDS TO, UM, THE CONDITION OF THE FENCE.
WELL, I DO KNOW, AND I DO NOT OWN THE RIGHT OF WAY IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY AND MY FENCE LINE.
MY FENCE IS A BARBED WIRE FENCE.
AND THIS WAS A GREETING COMMITTEE THAT I GOT WHEN THAT NOTICE OF, UH, WARRANT TO, UH, SEARCH MY PROPERTY WAS, UH, WAS PUT ON THE WALL.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THE ENTIRE SAFE UNIT FROM THE SOUTH SIDE SHOWED UP TO POST A WARRANT ON MY PROPERTY FOR THE CODE COMPLIANCE PEOPLE TO GO IN AND LOOK FOR VIOLATIONS.
BUT IF THAT WAS MEANT TO INTIMIDATE ME, UH, THIS IS THE LINEUP OF THE CARS IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY ON THE 24TH OF FEBRUARY.
AND I WAS NOT EXPECTING, I TOLD MR. MARTINEZ I COULDN'T MAKE IT 'CAUSE I HAD AN ALL DAY DOCTOR APPOINTMENT AND I FINISHED BREAKFAST AND I WAS THROUGH WITH THE PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE TO GO TO MY DOCTOR APPOINTMENT.
I HAD TIME TO COME DOWN AND WEED EAT IN FRONT OF THE JUNK CART WALL ON THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND WHEN I, AFTER I FINISHED WEED EATING, ALL OF THESE OFFICERS SHOWED UP.
AND I CAN'T GET A CITY OFFICER WHEN I HAVE A PERSON UNDER ARREST FOR BURGLARY OR THEFT ON MY PROPERTY TO SHOW UP IN LESS THAN AN HOUR.
WHEN I WAS IN THE COUNTY, IT WAS DIFFERENT.
BUT I, THERE HAVE BEEN 10 ARRESTS OF THIEVES OVER THE YEARS, AND I'VE BEEN PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN ARRESTING SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE.
AND NOT THAT MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT EVER SHOWED UP ON MY PROPERTY FOR ANYTHING EXCEPT TO POST A SEARCH WARRANT.
BUT I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO TELL 'EM HOW TO GET ONTO THE PROPERTY.
THEY ASKED ME, HOW DO YOU GET ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY? I SAID, YOU EITHER HAVE TO CLIMB OVER THE FENCE OR GO AROUND IT OR UNDER IT, OR YOU CAN COME FROM THE CITY PARK ON THE OTHER SIDE AND GET A BOAT AND COME IN.
I'VE GOT 600 FEET OF RIVER FRONTAGE THAT THEY CAN ACCESS WITHOUT ANY PROBLEM.
BUT I HAD TO LEAVE AND THEY HAD TO FIND THEIR WAY INTO THE PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WENT IN THERE OR NOT, BUT I HAD LET 'EM IN THREE YEARS AGO OR FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN THEY FIRST CAME AROUND WITH THESE EXACT IDENTICAL ALLEGATIONS ABOUT VIOLATIONS ON MY PROPERTY.
AND THEN THEY BACKED OFF AFTER THEY SERVED ME NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS.
THEY NEVER PURSUED HIM AFTER I TALKED TO THE SUPERVISOR.
BUT NOW THEY GOT A NEW CROP OF CODE COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE, AND THEY'RE BRINGING THIS TO YOU NOW.
AND I CAN ONLY SUSPECT WHY SOMEBODY WANTS TO FORCE ME OFF THE PROPERTY, FORCE ME TO REMOVE ALL THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDINGS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GONNA STOP YOU RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S NOT IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD TODAY.
WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD IS WHETHER, UH, PROPER NOTICE WAS GIVEN ON AN, UH, NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
UM, MR. ROSS IS GOING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.
AND SO I, WHAT I'M GONNA ASK IS AGAIN, UH, THAT WE, UH, WRAP THIS UP AND WE, UM, MOVE TO, UH, A MOTION.
THE REMEDY I'M ASKING IN CLOSING IS THAT YOU DISAPPROVE THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION ON THE BASIS OF ONE OF JURISDICTION THAT I DO NOT HAVE STANDING OR CAPACITY TO BE A PARTY TO THE ACTION GIVING NOTICE OF A VIOLATION ON MY PROPERTY.
I DON'T OWN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
AND YOUR DECISION IS NOT FINAL.
I MEAN, IT CAN BE FINAL, BUT IT CAN BE APPEALED AND IT WILL BE APPEALED IF IT'S NOT A CORRECT, UH, DECISION.
AND A COURT WILL DECIDE ULTIMATELY WHETHER THE NOTICE IS PROPER ON THE BASIS OF, UH, JURISDICTION.
YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ME BECAUSE I'M NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU'RE ACCUSING ME OF HAVING CITY PROPERTY IN FRONT OF MY RESIDENCE THAT'S IN VIOLATION OF SOME CITY CODE AND TRYING TO MAKE ME AS A DISINTERESTED PARTY FIX THE CITY'S PROBLEM.
AND I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN HEARING ME OUT.
I KNOW IT WASN'T AN ORGANIZED PRESENTATION AND WHEN I'M IN COURT, I ASSURE YOU IT WILL BE MUCH MORE ORGANIZED AND DIRECT.
BUT, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND, UH, THANK EVERYBODY ELSE HERE THAT'S, UH, PATIENTLY WAITED FOR LUNCHTIME TO GET HERE AND BE DONE WITH THIS MATTER.
AT THIS TIME, IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? UM, THIS IS ANN WEINER.
[03:25:01]
I MOVE THAT THE, THAT OFFICER MARTINEZ SUBMITTED THE CITATION PROPERLY AND BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT, UH, MR. ROSS SAYS THAT HE OWNS THE ART WALL, THAT THAT ART WALL FENCE IS HIS PROPERTY AND IT'S HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF IT.UM, THE CODE WAS 3 0 2 0.7 0.1 AND THAT'S SHOULD MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS THAT THE, UM, NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS PROPERLY, THE NOTICE WAS 3 0, 2 0.7 0.1 FOR A ISSUE OF OFFENSE AND, UH, UH, PROPOSAL OH, ON THE PROPERTY OF 27 81 WEST JET ROAD AND THAT IT WAS PROPERLY EXECUTED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND, ROBERT? COPY.
MOTION PASSES WITH THE VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.
AND SIR, YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL CODE OFFICER WILL GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION.
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDY, CREW DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
JUST WANTED TO INFORM THE BOARD THAT APPLICATIONS ARE NOW UP AND OPEN FOR YOUR POSITION.
UM, THEY DID OPEN 90 SEEDS, EXCUSE ME, 90 DAYS PRIOR TO, UM, THE CURRENT TERM EXPIRATION DATE.
SO THAT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE@SANANTONIO.GOV.
I'LL ALSO EMAIL YOU THE LINK FOR THAT APPLICATION.
YOU CAN APPLY FOR THE BSB AS WELL AS ANY OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSION.
LEGAL QUESTION REAL QUICK FOR JUDY.
WE NEED TO REAPPLY THEN FOR OUR EXISTING POSITION.
THE CURRENT TERM EXPIRES IN MAY 31ST, 2025.
IS THAT, THAT THAT IS CORRECT FOR, UM, AT LARGE POSITIONS AS WELL AS ALL DISTRICT, UH, POSITIONS.
ANYBODY'S COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHEN THE ELECTION COMES UP, A NEW COUNCIL PERSON COMES IN, YOU'VE GOTTA REAPPLY THEN TOO.
GOT ANYTHING? I I, I, I DO WANNA SAY I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS, UM, ALL OF YOU ON HOW IT WAS HANDLED.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT WE HAVE, UM, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WANT TO COME IN AND THEY HAVE A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE ON HOW THE LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED, WHICH IS FINE.
UM, WHAT WE, I I I SOMETIMES NEED TO, UM, FIGHT THROUGH AND I MAYBE YOU GUYS DO OR NOT, IS BEING FRUSTRATED WITH THEM.
THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HEAR THEM.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GIVE EVERYBODY AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
SO IIII WANNA SAY HATS OFF AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR, UM, FOR DOING THAT.
UM, YOU, YOU ARE PROPER IN ASKING TOUGH QUESTIONS, BUT, UH, I APPRECIATE, UM, WE GIVING HIM AN HOUR AND A HALF TO TWO HOURS OF TALK TO TALK.
I JUST REALIZED THAT
I, UH, UH, BOARD, UH, IT'S ROBERT TAPIA.
UH, TO THAT POINT, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE NEED TO PUT A TIME LIMIT TO, TO SAY YOU GOT ALL DAY AND, UH, AND, AND ALLOW THEM TO FILIBUSTER ALL DAY, RIGHT? NO, I, YOU, YOU, THIS BOARD HAS THE RIGHT TO, UM, AND I AND THEY USED TO DO IT IN THE PAST.
WE HAVEN'T HAD SOMEBODY COME UP AND SPEAK THAT LONG, BUT IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION AND OR YOU BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE JUST REGURGITATING THE EXACT SAME THING, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING NEW? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING NEW? UM, UH, MR. ROSS IS, IS, IS, IS, UH, PASSIONATE.
SO, UM, I I HAVE HEARD OF HIM BEFORE, ALTHOUGH I'VE NEVER DEALT WITH HIM MYSELF.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO, UM, REDUCE THE, THE AMOUNT OF TIME, ESPECIALLY ON ONE PROPERTY.
UM, MY SUGGESTION WOULD MAKE SURE THAT YOU GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
YOU ASK THE QUESTIONS YOU BELIEVE WILL BE HELPFUL, NOT THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU BELIEVE WILL INITIATE MORE DEBATE, BECAUSE THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT HE WANTED.
I MEAN, THE GENTLEMAN WANTED TO GO INTO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FIRST AMENDMENT.
[03:30:01]
SO AS LONG AS YOU, AS LONG AS YOU ARE ABLE TO DO THAT, I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE'LL LIMIT THAT.AND THIS BOARD DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY, HEY, I'M GONNA STOP YOU IF THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT? WELL, DUE PROCESS WAS GIVEN.
I ADJOURN THIS MEETING AND THANK YOU GUYS.
AND SOME OF YOU MIGHT SEE NEXT WEEK.