Laserfiche WebLink
DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT <br />FINDINGS <br />4 <br />1. Demolition by neglect to circumvent <br />historic preservation is not a common <br />practice in San Marcos. <br />2. There are unclear components of the <br />notification procedures as written in <br />the SMDC (for example, the number <br />of days that must elapse before <br />additional notices are sent is not <br />specified). <br />SOLUTIONS <br />(9 <br />1. Revise SMDC Section 4.5.2.1(N)(2)(c) to add the <br />number of days that the second notice may be <br />sent after posting the first certified mail notice <br />and the number of days after posting the second <br />certified mail notice. <br />2 <br />3. Mailings to property owners are <br />to include information on "various <br />incentive programs that may be <br />available for repair," but these 3 <br />programs are not readily identifiable. <br />4. Unclear titles and lack of wills can <br />create ownership complications that <br />may prevent property owners from <br />accessing funding or authorizations <br />for repair, which can hinder <br />preservation efforts. <br />POTENTIAL PARTNERS <br />Habitat for Humanity <br />Construction Science and <br />Management Program, Texas State <br />University <br />Bobcat Build, Texas State <br />Mission Able, First Baptist Church <br />San Marcos <br />Operation Triage <br />SOLUTION SOURCES <br />City of Baltimore's "Vacants to Value" <br />program <br />Providence, Rhode Island's <br />Providence Revolving Fund <br />Consider partnering with a non-profit <br />organization or establishing a volunteer <br />maintenance crew who could be available <br />to assist in repairing properties when the <br />owner is experiencing hardship. See 'Potential <br />Partners' on this page for potential collaboration <br />opportunities. <br />Continue to foster a strong relationship between <br />the Chief Building Official, Code Compliance <br />Office, and the HPO and HPC to address <br />hazardous conditions before they threaten public <br />safety (at which point a COA or demolition review <br />may be bypassed). <br />4. Encourage neighborhood associations and <br />preservation groups to report at -risk properties <br />and provide clear guidance on reporting <br />at -risk properties to the City. As part of this <br />collaboration, consider establishing a schedule <br />for several groups (including the City) to conduct <br />surveys to proactively identify properties that are <br />showing signs of neglect. <br />5. Consider more stringent penalties, like adding <br />the property to a probationary list where no <br />permits will be issued for 3-5 years to discourage <br />neglect by developers wanting to replace a <br />historic building. <br />6. Explore establishing a revolving fund to <br />purchase, rehabilitate, and resell neglected <br />properties, such as programs in Baltimore, <br />Maryland and Providence, Rhode Island. <br />7. Consider City -supported title clearing and estate <br />planning legal clinics, workshops, or partnerships <br />with local nonprofits to help property owners <br />resolve ownership issues and unlock access <br />to preservation funding and repair programs. <br />Workshops and materials should be offered in <br />multiple languages, including Spanish. <br />CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION GOALS 125 <br />