The San Antonio Building Standards Board heard competing accounts March 13 over whether a residence at 231 Ranch Valley Drive should be demolished after code enforcement and police described repeated nuisance and criminal activity at the address.

City dangerous‑premises officer Crystal Town told the board the structure was presented with a recommendation for demolition under San Antonio municipal code, and that a multiagency DART (Dangerous Assessment Response Team) inspection on Nov. 15, 2024, prompted the referral. "Staff recommends demolition," Town said.

The recommendation matters, board members were told, because the property sits within 1,000 feet of Valley High Elementary and Rayburn Middle School and, city staff and police say, has been the focus of repeated complaints and criminal incidents that pose a public‑safety concern.

Officer Gomez of the San Antonio Police Department's SAFE unit detailed the law‑enforcement record tied to the address. "This location is known for constant after hour parties where the entry fee is charged and alcohol is distributed," Gomez said, and described a two‑year history of calls he associated with the site. At the Nov. 15 DART inspection, Gomez said officers recovered controlled substances, firearms and currency; the items listed in the hearing record included 1.1 grams of cocaine, about 47 ounces of marijuana, a marijuana dispenser attached to a wall, about 31.5 ounces of hemp, a Ruger handgun, a Smith & Wesson handgun with a 12‑round magazine, a Browning rifle and $3,400 in currency.

Crystal Town and other staff showed photographs and described unpermitted alterations and electrical work, an accessory structure with plumbing and toilets added without permits, a food truck operating from the rear of the lot without a food permit and an unpermitted privacy fence. Town said the city posted a notice to vacate on Dec. 10, 2024, and the property's electric service was disconnected on Jan. 2, 2025. A residential repair permit was pulled Feb. 6, 2025; a notice of the Building Standards Board hearing was posted at the property Feb. 28, 2025, and mailed on Feb. 26, 2025 (the certified mail receipt was returned unclaimed on March 3, 2025). The Office of Historic Preservation determined on Jan. 13, 2025, that the property is not eligible for historic designation, staff said.

The property owner, Henry Gomez Jr., was present but did not speak; his attorney, Nathan Case, argued the city had not met the statutory standard for demolition under San Antonio municipal code article 8, chapter 6.156 and that the issues identified were limited and remediable. "From what I've seen here today, the city has not met that standard," Case said, and added that, aside from electrical work blocked by a red tag, his client could complete repairs if permitted: "If the red tag is lifted and we can get a construction permit issued for the electrical, we can have that fixed within 14 days, from today."

Case said his client obtained a fence permit and that other repairs and permits had been or would be completed, including work inspected by a private inspector, Matthew Gessner, whose report counsel said was submitted to city staff. Case proposed working with the city on a written agreement that would require the owner to cease any after‑hours commercial activity and allow the city to take further action if violations recurred.

City counsel and staff noted the case was brought under two parts of the municipal code. The staff presentation cited article 8, chapter 6.156 (standards that can make a building dangerous or a public nuisance) and chapter 6.160 (authority to order demolition, vacating, securing or repair), with staff also referencing authority under the Texas Local Government Code as part of the city's enforcement powers. The record indicates the DART inspection and subsequent evidence prompted the recommendation under those provisions.

Board members questioned both police and counsel about details: whether criminal incidents occurred at the property or in the surrounding block, the date of the most recent disturbance, whether minors had attended events (Officer Gomez said social media is open to minors but had "no evidence" of minors currently), and the presence of an apparent pack‑and‑play and high chair in one bedroom. Officer Gomez acknowledged he could provide case numbers on request. Counsel for the owner said some photographs and the private inspection report had been provided to staff and were available to the board for review.

The transcript records discussion and probe of the factual record but does not include a formal board vote or motion on 231 Ranch Valley Drive. Staff recommended demolition; the owner's attorney offered a remediation and a binding agreement to prevent future commercial uses; and police and staff described public‑safety incidents and seizures that led to the referral. The board recessed for an executive session earlier in the meeting and reconvened; no formal action taken in executive session was reported.

The board did not announce a final disposition for the property in the portions of the hearing captured in the transcript. The case may return to a future meeting after staff and counsel further document repairs, permits and any remediation agreement, or the board may schedule a formal vote after receiving additional materials.