Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council holds over demolition order for one Seabreeze building after staff cites active eviction hearing
Summary
City staff sought demolition or securing of multiple Berkshire Apartments buildings on Seabreeze Road but asked the City Council to hold one building (351–359/359) for 60 days because a resident is contesting an eviction. Council agreed to delay action on Resolution 4828 to allow the legal process to proceed.
City staff asked the Mobile City Council to delay action for 60 days on one building in a larger nuisance abatement application covering the Berkshire Apartments on Seabreeze Road, saying a tenant in that building is contesting an eviction hearing.
The request matters because the council was considering applications to secure or demolish multiple buildings at the Berkshire Apartments complex. Staff described roughly 26 apartment buildings with four units each, multiple parcels and said the city intends to secure most buildings and demolish only the burned structures.
At the pre-meeting, a city staff member told the council, “there's approximately, 26 apartment buildings, and there's 4 units in each apartment building… We're looking to secure most of these, not demolish.” The staff member said two buildings were burned and need demolition but that one building — listed in the application as 351–359 Seabreeze (the transcript references 359 specifically) — has a resident with legal occupancy who is contesting an eviction and has a hearing scheduled at the end of the month. The staff member requested the council “hold this over 60 days to give some time for this… process.”
Council members and staff clarified which application included the building. The clerk and council referenced Resolution 4828 as the item that contains the 351–359 block; staff said that third application includes 17 buildings recommended to be secured. A councilmember stated, “we're just gonna hold over 48 28,” and staff confirmed the hold would be only for the building tied to the eviction matter, with the rest of the applications proceeding as recommended.
Discussion in the meeting distinguished between securing (boarding or otherwise making a structure safe) versus demolition; staff emphasized demolition was being requested only for burned units. Staff also said that if, after 60 days, the eviction litigation remains unresolved, they would recommend removing the single building from the application so the council could act on the remaining properties.
The council did not record a roll-call vote on the hold in the transcript; the verbal exchange on the record indicates the council agreed to the 60-day hold for the specified building and to proceed with the remaining recommendations in Resolution 4828.
The postponement preserves the city's stated interest in addressing dangerous structures while allowing a resident's pending legal challenge to be resolved before action affecting that occupant moves forward.
