City hearing continues on Dixie Drive apartments after repair plan judged incomplete; building official recommends demolition

Enterprise City Council on a continued public hearing considered whether four apartment units at 100 Dixie Drive (units 49–52) should be demolished after a 2022 fire and subsequent incomplete repairs.

The matter reopened as a continuation of the Dec. 17, 2024, hearing. City building official Barry Mott told the council the units suffered faulty wiring that caused a fire in April 2022 and that work begun in 2023 was halted after inspectors found an unlicensed contractor and covered walls that prevented required electrical and plumbing inspections.

Mott told the council he issued stop-work orders in May 2023 and that, in his assessment, the structures are “substantially damaged or decayed” and cannot be “reasonably repaired within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost.” He urged the council to close the hearing and adopt four resolutions ordering demolition.

Brian Paul, an attorney representing property owner Keith Lewis, asked the council to allow Lewis to repair the units instead of demolishing them. Paul said Lewis had pulled a permit in March 2023, has submitted a more detailed remediation plan and a Gantt chart, is willing to self-perform some work, to indemnify the city, to maintain pest control and grounds going forward, and to provide proof of funds. Paul said in part, “He wants to repair the building.”

Several nearby residents spoke at the hearing urging the council to move quickly to remove blighted structures. Lorenzo Harrison said the property had fallen from what was once one of the nicer apartment complexes and asked the council to "move forward in any action that you can to take care of this sightly area." Warren Byron and another resident, Sivious Darlene Satchel, also called for demolition or stronger action to clean up the site.

City staff and the attorney for the city objected to a remediation agreement as premature. Mott said the estimate provided to the city is thin and unclear (one-page, labor-only estimates quoted as roughly $4,500 per unit and a $22,000 labor-only total were discussed), and that no licensed structural engineer, architect, or specialty contractor had been engaged with city staff. Mott said he had not seen documentation about a recently reported sewage problem and that, while the private sewer line was "jetted," there was no permit or inspection record provided to the city. He said, "We had not had communications with the property owner about this is my plan to do it."

City counsel and staff noted fragmented ownership across roughly 10 buildings at the complex (staff cited about 92 units total) and said demolishing the four units in the complex's interior would not by itself correct the wider site conditions. The city attorney said three tests for allowing a remediation agreement were not satisfied: technical feasibility (no complete plan or licensed specialists on record), a reasonable timetable (the issues have persisted since 2022–2023), and proof of funds to complete the work.

At the conclusion of the recorded discussion, staff recommended closing the public hearing and that the council adopt the four demolition resolutions. The transcript does not record whether the council voted on those resolutions at that meeting.

The council also heard from witnesses about the broader condition of the complex and about the challenge of coordinating improvements where ownership of buildings and parking areas is divided among multiple owners.

The council will have to decide whether to accept a remediation agreement with conditions or proceed with formal demolition orders; the hearing record presented concerns about safety, incomplete inspection documentation, fragmented ownership, and the adequacy of the repair estimate.