Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Burkburnett hearing reviews dilapidated properties; demolition costs and owner plans collide
Summary
Code enforcement presented photos and recommended demolition of multiple dilapidated buildings; owners disputed the city estimate of $91,000 for one commercial site and presented alternatives, while the council deferred formal action to the next session.
Burkburnett officials opened a public hearing to review multiple properties the city has deemed substandard and dangerous under Local Government Code §204.001 and Burkburnett’s code of ordinances (Section 150.35–150.99). Code enforcement described several structures as unsecured, open to the elements and posing fire and safety risks; staff recommended demolition for multiple addresses.
Code Enforcement Officer James Gore said photos and site inspections show collapsed roofs, holes in walls, water damage, structural beam deterioration and ongoing vandalism. "701 East 3rd Street is a fairly old building. Dilapidated, it has holes in the roof," Gore said, and noted notices were posted Oct. 28 and mailed to owners.
For a downtown commercial property (309 North Avenue C, property ID 461460), staff reported repeated contacts since 2022 and estimated the city’s demolition cost at about $91,000 if the city were to remove the structure. The property owner, who identified himself as Dennis Bogart, told the council he has posted no-trespass signs, plans to fence entry points and uses part of the building for storage. "I'm gonna seal off, stop the traffic from going through there," Bogart said, urging the council to allow him time to secure and clean the site rather than order demolition.
Council members pressed for a concrete timeline and a detailed plan. One council member described the photos as showing multiple life-safety and fire-code violations and said the council could not accept an indefinite promise to fix the issues. The owner also alleged that Burke Development had previously expressed interest in the property and questioned a recent drop in tax valuation; council members treated that as an allegation raised in the hearing and did not adopt it as fact.
At another property, Suzanne Halverson (a property owner) said she had an estimate of about $9,000 to remove a house and had paid a contractor to remove trees; she asked for time to clear remaining contents. Halverson noted the building had been vandalized and that some personal items remain inside.
The council did not take a final demolition vote at the meeting; the mayor said the council will consider formal action at the next session. Staff reminded the council the city budgets annually for a number of demolitions and that liens can be placed on properties where the city performs abatements.
