Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Codes Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council’s public-works committee denies tenants’ appeal of disruptive-conduct report; appeal tied to fire alarm incident
Summary
A public-works committee hearing denied an appeal of a disruptive conduct report (DCR) for 804 Hillview Avenue after testimony from tenants and a police officer; the committee voted to deny the appeal in a roll call.
The Millersville Borough public‑works committee denied an appeal from tenants at 804 Hillview Avenue concerning a disruptive conduct report (DCR) issued after an automatic fire alarm and an officer’s report of a strong burnt‑marijuana odor.
Two tenants, McKenna Goldstein and Hope Davis, told the committee they left their second‑floor apartment to attend a movie immediately after the alarm and later received a DCR alleging marijuana odor inside and outside their unit. They said they had not previously set off the alarm in over two years of tenancy and provided a movie ticket as evidence of their absence. They also said nearby units and the building hallway frequently smelled of marijuana, and noted a bedroom window was cracked open that evening while the tenant used a heated hair dryer.
Police Officer Oscar Giberson testified he was dispatched for an automatic fire alarm, detected a strong odor of burnt marijuana on arrival, and observed a front bedroom window cracked about six to eight inches. He reported the strongest odor in "Room A," the unit where the alarm tripped, and said management informed officers that someone left quickly after the alarm; officers attempted to make contact later but could not reach the occupants.
Committee members expressed sympathy for the tenants' job losses (the tenants said they were terminated from Student Lodging Incorporated after the DCR was attached to their records) while also noting the officer's observations and the borough's recent efforts to reduce false alarms. Chief Eshleman reminded the committee that the disruptive conduct ordinance has been used as a tool where necessary in the absence of a separate false‑alarm ordinance.
After discussion, the public‑works committee voted to deny the tenants' appeal of the DCR issued on 01/12/25. The committee chair moved to deny the appeal; the motion was seconded and passed in a roll-call vote. Committee members voting to deny the appeal included Councilmember Iverson and Councilmember Koppel; the committee carried the motion and the appeal was denied.
The committee discussion noted the difficulty of the case, the circumstantial nature of the evidence, and the desire to support both enforcement and fair outcomes; no further appeal action or next-step process was recorded on the meeting transcript.
