Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over alleged code violations and short-term rental enforcement
Summary
During public comment, resident Terry Voss alleged multiple building-code and fire-safety violations at 33 Thomas Street and urged maximum penalties and replacement of the building inspector; another resident requested enforcement action against an alleged Airbnb at 31/33 Thomas; solicitor and staff pledged follow-up and legal review.
Two residents used the public-comment period at the May 28 meeting to press the borough on code enforcement and short-term-rental compliance.
Terry Voss, who identified himself as a Crafton resident at 33 Thomas Street, alleged a pattern of code and fire-safety violations at a neighboring property (33 Thomas) and said the borough’s building inspector, identified in the meeting as "DJ," had "refused to issue a permit" and had been "negligent," creating a "severe life-threatening situation" for neighbors. Voss listed specific concerns including a fence that exceeds the six-foot rule and materials he described as improper for fencing and an unsecured combustible post on a roof that he called a fire hazard. He urged the borough to pursue maximum penalties and to replace the inspector if necessary.
Voss said he had photographs and code-violation documentation he hoped the borough would review. Solicitor Coral and council members responded that enforcement of fines and penalties occurs through the magistrate’s office and that staff would ask the building inspector to prepare a memo detailing the situation and next steps.
Separately, resident Maddie (Mattie) Graasso raised concerns about an apparent Airbnb at 31/33 Thomas Street and asked staff to make the enforcement call. Staff said the borough’s new zoning code prohibits short-term rentals in residential zones and that solicitor staff had done preliminary research to determine whether the existing Bed-and-Breakfast qualifies as a nonconforming (grandfathered) use. The solicitor’s office said a notice of violation may be appropriate depending on answers to open legal questions.
Council did not take enforcement action during the meeting but directed staff and legal counsel to review the allegations, have the building inspector prepare a memo for council, and, where appropriate, pursue administrative or legal routes such as notice of violation and referral to the magistrate.
