In regards to Lucy Harrell’s "Tire Shop," the operation of this business was a violation of borough code, as a required conditional use permit for this business was never granted. Therefore, the operation of this business – and the resulting junkyard – was in violation of borough law.
It’s even more ridiculous and pathetic that it takes the threat of a lawsuit to get the borough to begin to enforce borough code. And then when the borough decides it must take action, the borough does not know what action to take. Sixty days after the expiration of the abatement notice, the borough had taken no action.
According to the CVN, the borough is "waiting for information on how (Harrell) wants to work it out." Luckily in the same CVN, Harrell replied, "It’s the duty of government to deal with this problem."
I agree with Lucy. It’s time for the borough to abate the property, exactly as borough code says. As per code, the cost of the borough’s abatement is charged to the owner of the property.
Lucy Harrell is not a victim in this; she is a complacent landlord. She is responsible for the condition of the property. She received the benefit of rent. She profited from the illegal tire shop.
She is of adequate means to afford to abate the property. If she claims that she cannot afford to abate the property, let’s see her statement of net worth. It is time for the borough to immediately abate this property.