Sharpsburg resident fights ticket; says snow was cleared off walk
A dispute over snow removal fines spilled into last week's council meeting in Sharpsburg.
Karen Iezzi questioned why she received a $300 ticket, which she is challenging in court, for not removing snow from her sidewalk.
She said it was removed in the correct amount of time and wondered how many others were ticketed.
Police chief Leo Rudzki declined to discuss her case but said she was not the only person cited for not removing snow.
“I'm not going to discuss your case in a forum like this. It's to be discussed in a court room,” Rudzki said.
Rudzki said the officer who issued the ticket and Iezzi can handle the issue when her hearing is held.
Borough code states that residents have 24 hours to remove snow. Iezzi said her property met that requirement.
“I still had my sidewalk shoveled two hours after the last snowfall,” Iezzi said.
She questioned whether officials had agreed to offer warnings instead of fines for first offense. Though the issue was discussed, notice was released that fines would be issued for failing to remove snow.
“It doesn't say there is going to be warnings issued,” Rudzki said.
Solicitor Michael Witherel agreed with Rudzki that the council meeting was not the forum to argue the fine and Iezzi would have to take up the issue in Magisterial Judge Elissa Lang's court room.
He noted that council acts as a whole and is not bound by the opinion of any one official who may have preferred a warning be issued.
Tom McGee is an associate editor for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 1513 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.