Trial for WCVI building manager slated for next month
A summary trial for a Connellsville property manager over the deteriorating condition of the WCVI building will be held next month.
Last year, local firefighters expressed concerns with the condition of the building, which is located at 131 E. Crawford Ave. Firefighters said they feared for their safety if they would have to enter the structure.
On March 2, 2010, K2 Engineering released an engineering report and deemed the building to be a disaster and not structurally adequate or safe for occupancy.
The report stated that the roof and attic had started to collapse under their own weight.
Repairs needed to the structure included repairing or replacing the entire roof system and fascia; replacing the decaying attic floor; the ceiling joists must be thoroughly inspected by a qualified individual before they can be incorporated into the repairs; electrical service to the building should be disconnected except where approved by an electrician; all stairways that have shifted or sagged must be replaced or repaired, and building systems such as air conditioning, heating and "life safety" systems must be inspected before any occupancy can be allowed anywhere in the building.
"They recommended it be demolished immediately," said Tom Currey, Connellsville health and code officer, adding that the Connellsville Board of Health deemed the building unfit for human habitation.
Currey said that Josh Dewitt, 25, of Connellsville, a representative of the building's owner, was trying to sell the building to a third party. While he made some minor repairs to the building, the board of health gave him 30 days at the end of January to demolish the building.
On Feb. 25, Currey issued Dewitt a citation. Dewitt has pleaded not guilty.
The summary trial has been scheduled for 11:15 a.m. April 5 at District Judge Ronald Haggerty Jr.'s office.
Show commenting policy
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 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.