ShareThis Page
News

Connellsville man faces $2,000 in fines for dilapidated properties

| Wednesday, July 6, 2011

District Judge Ronald Haggerty Jr. has assessed more than $2,000 in fines against a Connellsville man's three dilapidated properties.

At a summary trial Tuesday, Haggerty found John Enold, 53, of 122 Witter Ave., guilty of seven health code violations on his 118 North Alley property.

Haggerty assessed Enold $150 each for exterior walls, foundation walls, unsealed doors, rubbish, vacant structure and windows, and $100 for noxious weeds.

Connellsville's health and code officer Tom Currey sent Enold a letter in March, giving Enold 60 days to seal up the property and remove the garbage. He issued an additional citation for the weeds.

"I don't have any money," Enold replied when Haggerty asked him why he had not taken any action.

"You've got all these properties, don't you think maybe you should think of tearing them down or selling them?" Haggerty asked.

"I'm thinking of selling all of them as is," Enold said.

Enold pleaded guilty to violations on two other properties following the summary trial.

Haggerty fined Enold $100 each for exterior walls and weeds at 117 Witter Ave. and $100 each for a basement hatchway and weeds at 122 Witter Ave.

The new and outstanding fines on the properties total $2,122.50, which Enold has nine months to pay.

After the trial, Currey said, "Typically after a guilty verdict I give 30 days, then refile if there are no improvements."

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.

click me