ShareThis Page
Dunbar man denied handicap access |

Dunbar man denied handicap access

| Saturday, August 19, 2006 12:00 a.m

Dunbar resident James Campbell has a seemingly simple request — he wants a parking spot in front of his Connellsville Street home to accommodate his physical condition.

But he will likely not receive a spot. For safety reasons, borough council eliminated parking along Connellsville Street, except for police cars in front of the station.

Council President John Maddas would not comment on Campbell’s request, which council has denied. He said council has never approved a handicap parking spot on a street where parking is forbidden. Yellow lines on both sides of Connellsville Street forbid parking because the street is too narrow.

Borough solicitor Douglas Sepic said the borough has no ordinance precluding the approval of a handicap parking space, but said the location Campbell wants presents a serious safety issue.

“They (council) cleared all parking off Connellsville Street,” Sepic said. “Mr. Campbell’s house is on the crest of a hill and on a slight curve. There are line of vision, obstruction or hazard concerns.”

Sepic said if Campbell parked his car on Connellsville Street, “there would be a collision possibility with the parked car.”

Sepic said Campbell has an alley behind his house and a driveway for parking, but, because of a hill at his house and his physical condition, he would have an easier time entering and leaving his house if he could park on the street.

Campbell’s phone number is unlisted, and he could not be reached for comment.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.