A Warren County Constable and Sheffield’s code enforcement officer has been fined nearly $90,000 by the state after using his office to dismiss ordinance charges in order to obtain ownership of property.

The state Ethics Commission issued a decision Wednesday fining Young $87,900 in a treble penalty as well as two additional $1,000 fines for not filling out required Statement of Financial Interest forms for 2021 and 2022 as constable; for 2020-2023 for his position as Sheffield and Pleasant code enforcement officer; and 2022-2024 for his position as Glade Township code enforcement officer. He has also been directed to complete accurate Statement of Financial Interest forms for those years and not to accept reimbursement, compensation or other payment from Sheffield, Pleasant or Glade townships that would represent a full or partial payment of the civil penalties of the $87,900 treble penalty.

In Pennsylvania, a “treble penalty” (or treble damages) refers to a civil legal mechanism under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). If a business or individual commits fraud, bait-and-switch tactics, or deception, a judge has the discretion to award the victim up to three times their actual financial losses, plus attorney fees.

“Given the egregious nature of Young’s blatant and intentional conduct in this matter, the imposition of a treble penalty is warranted,” the Ethics Commission wrote in its finding. “Young has admitted that he realized a private pecuniary benefit of approximately $29,300 as a result of his violations of Section 1103(a) and 1103(c) of the Ethics Act. The calculation of the treble penalty is three times the amount of financial gain resulting from the aforesaid violation.”

The investigation began in April 2025 after the state Ethics Commission’s Investigative Division was notified that Young violated provisions of the state Ethics Act. A full inquiry began in June 2025 with a letter forwarded to Young. The findings report was sent to Young in February 2026.

The Ethics Commission said not complying will result in an order enforcement action. The case has also been referred to the Warren County District Attorney’s Office and the state Attorney General’s Office with the recommendation of criminal prosecution against Young.

ROOTS IN LONGSTANDING CODE VIOLATIONS

Those findings state that Anthony Scuteri owned property in Sheffield that included a mobile home at 261 Cottage Ave., as well as three additional mobile homes at 245 Cottage Ave., 227 Cottage Ave. and 209 Cottage Ave. After Scuteri passed away in 2020, the properties were deeded to his wife, who passed away in July 2023, and his daughter, Michelle Grubbs.

A property associated with 261 Cottage Ave. address had code violations logged on April 28, 2020, May 4, 2020 and May 6, 2020 to correct issues dating back to at least July 17, 2017. During an October 19, 2020, Sheffield town supervisors meeting, Young asked board members if he was to prepare a citation or have a courtesy letter sent if he saw a nuisance ordinance violation while serving papers on a township resident if he was acting as a constable rather than a code enforcement officer. Board members said a courtesy letter should be sent with a citation to follow if the violation wasn’t fixed. Young then wrote a memo to the supervisors dated Oct. 21, 2020, regarding ordinance violations at 209 Cottage Ave. and additional addresses owned by Scuteri. Young, according to the Ethics Commission findings, then reported his personal observation of the potential violations on Oct. 12, 2020, while performing his duties as constable. Town officials then began code enforcement actions against Scuteri and Grubbs regarding 209 Cottage Ave. and all other properties at the end of Cottage Avenue, giving the property owners 30 days to fix the issues and telling them Young would investigate the property on Dec. 7, 2020, to see if the properties were still in violation of township ordinances. After a series of letters and township-granted delays Young issued a citation on May 4, 2021 for unsheltered storage or maintenance of junk or storage or maintenance of garbage, rubbish or other materials. A judge then fined the property owners $376.75. The property owners then got an estimate to clean up the property that came in at $100,000, which neither property owner could pay. Both property owners chose to plead not guilty in Magisterial District Court and chose to take their case to trial. Grubbs appeared in court in June 2021 with the intention to plead guilty in an attempt to gain time to develop a plan to clean up the property.

Young was present when Grubbs appeared in court and the two talked in a vacant courtroom. Young told Grubbs he was going to speak to Magisterial District Judge Raymond Zydonik, then returned to speak with Young.

“Once outside, Young told Grubbs the following,” the findings report states. “He could take the property off her hands. He would take care of having the property cleaned up. He wanted to use the property for rental purposes. He would drop the charges against Grubbs and Scuteri in exchange for them transferring the property to Young. Grubbs agreed to consider Young’s solicitation and to discuss the matter in more detail in the future with the understanding that Young was going to initiate contact with her.”

The trial was continued for three months, with the continuance requested by Young. A week after the June continuance Young began texting Grubbs, who told Young she wanted to get rid of the property.

The Ethics Commission report notes Young never disclosed to Sheffield Township officials his solicitation of the property in exchange for dismissal or withdrawal of the charges against the property owners. On June 25, Young and Grubbs agreed to deed the property to Young at no cost in exchange for withdrawal of the ordinance violation charges. On Sept. 13, 2021, Young withdrew the charges. A court hearing was never held.

SELLING THE PROPERTY

The Ethics Commission notes Young then made a financial gain on the property after entering into a land contract with private individuals for the Cottage Avenue property. Young charged the couple $30,000 for a rent-to-own agreement. The couple, Kevin Williams and Virginia Gates, had plans to operate the property as a mobile home park. During a walk-through of the property Young told the potential buyer that he wouldn’t issue any citations if property improvements were made regularly. A land contract was executed in July 2022. The Ethics Commission notes that Young was wearing his constable uniform while executing the contract at the county courthouse.

Despite the $14,000 downpayment and monthly payments, Young was still listed as the owner of the property on the deed and, according to the Ethics Commission, the Cottage Avenue property was not brought into ordinance compliance between August 20, 2021, and September 11, 2023. At that point the town supervisors decided to send Young a courtesy letter regarding the condition of the property even though Young was still the township’s code enforcement officer and had not reported on his own property as a possible target for code enforcement actions.

“Young replied to the township via correspondence dated Sept. 28, 2023, in which he affirmed his receipt of the township’s letter and asserted, in part, the following: the sale of the property in August 2022 to Williams and Gates, who were residing at Cottage Avenue,” the Ethics Commission report states. “Young further identified Williams and Gates as the property owners although in his correspondence he acknowledged they had not yet finished paying for the property. His willingness to do something on his end but his inability to do so as Williams and Gates would not permit anyone on the property to remedy the situation and his need to file for Williams and Gates evictions and clean the property after the eviction was completed.”

In March 2024 Young’s lawyer said Williams and Gates were no longer allowed to live at 209 Cottage Ave. because they hadn’t maintained and improved the property, had stopped paying Young and had rented one of the mobile homes and not given the rent to Young. The correspondence named Young as the owner.

Neither Williams nor Gates vacated the property, prompting Young to file a civil lawsuit. Young, according to the Ethics Commission finding, had been paid $29,300 for the property up to that point.

In November 2024, Young was notified by the town supervisors that his property was in violation of the township’s solid waste ordinance, with a private criminal complaint issued in March 2025. In November, the town withdrew charges against Young due to the property ownership dispute.

The Ethics Commission stated Young realized a gain of $29,300 due to using his position as constable to obtain the property in exchange for dismissing the ordinance violation charges.

“Turning to the matter of referral, given the criminal penalties associated with the Ethics Act and Young’s blatant abuse of the authority of his public office for his own private financial gain, we shall refer this matter to the Office of the Warren County District Attorney and the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with our recommendation that criminal prosecutions be instituted against Young,” the Ethics Commission’s finding states.