Connelly Manor in Sharon, PA

Pros

• Residents were accommodated in accordance with all fair housing guidelines.
• The safety of residents was prioritized during the rehab.
• The rehab is expected to be over soon and life will be back to normal.

Cons

• The fifth floor reportedly smells like a salty weiner, with one elevator smelling of rotten curry and the other of old garbage.
• The reviewer would not recommend living there, citing unprofessional and threatening behavior by the property manager, including bullying and harassment.
• The manager is reportedly entering tenants' apartments without notice or consent, creating fear and a lack of privacy.
• There is little accountability, with complaints ignored or retaliated against.
• Management is described as invading privacy, screaming at disabled tenants and others who don’t live there, and failing to respond to inquiries, while bugs remain a constant issue.
• New owners have imposed horrible restrictions, leaving tenants without electricity daily and disabled residents unable to leave their apartments.
• The rehab/update has imposed restrictions on residents, though claimed to be for safety.

Review

This community is best suited for renters who must live in Sharon, PA regardless of conditions and are primarily guided by price or location rather than a reliable, respectful living environment. In practice, Connelly Manor appears to deliver a deeply unstable experience: pervasive odors on a whole floor, unpleasant elevator environments, and a pervasive sense that basic maintenance and safety are secondary to other concerns. For families evaluating options, the core reality is that the living environment is currently turbulent, with ongoing rehab and construction creating ongoing disruption. If stability, dignity, and predictable routines matter, this property does not deliver those basics. Prospective residents should see this as a low-margin choice where the potential upside, future improvements, has to be weighed squarely against ongoing and well-documented concerns.

Those who may want to consider alternatives are primarily seniors or families who expect professional, respectful property management and a safe, private living space. The reviews repeatedly describe unprofessional and even threatening behavior by the manager, bullying and intimidation when addressing everyday issues, and intrusions into tenants’ apartments without notice. Privacy is routinely placed at risk, and complaints are said to be ignored or met with retaliation. For anyone relying on on-site staff for timely responses, safety monitoring, or basic accountability, the current management approach is unacceptable. In short, those who prize dignity, autonomy, and clear, respectful communication should look elsewhere.

The few potential positives, if any, do not meaningfully offset the most serious drawbacks. The property is in the process of a rehab/construction phase, which ostensibly justifies restrictions aimed at resident safety. Management asserts that residents were accommodated under fair housing guidelines and that the project will be completed soon, with things returning to normal. That narrative hints at a possible future where facilities are improved and inconveniences ease. However, the present reality is a daily disruption that includes restricted utilities and limited movement for residents, especially those who are disabled. The promise of “back to normal” does little to reassure families who need dependable day-to-day functioning now, not later.

The most corrosive issues are practical and enforceable: persistent pest problems, odorous conditions, and a troubling lack of electricity under the new ownership regime. The foul smells on the fifth floor and the bothersome conditions inside elevators create an unacceptable living environment. Bugs are reported as a constant nuisance, undermining comfort and raising concerns about sanitation and habitability. When coupled with an administration that threatens privacy and appears indifferent to tenant concerns, these problems become not just inconvenient but potentially unsafe. For seniors or disabled residents who require predictable daily routines and reliable access to essential services, these gaps translate into heightened stress, risk, and a markedly diminished quality of life.

From a decision-making standpoint, serious diligence is required before committing to Connelly Manor. Prospective residents should seek clarity on who exactly holds management responsibilities during the rehab, what concrete milestones exist for restoring normal operations, and how ongoing restrictions will be communicated and enforced. A comprehensive move-in plan should address electricity reliability, access to essential services, pest control plans, and a transparent process for reporting issues with timely, accountable follow-up. It is essential to speak with multiple current residents, if possible, to verify whether the management culture has improved since the reviews were written and to gauge real-time conditions in common areas, hallways, and private units.

In sum, Connelly Manor carries a heavy warning label. It is not a good fit for seniors who require dependable oversight, respectful treatment, and stable utilities. It may appeal only to those with extreme budget constraints or those willing to endure ongoing disruption for the sake of proximity or a temporary cost advantage. For most families, alternatives that offer cleaner environments, professional management, better pest control, and consistent access to services will be worth pursuing. If staying within this market is unavoidable, enter with a stringent, written set of expectations, insist on clear accountability measures, and plan for rapid escalation to oversight bodies if management fails to meet basic standards.