A Coaldale property owner was denied a preliminary injunction to halt the borough from enforcing its property maintenance ordinances after a hearing held in Schuylkill County court.

Diane L. Riccardo, who resides at 250 E. Water St., brought suit against the borough, Susan Solt in her capacity as borough council president, Jamie Nicholas, in his capacity as code enforcer, and Carl Faust, in his capacity as code administrator.Judge John E. Domalakes heard the complaint where Riccardo appeared in her own behalf and Nicholas and Solt on behalf of the borough and then issued the following order:"The matter before the court is request for emergency relief to enjoin the borough from enforcing the borough's ordinances pertaining to property maintenance. (The borough adopted the International Property Maintenance Code). Riccardo testified she didn't have the finances at this time to bring her property into compliance with the ordinances."The evidence produced by Nichols and Solt was that the property is unfit for human occupancy. It does not have running water, the property is covered with debris and clutter and it has been the subject of complaints by the neighbors. Stagnant standing water in uncovered garbage cans, which also contained garbage, are present on the property. The borough has issued violation notice against Riccardo."In order to grant her request she must establish that her right to relief is clear, there is urgent necessity to avoid injury which cannot be compensated for by damages and the greater injury will result ffrom refusing rather than granting relieft requested. Her right to relief is certainly not clear given the condition of the property and it appears greater harm wil occur to the neighborhood by granting her request. At least some of the property maintenance code violations could be corrected simply by clearing the premises of garbabe and debris."Riccardo acquired the property on a bid and claimed she spoke with then code enforcer for Coaldale and asked him about existing known code violations on the property and that Richards told her as long as he saw progress on the property he would not issue any violations and asked her to let him know when she acquired ownership so he could stop issuing violations to former owners, James and Patricia Black.Riccardo claimed she received title to the property on July 6 and started to remove debris from the basement so that utilities could be turned on. Electricity was turned on without issue.She claimed the new code enforcer, Nicholas, on Oct. 26, approached her and said the house had no running water and was in violation of several other codes and requested a meeting. They met in her backyard and Nicholas indicated violations pertaining to the garage door being broken and must be restored, all broken windows should be boarded and every sink, laboratory, bathtub, shower, drinking fountain shall be properly connected to either a public water system or an approved private water system. Nicholas also said he would be inspecting the inside of the house for garbage. Riccardo claimed he gave her seven days to correct all of these problems.She told the court it was physically impossible to obtian running water in seven days and Nicholas was aware but still wrote up the violation. She claimed the street first must be marked by the water authority and the state notified before digging.In her suit Riccardo claimed Nicholas is not certified by the Department of Labor and Industry and therefore cannot properly execute his job duties as code enforcement officer. She also claimed the borough does not have a formal board of appeals to handle disposition of appeals under the auspices of state utilities commission.Riccardo further claimed Solt told her appeals would be handled by District Judge Stephen Bayer in Tamaqua, which she claims is misleading because the magistrate does not have the proper authority to hear the appeals under the state utility commission unless such matters were to come before him by proper judicial process.Riccardo claims she has made a series of successful efforts to improve the property in spite of the fact she has disabililties that limit her to constantly perform physical labor and that she requires help of others to perform substantial amount of the physical labor required to clean out and improve the property. She also claimed that she will be severely hampered if the property is condemned because she has no other place to live.She claims she had made every effort to remediate the condition of the property which was previously owned by metal scrap dealers who left junk and scrap metal on the property. She claims she is more than willing to work with the borough in making the property viable again so the tax base will be increased through an increased property assessment.