At a Coventry Town Council meeting, neighbors pressed the town to enforce a court-ordered vegetative buffer at 225 Hopkins Hill Road, saying the absence of the buffer has caused years of noise, privacy and air-quality impacts on adjacent homes along Helen Avenue.

Town Manager report and history

The town manager told the council that the property has been operated as a nonconforming commercial trucking use since about 2007 and that the town pursued litigation. "In 2018 the judge verified that Ferrero Mechanical does have use of their property, per its 2007 agreement," the town manager said, adding the court imposed conditions including limits on idling and a requirement to restore a vegetative buffer. The manager said the previous owner planted 32 four-foot arborvitae and that the business was sold to a new owner in January 2025. He said he was advised that "unless it's part of the deed that's filed, it is not the new owner's responsibility to put the buffer where it is." The manager said he has contacted the new owner but had not yet received a response.

Why neighbors want enforcement

Neighbor Kathy Thoreau, who identified herself as living at 6 Helen Avenue, summarized the case history to the council and urged enforcement. "The absence of the buffer has caused ongoing disruption over the years, including loss of privacy, increased noise, poor air quality, and intrusion from commercial operations adjacent to our homes," Thoreau said, and she asked the council to "take steps to ensure the compliance with the superior court's buffer restoration order so that the court's intent is fulfilled on condition number 6." Thoreau and other residents told the council they supplied photos, drone video and other documentation to town officials over several years.

Legal and enforcement questions

Residents and council members debated whether the 2018 judgment binds the current owner. Councilman Hoole asked whether a new owner who purchases under a preexisting nonconforming use must comply with prior court-ordered conditions. The town's legal guidance at the meeting — summarized by the manager and the solicitor in public remarks — was that the specific court order was entered against the prior business and, unless recorded against the property deed, courts may not automatically bind the new owner. Council members asked the solicitor to research options, including whether the town could record the judgment or otherwise secure a deed restriction so the obligation would "follow the land." The solicitor said he would look into legal mechanisms to enforce the buffer when ownership has changed.

Technical details and residents' requests

Residents and the manager framed the buffer as a "dense vegetative buffer" with a width the court described as between 20 and 50 feet "where applicable." Neighbors asked the town to clarify what plantings and width would satisfy the order and noted the town's 2018 bench decision included a procedure for appointing a master to determine the appropriate depth if parties could not agree; that option was not later used. Neighbors asked the council to press the new owner to restore the buffer and to clarify how the town's zoning rules protect residents from noise and traffic when a grandfathered commercial use abuts a residential zone.

Council direction and next steps

Council members agreed to have the solicitor and staff research legal options and report back. The manager said he had attempted to contact the new owner and would continue outreach. The council did not take a vote on any enforcement action at the meeting; the matter remains under review and the solicitor will advise on whether the town can record the judgment or otherwise require buffer restoration.

Ending

Neighbors said the problem has persisted for years and asked the town to use the tools available to ensure the court's conditions are met. Council members said they would follow up with legal research and further outreach to the property owner.