The Town of Coventry Zoning Board of Review voted unanimously to uphold a building department notice of violation issued June 30, 2025 for accumulated debris at 211 Reed Schoolhouse Road.

The board’s decision followed testimony from Anthony, a permit technician with the Coventry Building Department, who said he inspected the property on May 19, 2025, returned after a compliance deadline of June 19 and issued the violation on June 30 because he observed “a large accumulation of rocks and trees taken down” and storage methods and volume inconsistent with the neighborhood standard. Tanesa Azar, an attorney for the building department, told the board the applicable code is the town ordinance cited in the notice (reported in the record as §180-7A) and that the determination rests on whether the property conforms “to other orderly premises in the neighborhood.”

Appellant counsel David M. D'Agostino argued the evidence before the building official relied on two photographs and did not show debris in a way that violated the ordinance; he submitted additional photographs taken December 5 to show the street-facing condition of the property and said much of the wood on the lot is used to heat the home. The property owner, identifying himself on the record as Kyle Cludio, said he uses wood to heat his house, described efforts to level and improve a second lot for family use, disputed allegations that he runs a business there and said family members—not paid employees—visit the property to help with projects. “I burn lots of wood,” he told the board, and said the piles are for home heating and property work.

Neighbors told a different story. Cheryl Kane, of 185 Reed Schoolhouse Road, presented photos and video she said document vehicles, employees and exterior storage tied to a business run from the residence; she said repeated complaints to town departments followed and described a perceived decrease in neighborhood safety and character. Another neighbor, Andrew (surname given in the record), said heavy machinery and ongoing chainsaw work and visible material piles were his primary concerns.

Board members repeatedly emphasized their legal task: to decide whether the building inspector’s determination in May and June was correct, not to pursue unrelated enforcement. After hearing evidence, a motion was made, seconded and carried to uphold the building official’s decision; the roll-call vote was unanimous.

The board’s written finding incorporates the inspector’s testimony about the May and June inspections and the photographs and testimony presented at the hearing. The record shows the notice of violation referenced a corrective requirement to bring the property into conformance with the cited section of the town ordinance and warned of potential civil penalties (the notice in the record describes a civil penalty provision and per-day offense language). Appellants argued the original notice lacked specific guidance about how to comply; D'Agostino asked the board to consider remedies or clearer instructions if the board were to affirm the violation.

The board closed public comment, took the appeal under deliberation and then announced the unanimous decision to uphold the building official’s determination. The matter was resolved at that meeting by the board’s formal vote; additional enforcement or remediation steps would follow the town’s standard procedures.