โ๐๐๐๐ก๐ฉ๐ ๐ค๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ก๐จ ๐จ๐๐ฎ ๐ง๐๐๐ช๐ก๐๐ฉ๐๐ค๐ฃ ๐ฌ๐๐จ ๐ฅ๐ง๐ค๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ก๐ฎ ๐๐ค๐ข๐ข๐ช๐ฃ๐๐๐๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐ฃ๐ ๐๐ฃ๐๐ค๐ง๐๐๐โ
After extensive testimony and deliberation, the Reading Board of Health voted Wednesday night to uphold a $50 fine issued to the Appellant of Covey Hill Road for violating the townโs wildlife feeding regulation.
The administrative hearing centered on an appeal filed by the Appellant, who challenged both the validity of the regulation and the process by which the fine was issued. The regulation, approved in 2025, prohibits the intentional or unintentional feeding of wildlife, including wild turkeys, when it creates a public nuisance.
Background of the Violation
Public Health Director Adetokunbo Solarin explained that the wildlife feeding regulation was discussed multiple times in 2025 and finalized by the Board of Health in August of that year. Following complaints from neighbors, the Health Department sent an educational โdo not feed wildlifeโ flyer to the Appellantโs residence on Covey Hill Road in December.
According to Solarin, follow-up complaints led to an inspection in early March, after the regulation was published in theย Daily Times Chronicleย and posted on the town website. Inspectors observed multiple bird feeders on the property, including one suspended from a tree directly above a group of wild turkeys. The department issued a cease-and-desist order and a $50 citation, the penalty specified for a first offense under the regulation.
Solarin noted that subsequent inspections showed the feeder in question had been removed.
Appellant Raises Concerns Over Process
During testimony, the Appellant disputed the departmentโs account, arguing that the household was feeding birds, not turkeys, and that spilled seed from squirrels attracted the animals. The Appellant also challenged whether the regulation had been properly approved and adequately publicized.
The Appellant criticized the educational flyer sent by the department, describing it as informal and lacking legal authority, and argued that the regulation was not easily accessible to residents at the time of enforcement. The Appellant maintained that a formal warning should have preceded any monetary penalty.
Additional concerns were raised about due process, including how photographic evidence was obtained and whether inspectors attempted to make in-person contact at the Covey Hill Road residence.
Board Debate Focuses on Warning Versus Fine
Board members expressed differing opinions during deliberation. Chair Richard Lopez and member Kevin Sexton suggested that, given the regulationโs relatively recent rollout, the fine could reasonably have been treated as a warning rather than a monetary penalty.
Sexton emphasized that the board had discussed education as a priority when implementing the regulation and questioned whether residents should receive the full text of the regulation before enforcement.
Other members noted that the regulation explicitly establishes a $50 fine for a first offense and that educational outreach had already occurred prior to the citation. Joan Wetzel expressed concern that overturning the fine could undermine consistency, particularly since other residents had already been fined under the same rule. Kerry Dunnell echoed concerns about setting a precedent that could weaken future enforcement.
Solarin defended the departmentโs actions, stating that issuing a warning is discretionary and that the Appellant had been informed of the pending regulation months earlier during a visit to the Health Department.
Appeal Denied in Split Vote
Following extended discussion, the board voted 3โ1 to deny the appeal and uphold the citation. Dunnell, Wetzel, and Lopez voted in favor of validating the fine, while Sexton voted against it.
While the fine remained in place, board members agreed the case highlighted the need for clearer communication when implementing new regulations that affect all residents. Lopez suggested adding a future agenda item to formalize a standard protocol for public outreach and enforcement expectations.
This discussion shows there are areas where we can do better,โ Lopez said, noting that the board would revisit how it communicates town-wide regulations.
The meeting then moved on to the next administrative hearing.
