The Charlton Select Board held a public hearing Tuesday night on a proposed house-number change for 77 E. Bailey’s Road but voted unanimously to take no action after residents and board members raised questions about alternate solutions and homeowner hardship.

The change was proposed by the town building department to bring the parcel into an addressing sequence the town says will better align numbers across the street and avoid future conflicts as new lots are built. “I will reiterate that our policy says that we understand that changing of house numberings is a problem for people, but public safety and being able to correctly address within the 911 system for first responders and emergency services is a priority,” the town’s building department representative said during the hearing.

A homeowner who would be affected objected, saying the problem was caused by a different nearby lot and arguing other numbering options—such as assigning a lettered suffix to the intervening lot or changing the number of the parcel that is being developed—had not been exhausted. “Why am I 3 lots down having to change my number when I’m not the cause of this problem and there’s so many other solutions?” the resident said.

Fire Chief Barton told the board that sequential numbering across the street helps emergency responders find addresses quickly, adding that the department “prefer[s] for house numbering to be sequentially.” The building department staff said the town had offered to pay for steps to ease the transition if the board approved a change, including filing the address change with the registry of deeds, replacing mailbox and house numbers, and supplying a reflective address sign and post.

Board members debated whether the town should require a current homeowner to change their number now or wait to require the owner of the undeveloped lot to change theirs if and when they build. Several members said they were reluctant to impose what could be a significant administrative burden on a resident if the development that created the numbering conflict may not occur for some time.

After discussion the board closed the public hearing and adopted a motion to take no action at this time. The motion carried unanimously.

The board and staff said the town will continue to work on addressing practices and may revisit individual cases if development activity or new information requires it.