Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Dog Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board continues nuisance-dog hearing for dogs 'Chip' and 'Dinah' after complaints; 90-day monitoring ordered
Summary
After testimony from the animal control officer, the complainant and the dog owners, the board continued the nuisance-dog hearing 90 days and said any further incidents reported to animal control within that period could prompt a nuisance declaration and remedial order.
The Charlton Select Board continued a nuisance-dog hearing Sept. 9 concerning two dogs identified as Chip and Dinah and ordered a 90-day monitoring period with a clear enforcement threshold: further verified incidents reported to Animal Control would prompt formal nuisance findings and possible remedial orders.
Animal Control Officer Emily Sears summarized multiple complaints going back to 2023, including repeated reports and photographic evidence from a neighbor, Nicholas Schwanier, documenting dogs entering an adjacent yard. Sears said officers had issued citations for running-at-large under town bylaws and notified owners of the state nuisance-dog statute; some citations remained unpaid.
Complainant Nicholas Schwanier told the board the problem had persisted for years, affected children and pets, and included livestock incursions. Owners Chris Power and Heather Johnson acknowledged earlier incidents and said they use an underground electric fence and maintain multiple collars and batteries; they also said a portion of boundary lines and property markers had led to confusion about yard limits and required resurveying.
Several nearby residents, including Raymond Burlingame and Carrie Burlingame, testified about long-standing property boundaries and repeated dog incursions. The board asked clarifying questions about collars and the electric containment system, recent compliance and whether there were new incidents after the hearing notice. The owners said some spacing issues had been resolved and that they had fencing and livestock supplies ready, but neighbors said the problem persisted.
The Select Board adopted a procedural approach: the hearing was continued for 90 days, during which time Animal Control will monitor complaints and the board will reconvene sooner if verified incidents occur. If additional violations are reported and substantiated within the 90-day period, the board said it may declare the dog(s) a nuisance and issue remedial orders under M.G.L. c.140 §157 and local bylaws.
Ending: The board advised the parties to pursue boundary clarification, recommended immediate remedial steps (a temporary physical barrier or on-leash requirement) and set the case for review; no nuisance declaration was issued at the Sept. 9 meeting.
