The Charlton Select Board on Jan. 14 declared two dogs, Lily and Bear, a nuisance and ordered their owners to keep the animals confined and under control after a citizen complaint about repeated trespassing and an incident in which one of the dogs chased a child into her home.

The board’s action followed a public hearing that included testimony from Richard Kelly, the complainant and resident of Dressler Hill Road, Animal Control Officer Kelly Flynn, and Jonathan Burnett, the dogs’ owner. Kelly said the dogs had repeatedly entered his yard and on one occasion “chased my daughter and our dog to our front door,” leaving family members frightened. Flynn said she had observed dogs on Route 31 and had issued citations and letters; she told the board she was “very concerned that somebody could get hurt” if a dog is struck on the roadway.

The animal control officer recommended the board label Lily and Bear nuisance animals and impose specific orders: install a physical fence or, if too costly, a wireless electric fence with functioning electric collars; keep the dogs leashed or tethered until the fence is installed; ensure collars remain charged and fitted; and install childproof hardware on doors that lead outdoors. Flynn also noted she had submitted citations and a packet of reports and photos documenting complaints.

Burnett, the dogs’ owner, told the board the animals are not aggressive and said he had already ordered a wireless electric fence and installed a stop on a sliding door. He said many incidents occurred when he was at work and that he had been willing to take corrective steps.

After discussion about enforceability and evidence, a board member moved to find Lily and Bear a nuisance and impose the ACO’s recommended orders; another board member seconded. The motion carried by majority vote (ayes: 3; no: 1; abstentions: 1). The board directed the animal control officer to inspect the Burnetts’ property within 30 days to verify that the required measures are in place and functioning. If further complaints are received, the board said it will revisit the matter.

The order cites Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 140, on nuisance and dangerous dogs and referenced chapter 140, section 174(e), which addresses tethering and confinement.

The hearing record includes a 16‑page complaint form filed by Richard Kelly and a 37‑page packet of reports, photos and citations prepared by the animal control officer. The board noted the action is intended to be enforceable so that the ACO or police can require compliance if problems persist.

The board closed the hearing after the vote and reminded the parties that follow‑up inspections and enforcement will be undertaken if the dogs are observed loose again.