The hearing commenced with testimonies from the Animal Control Officer, Max’s owner William Mal, and a witness named Debbie Mal. The officer recounted a pattern of aggressive behavior, primarily towards other dogs, and noted that Max had been quarantined multiple times. William Mal defended Max, asserting that the dog had never shown aggression towards people and attributing any aggressive behavior to protective instincts. He emphasized Max’s ongoing obedience training and improvements in behavior, stressing that Max is a good dog but requires careful oversight around other dogs.

Residents provided conflicting testimonies about Max’s behavior. John, a neighbor, recounted an incident where someone was knocked over during a confrontation involving Max, raising concerns about public safety. Meanwhile, an elderly resident who had lived in the area for 27 years vouched for Max’s friendly and obedient nature, presenting a photo as evidence of the dog’s non-aggressive demeanor.

Disputes arose over specific incidents, particularly involving a beagle named Mugsy. William Mal explained that Max was trained to stay within his yard and only left the property when the storm door was unlocked. He described past amicable interactions between Max and Mugsy and asserted that Max was not aggressive but rather anxious. Another resident suggested installing an electric fence to prevent future incidents, a proposal that William Mal acknowledged and was considering.

The hearing also touched on a contentious incident involving veterinary expenses for a neighbor’s dog, which William Mal disputed. He described receiving a bill for $1,200 and expressed skepticism about Max being responsible for the injuries, citing the physical constraints of the fence between the properties. The absence of photographic evidence and the aggressive demeanor of the neighbor, Sean, were highlighted as concerns, with William Mal’s elderly father feeling pressured into paying the initial bill.

A board member underscored the legal implications of dog-related incidents, warning William Mal about potential liability if Max were to injure someone in the future. The absence of the complainants, Sean and Sharon, was noted as a hindrance to fully assessing the claims. The board stressed the importance of taking additional measures to prevent further incidents.

Following the discussion on Max, the board shifted focus to other town matters. They reviewed and accepted minutes from previous meetings and discussed appointments to various committees. Amy Stevens was appointed to the memorial and monuments committee, and a new disabled taxation fund committee was established.

The board also addressed the replacement of the bandstand railing, funded by a state grant. A local contractor offered to replace the railing for $100, allowing for additional improvements within the budget. Expressions of gratitude were extended to the contractor for their generosity.

A policy proposal aimed at prohibiting private signs on public property within town limits was discussed. Exceptions would apply for signs placed by town officials and temporary signage for town-sponsored events. The debate touched on existing signs requesting drivers to slow down and contractor signs, with a preference for allowing temporary contractor signs for ongoing jobs.

The board then considered municipal fee increases, reviewing a fee schedule that included comparisons to neighboring communities. Adjustments were proposed to align Dunstable’s fees with market rates, with specific fees like demolition permits and swimming pool installations seeing notable increases. The need for regular fee structure reviews, considering inflation and service costs, was emphasized.

Allocations of funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) for town hall boiler repairs and newsletter printing were approved. An invoice of $354 for the newsletter and an estimate of approximately $5,100 for boiler repairs were discussed, with the board agreeing on the urgency of the repairs due to non-operational boilers affecting water and heating services.

Lastly, the Selectmen supported an emergency declaration concerning the closure of the Mohawk Valley Medical Center, recognizing its importance as a medical resource and workplace for many local residents. The board agreed to advocate for the hospital’s continued operation, emphasizing the potential impact on healthcare access if the closure proceeded.