Dayton Planning Board

February 16, 2010


Members Present: Remi Caron, Dick Hall, Dan Plourde, Valerie Cole (Alt.)

Others Present: Jim Roberts (CEO) Michael Faucher, Lyla Kyriazi



  • Meeting called to order at 7:04 PM.
  • December 15, 2009 minutes read and approved.


Old Business:


Lyla Kyriazi appeared before the Planning Board to discuss the following:

  • Update status of Linwood Acres subdivision
  • Present a Purchase and Sales agreement for one of the lots
  • Arrange for an escrow to be established for the remainder of the work on Phase 1
  • Discuss a timetable for Phases 2 and 3


Planning Board members reviewed a sample Letter of Credit from Attorney David Ordway, presented by Jim Roberts. Mrs. Kyriazi asked if the Town would act as agent. The Planning Board’s position is that they only want to be responsible for the dispersal of funds, not for holding the money. The Board would consider a bond requiring two signatures for the release of funds.


Mrs. Kyriazi handed out a packet of papers, including the following:

  • Warranty deed
  • Purchase and sales agreement with Mr. Faucher DBA Cornerstone Homes Inc
  • Proposal from Quattrone’s Excavation for roadwork
  • Soil test results by Albert Frick Associates


Mr. Faucher expressed concern about the occupancy permit as road completion is dependent on the weather. He would like a guarantee that he can get an occupancy permit if the house is done but the ground work isn’t.


Remi Caron asked if Mrs. Kyriazi is in agreement with the work the engineer proposes. She indicated that she is, and that she is willing also to put up $15,000 for escrow. This would consist of $10,150 as estimated in Quattrone’s proposal, $1000 to deal with stockpiled material near the road, $1000 for engineer fees and inspection, and an additional 25% or roughly $3000 for unanticipated extras.


The Board’s position is that the work needs to be completed and paid for before the escrow money is returned. The Board also requires a letter from the engineer saying that the work is done. Attorney David Ordway will be asked to draw up appropriate paperwork.


Jim Roberts asked for a time frame for Phases 2 and 3, which had been extended to 2010 by Brian Plourde. Mrs.  Kyriazi proposed 2011 for Phase 2 and 2012 for Phase 3. The Board was in agreement.


Jim Roberts asked if there would be a separate fund to pay the engineer. It was noted that either the town or Mrs. Kyriazi could do that, as the $15,000 would not be released until the engineer is paid.

Jim Roberts noted that it will be necessary to hold money for the final surfacing of the road, after all the houses are completed. In a manner of speaking, the next two phases are a type of escrow, as they can't be started until the first phase is approved.


A memo will be drawn up for Mrs. Kyriazi to present to the bank and will read as follows:


Code Enforcement Officer Jim Roberts reserves the right to issue an occupancy permit either on completion of Phase 1 as presented or upon confirmation that funds are available in escrow to complete the necessary work.


The Board also presented Mrs. Kyriazi with the outstanding bill from Pinkham and Greer. It was the Planning Board’s understanding that Mrs. Kyriazi would cover the bill for the date when she had the property inspected in June. Dick pointed out that any engineering was to be covered by the subdivision owner. Mrs. Kyriazi claimed that she was not the owner at the time of the inspection, although Jim pointed out that she had called the engineer. She agreed to talk to the engineering firm about the bill.


Mr. Faucher indicated that he is in negotiations to take over the subdivision and asked the following questions:

1.      Can Phase 3 be completed before Phase 2? The Planning Board felt that the phases are not contingent on each other; the main concern is the building of the retention pond for run-off.  The Planning Board is willing to negotiate on this.

2.      Is the Planning Board requiring an association for the subdivision? Mr. Faucher expressed concern about potential buyers feeling restricted by the requirement of an association in regards to the road maintenance. The Planning Board’s stand is that whoever owns the road is responsible for maintaining it, and in this the subdivision owner is responsible until the association is formed. This is normally done as part of the original planning. Mr. Faucher was advised that if he wishes he may check with a lawyer about road maintenance agreements; the Board is willing to have the town attorney look at his suggestions.

3.      If there is a road association, can it block the fire department from using the cistern? Who is responsible if the fire department breaks the cistern? Mr. Faucher felt the association should not have to maintain it because it can't access the resources itself. The Planning Board’s understanding is that the fire department  maintains it once they approve it.

4.      Is the association required to plow the access to the fire cistern? Jim Roberts thought the fire department plows all hydrants and cisterns anyway.

5.      If the association owns the cistern, can they stop the fire department from using it? No, as it is intended to be a community resource. Jim Roberts will check with the Fire Dept. regarding responsibilities of cistern maintenance.

6.      What is required for a road to be taken over by the town? Interested parties must petition the town and then it is voted on by residents.

7.      If the road stays private, do the property taxes reflect that and would the assessment not be as high? Mr. Faucher was advised to consult with the town assessor and selectmen regarding this issue.

8.      Is the town interested in taking over the open space? Mr. Faucher was advised that this also is a question more for the selectmen.

9.      What about putting the open space in a land trust? It is still encumbered upon to not to be developed. It would have to be re-deeded which would require meeting again with the Planning Board to remove it from the development.

10.  Can the nine lot owners own 1/9 of the open space, so the association does not have to insure it or maintain it? It would probably be possible for one person to own it, although they should be advised that they would have to pay property tax on it. If all lot owners own it, then it would be on their insurance policies. The insurance carrier could insure the road as well as the open space. Mr. Faucher was advised that it can probably be written into the deed restrictions; the town does not enforce deed restrictions.

New Business:

None discussed.


The meeting ended at 8:15 PM. There are no items on the agenda for March 2, 2010. The next meeting will be Tuesday, March 16, 2010 at 7:00 PM.




Valerie J. Cole, Secretary



Remi Caron, Chair

COPIES TO: Jim Roberts, Code Enforcement Officer; Selectmen; and Tax Assessor