Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />> knows what else, since it may have frozen and thawed inside a number of <br />> times. The questions are: <br />> <br />> a) Replacement of the Building:Steve Reynolds thought that the <br />> lot, although <br />> non -conforming, would still be buildable. If this is true, then the owner <br />> could build a whole new building, but only as long as all setbacks were <br />> honored, right? This would mean a building that had a width of something <br />> like 23 to 28 feet max, given the lot width of 48 to 53 feet. <br />> The 150 foot <br />> lot width at the front setback line could never be met. The 20,000 sq ft <br />> minimum for an unsewered lot would also not be met. (There are no public <br />> sewage systems in this rural area.) Would you see this lot as buildable, <br />> and, if so, could the present house be torn down and replaced? <br />> <br />> b) Repair of the Building:If the current house is conforming, I assume the <br />> owner could just repair without limits, regardless of the status <br />> of the lot. <br />> Is this correct? <br />> <br />> If the current building is non -conforming, then I assume it would be <br />> 'grandfathered', but then limited to a 50% repair expenditure. With the <br />> assessment being only $15,000 for improvements, it does not seem it would <br />> possible to make it livable spending only $7,500. If the building <br />> encroaches on any of the setbacks, could it be repaired? And how much <br />> could be spent without a variance? <br />> <br />> Our next Planning Commission meeting is Monday March 4 and our next Town <br />> Board meeting is Tuesday, March 5. I would like to present my findings at <br />> those meetings. <br />> <br />> Thanks for your assistance. <br />> <br />> Dale Beske <br />> Chair, Town of Rutland <br />> <br />> cc: Dawn George, Clerk <br />> <br />