Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board OKs review, seeks more detail on dormer and mini‑split placement at 16 Charles Street
Summary
An applicant presented interior renovations, an attic dormer and multiple mini‑split HVAC units for a contributing landmark structure at 16 Charles Street; the board asked for clearer condenser placement, refrigerant-line routing, and whether newly conditioned spaces change the house''s bedroom count before final approval is scheduled for May 4.
A renovation proposal for 16 Charles Street prompted detailed review from the Rhinebeck Planning Board on April 6, with members asking for design clarifications and potential code implications before a public hearing on May 4.
The application, filed for owner David Lang and presented by Ben of Josh Bery, calls for mostly interior work plus an attic stair and small bathroom, a gable dormer on the roof, new windows and exterior work to the garage, and multiple mini‑split HVAC condensers mounted in an alley between the house and the neighboring property. The project does not propose changes to the building footprint.
Board members noted the property and garage are contributing structures in the landmark district and asked the applicant to update the short EAF and public‑hearing materials to reflect the full scope of exterior work, including the mini‑split condensers. A planning-board member asked whether the condensers could be located in a less visible location or run through the wall assembly rather than mounted on the alley façade.
The applicant replied that some units may be routed through interior wall assemblies but said exterior condensers are anticipated and that the design team will refine the placement and show refrigerant‑line runs on revised drawings. "We had talked about putting them on the exterior, but I remember a while ago speaking about including them within the wall assembly of the house," the presenter said, and committed to providing clearer details.
Members also raised fire‑safety and occupancy questions tied to conditioning new attic and basement spaces. The board flagged that conditioning the attic (which includes a bathroom and a stair) and the basement (where two air handlers are proposed) could increase the house''s bedroom count; that change could trigger sprinkler or egress requirements. Staff and board members asked that the applicant confirm whether the third floor or newly conditioned areas meet the standard definitions of habitable bedrooms and whether sprinklers or additional egress would be required.
The board accepted a draft procedural resolution to classify the action under SEQR (short EAF findings) and scheduled a public hearing and further review on May 4. The board asked the applicant to return with revised plans showing exact condenser locations, refrigerant and electrical routing, and documentation about septic capacity and bedroom count.
If the applicant provides the requested details and the design minimizes visual impacts to the landmark district, the board indicated it is prepared to move forward to final site‑plan action after the May hearing.
