Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Character topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB pushes back on proposed 6‑foot mahogany driveway gate in Wainscott, asks applicant to redesign
Summary
The ARB told the homeowner proposing a 6‑foot mahogany driveway gate in Wainscott that the design is visually imposing and inconsistent with the informal, wooded road; the board recommended lowering the height, increasing setback or switching to a more transparent design and asked the applicant to return with revisions.
The East Hampton Architectural Review Board on March 26 reviewed a proposal for a motorized sliding driveway gate at 68 Wainscott Road and expressed strong concerns about the gate's scale, materials and visual impact on the neighborhood.
Clara presented drawings showing a mahogany gate 6 feet tall by 14 feet wide with two 24‑inch square posts on each side finished in exterior plaster to resemble concrete and down‑facing LED lights. The applicant (Kyle) said the call box will be at the property line and that the posts would be stucco for a finished look but later explained posts were downsized to reduce cost.
Board members repeatedly described the proposal as "imposing" and inconsistent with the informal, wooded Wayne Scott streetscape. The board noted its transparency guideline (generally 50% open) and questioned whether the gate as drawn met that standard. Frank and other members suggested alternatives: a gate no higher than 4 feet, moving the gate further back from the road to reduce visual impact, or selecting materials that preserve views rather than creating a walling effect.
Applicant Kyle said the motivation was privacy for a single occupant and that the intent was to reduce visibility to the house. The ARB asked the applicant to return with revised plans that lower the height, increase the setback from the road, or show a more transparent design and suggested the applicant drive the roadway and look at neighboring gate examples for guidance.
No approval was granted; the board urged the applicant to revise and resubmit.
