Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fences Gates topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

ARB reviews multiple fence and gate applications; several approvals and requests for revisions

Town of East Hampton Architectural Review Board · June 27, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its June 27 meeting the ARB reviewed a series of fence and gate proposals across town, approving several designs (with conditions on transparency, height and surveys) and sending others back for revised plans and updated surveys.

The East Hampton Architectural Review Board spent a large portion of its June 27 meeting reviewing multiple fence and gate applications across the town, issuing approvals with conditions in some cases and requesting revisions, surveys or clarifications in others.

Key outcomes and guidance:

- 67 Old Monto Highway: The board found the proposed sliding and swing gates too wall-like (3" boards with 1" gaps, ~75% opacity). Members directed the applicant to increase visual permeability (targeting roughly 50% openness), consider removing boards or increasing spacing, show vegetation/site context on a revised plan and confirm setback from the street. The application will return with revised drawings and a clearer site plan.

- Great Oakway (Northwest Woods): Code enforcement flagged an existing fence as too high (around eight feet). The ARB asked for an updated survey showing whether the fence intrudes into the town right-of-way; if so the fence must be moved. The board indicated it would be prepared to consider the fence once the survey and a corrected application are submitted.

- 91 Squall Road: Applicants proposing to replace metal gates with wood gates were told to adhere to a 50% transparency objective, maintain pool-code gap limits (no more than 4" where required), and reduce overly tall posts. The board suggested design options (spindles, lighter board widths) and requested revised elevations and details.

- 66 Old Monok Highway: A proposed driveway gate design (5' high, ~50% transparent) was favorably received; members asked that the survey reflect the returns/returns removal and emergency-access setback compliance before final resolution.

- Tyson Lane (multiple properties): The board granted an extension of time for a previously approved Tyson Lane gate and, because the newly built gate matched the earlier resolution language and precedent on the lane, instructed staff to notify the building department that the property is ready for a certificate of occupancy.

- Field View Lane: Pool-enclosure gates built near an agricultural overlay were reviewed; the gates are set far back from the street (more than 130 ft) and will be screened by plantings. The ARB approved the gates as shown on the drawings but required that installed gates be modified to conform to the approved elevations and that plantings provide year-round screening.

- 104 Wayne Scott Main Street: The ARB approved a 6-ft driveway gate and a 4-ft black-stained stockade generator enclosure conditioned on maintaining a vegetative screening buffer around the enclosure; the landscape architect said bayberry and existing planting would screen the enclosure and the design includes minor acoustic/tilt details to attenuate generator sound.

- Certificates of Occupancy and as-built checks: The board instructed staff to notify the building department that 462 Monto Highway (historic district) substantially conforms to its ARB resolution so the house portion can receive a certificate of occupancy; gates/fences not in compliance were excluded and must return. A roadside sign at 478 West Lake Drive also substantially conformed, though an extra small sign installed without approval will be checked.

- Ranger Path: The installed work did not conform to the resolution (elements exceed approved heights) and the board deemed the submission incomplete or denied; the applicant must return with revised plans.

Across these items the ARB repeatedly emphasized two recurring requirements: updated, accurate surveys that show existing and proposed fences/gates relative to the street and right-of-way; and designs that avoid creating a wall-like street edge (board guidance: prefer approximately 50% transparency for front-yard gates/fences). Several proposals were approved contingent on the applicant submitting corrected elevations, lighting cut sheets or survey documentation.