Homeowner's 6-foot driveway gate meets pushback from East Hampton ARB

Jeff Walsh, the homeowner at 5 Eileen's Path, told the East Hampton Architects Review Board on Nov. 13 that he plans a painted-white aluminum automated driveway gate with a 4-foot solid lower section and spindles above and that the design was chosen for low maintenance and to "mirror the same look as if it were wood." Walsh said the gate is set well back from the road — he estimated about 30 feet — and that the columns and overall entrances are intended to be "a lovely gateway" for two homes sharing the driveway.

The board’s response was sharply critical. The chair and several members said the proposal fails the four visual-impact criteria the ARB applies — visibility from the public right of way, height, proximity to the street, and transparency — and that the gate as presented is not consistent with recent practice. "We ask applicants to be at least 50% transparent," the chair said; Walsh acknowledged his design is about 33% visible. Board members also said the six-foot-high columns and the overall height are out of scale with neighboring 4-foot gates and warned that approving the design could prompt similar taller gates on the street.

Board members explained local thresholds: gates 4 feet or lower do not require ARB review, 4–5 feet are sometimes approved, and 5–6 feet are rarely approved; the fire department requires a 20-foot setback for emergency access. The chair and other members suggested that moving the gate farther back or increasing transparency would make the design more acceptable. Several members encouraged the applicant to revise the plans and return, rather than approve the current submission.

Walsh said his gate company had assured him the painted aluminum would be indistinguishable from wood and that the structure was purposely set behind mature trees to reduce visual impact. He also said he would file the shared-driveway maintenance agreement with the county and that the gate was designed to be sympathetic to the site. The board nevertheless asked for modifications and told the applicant to return with revised drawings that address at least one of the board’s concerns (height, transparency, distance from the street or material/color treatment).

The ARB did not approve the application at the meeting; members asked the applicant to revise the design and present it again for review.