ARB approves screened 8‑ft concrete tennis‑court enclosure and related fences at prominent Further Lane corner

The East Hampton Architectural Review Board on June 11 approved a revised plan for fences, gates and a concrete tennis‑court enclosure at 472 Further Lane after an extended discussion about screening, height and material choices.

Frank, the board presenter, opened the item by reminding members that the application had been reviewed in February and that the board had asked the applicant to: screen the wood fence on Indian Wells Highway, lower a vehicular gate from 6 feet to 5 feet, and reduce deer‑fence heights from 8 to 6 feet. He said the current submittal had addressed those items and noted the board should still consider the concrete wall around the tennis court.

Steve Noda, landscape architect, described a multi‑layered approach to screening on the Further Lane and Indian Wells Highway frontages: a 60‑foot planted buffer using Osmanthus as an evergreen hedge, an internal six‑foot wire mesh fence set behind the hedge, and additional plantings in front of a concrete tennis‑court wall. He said the sliding vehicular gate will be Corten steel and that pedestrian gates will be four feet wide by six feet tall.

Andrea Cochran, one of the project architects, said the 8‑ft concrete wall for the northwest corner of the tennis court was designed primarily for acoustic mitigation given traffic noise along Indian Wells Highway and to provide an appropriate playing enclosure; she added the design includes plantings intended to screen the wall from the street. Virginia, joining from the design team, confirmed recent plantings at the corner would help screening.

Board members probed materials, offsets and visibility. The panel asked for an updated survey to record final heights and locations prior to building permits. One board member emphasized that while the 8‑ft wall is imposing, the lot’s setbacks and the ability to build principal structures on the same footprint meant the proposed enclosure was an acceptable solution given the mitigation measures.

A motion to approve the application as presented passed; the transcript records a unanimous vote. Staff and the project team will update the survey to show final fence and wall heights and the board will expect that record before permits proceed.

Key technical decisions recorded in the discussion include a tennis‑court enclosure wall of approximately 8 feet in height (visible from the interior side but screened from the street by 8‑ft plantings), a 60‑ft planting buffer along Further Lane, a corten steel sliding vehicular gate reduced to 5 feet, a six‑foot pedestrian gate, and retention/retrofit of existing chain‑link where noted to meet pool‑enclosure requirements.