-
Re: Demolition and Building Permit Application
Attention: Board of Trustees and Mayor Treuhold
107 Jessup Avenue should never have reached this point.
We applaud the Quogue Historical Society and residents fighting to save Shinnecock Arms, a contributing property in the Quogue Historic District with important architectural, African American, Shinnecock and Green Book history.
But why should residents have to fight this battle at all?
Quogue is a village within the Town of Southampton, yet nearby Southampton Village has adopted far stronger protections for its historic properties. There, demolition of a contributing property in a historic district requires preservation review and a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Village can delay demolition for up to 180 days while alternatives are explored, and its preservation board considers whether neglect or inadequate maintenance contributed to a claimed hardship.
Had Quogue adopted comparable protections, it is difficult to imagine the proposed demolition of Shinnecock Arms reaching this stage.
Instead, Quogue's Historic District has lost contributing properties since its placement on the National Register of Historic Places in 2016. For years, the Village has neither used its existing authority as effectively as it could nor adopted the stronger protections already used by neighboring communities.
There have finally been encouraging steps in 2026. The Village formally recognized the Historic District, updated permit applications, and the Design Review Board adopted procedures, guidelines and a mission statement emphasizing historic preservation.
107 Jessup Avenue is the test of whether those words will matter.
The DRB already has authority under §196-36.3 to disapprove a proposed new building when its architecture, scale or design would harm the character of its surroundings. The proposed replacement for Shinnecock Arms should be judged against both the historic house it would replace and the character of the Historic District around it.
The Village should use that authority now and deny the application.
As part of its disapproval, the Village should put the applicant on notice that if the house is demolished, it is highly unlikely that the DRB will subsequently approve a building permit application without taking into full account the historic house prior to demolition.
Then, the Village should amend the Code as soon as possible so the next Shinnecock Arms does not depend upon residents mobilizing at the eleventh hour. Quogue should look just a few miles away to Southampton Village—and also to East Hampton Village, among others—for proven preservation protections, including explicit demolition review, safeguards against demolition by neglect, preservation expertise and training.
Quogue does not need to reinvent historic preservation. Our neighbors have already shown us how to do it.
If Southampton Village can protect its historic character this way, why can't Quogue?
Sincerely,
Save Quogue
-
Re: Demolition and Building Permit Application
Dear Members of the Design Review Board:
We reside in the historic district of Quogue. Although we did not attend the June 18, 2026 public hearing on an application to construct a new house and demolish the existing house at 107 Jessup Avenue which is listed as a contributing property to the Quogue Historic District, we wish to provide the following comments for your consideration. We have watched the recording of the public hearing.
The historic house has a rich history.
According to its listing on the National Register:
#107 Jessup Avenue (“Jessup/Shinnecock Manor”) c. 1880s Section 7/Block 2/Lot 23.3 Two-story, three-bay Mansard roofed Second Empire style dwelling converted for use as a boardinghouse (Jessup Manor); purchased in 1890s by Native American (Poospatuck) Abram Edwin Enos (d. 1920s). Remodeled and reopened as “Shinnecock Manor” by Enos’ daughter Tillie and run as a boardinghouse for domestic help. Structure is clapboard sided and retains attic dormers, original six-over-six window sashes. The original wrap-around porch is supported on slender columns. 1902 (A. E. Enos); 1916 (A. E. Enos). Contributing (1).
Most of the questions and comments of the panel and other participants at the public hearing related to the proposed new construction although one of the members of the panel did comment on the rich historic history of the existing house and the proposal to demolish it.
To address briefly the issues with the proposed new house, it would fail under most of the litmus tests applied by the DRB to evaluate new construction in the Historic District. These litmus tests are described in the Quogue Code and DRB’s Guidelines.
The applicant compared the design of the new house based mainly on newer construction in the Historic District that severely conflicts with Quogue’s historic character. Admittedly, some bad decisions have been made by the Village in approving such houses. But that is not a legitimate guidepost for future decisions on new construction in the Historic District. Rather, the evaluation should be based on comparison to the remaining historic structures, including the historic house at 107 Jessup Avenue that it will replace, and the overall character of the Historic District.
Equally or even more importantly than the design of the new house is the demolition of the historic one. They are interconnected in fundamental ways and should not be separately evaluated.
The applicant’s representative at the hearing stated that the only way to sell the property was to demolish the historic house. He asserted that no one was interested in buying the property without demolishing the historic house.
We don’t know the questions that the DRB has asked the applicant during the application process about the factual accuracy of those statements and related issues. They were not asked at the public hearing.
We question the assertion that the house is unmarketable without a demolition. As is true for many historic properties in the current market, the value of the property may be enhanced by a demolition of the historic house and its replacement by a new house that dwarfs the size of the existing house even though the new house is entirely incompatible with the historic character of the Historic District. That doesn’t make the existing house unmarketable.
DRB has no responsibility for approving the demolition of the historic house or the construction of a new one to help the owners maximize the sale price of the property. The DRB’s responsibility lies with the public interest, not the private interests of owners and speculators, some of whom are willing to denigrate Quogue’s historic character. We expect that the owners would receive a reasonable return for the sale of the house even without a demolition. The owners’ basis in the property is likely low considering that it was purchased and refurbished in the 1980’s.
We also question the owners’ statements suggesting that the only way to evaluate the cost of renovation (and thereby to demonstrate that the historic house must be demolished) is by the cost of a “full” renovation. That is not a proper standard by which the DRB should consider the viability of maintaining the historic house or the approval of a new house that will degrade Quogue’s Historic District. Many historic houses are made habitable and structurally sound without a “full renovation”, whatever that might mean.
Among the requests that DRB might make of the applicant are the following:
steps the owner has taken to consider alternatives to demolition of the historic house such as adaptive reuse, additions and renovations consistent with its historic character;
support for the claim that the house is unmarketable without a demolition of the historic house;
any structural instability or deterioration of the house and a technical report prepared by an architect or engineer;
photographs and measured drawings of the historic house, both exterior and interior;
current and past efforts to maintain the house;
documentation that the house is unsafe and beyond repair, as documented by an expert in a qualified structural report.
As part of its review, DRB should also commission an independent qualified architect and structural engineer to verify the applicant’s claims.
We note that photos of the property that we took two days ago reveal that the landscaping on the property is untended, possibly in violation of Quogue Code provisions. From a distance, the front and side exteriors of the house appear to be in good condition.
One speculation is that allowing the lawn to become overgrown may be an effort by the applicant or owner to strengthen a case for demolition that may not otherwise be warranted.
Based on the procedures followed in some previous approvals by DRB, there is concern that rather than simply deny an application that does not justify a demolition of an historic house or new construction in the Historic District, DRB will negotiate at length with the applicant for a middle ground and ultimately achieve the middle ground, thus allowing the project to proceed even though it may degrade Quogue’s historic character.
A recent example is the DRB approval of the new construction at 2 Beach Lane. Instead of focusing on details such as paint colors and the angle of the roof, the DRB could have decided early in the process to deny the application on more egregious and obvious grounds – that the fundamental design of the house did not belong at the most prominent intersection on Quogue Street. Quogue Street is the home to 60 buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places as contributing properties, including an historic church immediately across the street from 2 Beach Lane.
Many of our neighboring communities have imposed strict rules on demolitions of contributing properties in their historic districts. Generally speaking, they place the burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate that the property is not salvageable. If the burden of proof is not met, the demolition permit will be denied.
Many Quogue residents are watching this application with great interest. Will DRB approve another diminution of contributing properties in Quogue’s Historic District, or will it stave off the desire of speculators and others to elevate maximum profit over heritage?
The building permit application for the demolition and new construction at 107 Jessup Avenue is so deficient that it should not be subject to unending give and take between the applicant and the Village. No new construction will ever substitute for the history and feel of the historic house. If the historic house is salvageable, it should remain. Quogue has already lost too many contributing properties to demolition.
The application should be denied without undue delay.