At the Board of Trustees meeting, we read our statement aloud and submitted our questions in writing for inclusion in the meeting minutes. We are awaiting the Board’s response.

——— STATEMENT ———

We are here representing ourselves and Save Quogue, a new nonprofit organization focused on preserving Quogue’s unique character.

We’d like to begin with 107 Jessup Avenue - the Shinnecock Arms - and what its story means for the future of historic preservation in Quogue.

As we understand it, the Town of Southampton is now considering acquiring the property in order to preserve it. We congratulate the Village, the Quogue Historical Society, and the many residents who worked so hard to protect this important historic property.

But the larger question is: what happens with the next contributing historic house proposed for demolition - and the one after that?

Nearby communities have clear Code provisions giving their preservation boards explicit authority to review and deny demolition of historic properties, subject to hardship provisions.

Quogue does not have that same clarity.

The DRB was able to deny the application involving 107 Jessup, but it had to rely on broader language in the existing Code rather than an explicit historic-preservation demolition standard.

That ambiguity should be eliminated.

The Board of Trustees should amend the Code to give the DRB clear authority to approve or deny demolition applications involving contributing and other historic properties.

Saving the next Shinnecock Arms should not depend on residents mobilizing at the eleventh hour, writing scores of letters, attending repeated hearings, and finding some other way to rescue an individual property.

Quogue does not need to invent a system from scratch. It can look to nearby communities that already have explicit demolition denial authority on historic grounds, hardship provisions, protections against demolition by neglect, and preservation expertise.

Nor does this need to take years. Once language is drafted, the Board can notice a public hearing and move a Code amendment through the ordinary legislative process on a short timetable.  Weeks, not months or years.

But if the Board believes it needs additional time to study permanent Code changes, then it should adopt a temporary six-month moratorium on demolition of historic properties while that work is completed.

Otherwise, a prolonged review period may encourage rushed demolition applications before stronger protections take effect.

Either clarify the Code now or protect the status quo while the Village does the work necessary to clarify it.

The lesson of 107 Jessup should not simply be that one historic house was saved. It should be that Quogue now puts permanent protections in place for the next one.

——— QUESTIONS ———

“We have several questions for the Board. We understand that some may require information the Board does not have at hand today. If so, we ask that they be answered subsequently in a manner that allows the Quogue community to be fully informed.

If you prefer, we can submit the questions in writing. These questions and answers could take some time. If we submit the questions in writing, we ask that they be reflected in the minutes of today’s meeting or in an addendum to the minutes, including the answers.”

We submitted the following questions in writing for inclusion in the meeting minutes:

1. Preservation Measures

Mr. Mayor, you recently stated that the Village is considering additional measures to protect historic homes. What specific measures are currently under consideration, and what is the timetable for bringing them before the public?

You indicated that public hearings would be held in the coming months. When do you anticipate the first hearing and when will the last hearing be held?

2. Authority to Deny Demolition

Do the Trustees believe that the existing Village Code gives the DRB sufficiently clear authority to deny the demolition of a contributing structure in the Historic District or another historic house?

If yes, what specific provision of the Code provides that authority?

If no, or if the provision is unclear, what prevents the Board from introducing an amendment now to make that authority explicit while the broader preservation discussion continues?

3. January Historic District Resolution

In January, the Board directed Village boards and departments to update their application forms to require applicants to identify whether a property is within the Quogue Historic District and whether it contains a contributing structure.

Isn’t that information already available to the Village through its own Historic District documentation?

The same resolution states that the Board wishes to encourage preservation by directing Village boards to identify and “consider” potential impacts on contributing properties.

What, specifically, does “consider” require a Village board to do?

4. Record of Demolitions

Of the 248 contributing houses identified when the Historic District was established, how many have been demolished since 2016?

If the Village does not know, will the Board direct Village staff to compile that information and make public the addresses, dates of demolition approval, and available before-and-after photographs?

5. Temporary Moratorium

Will the Board adopt, as soon as possible, a temporary moratorium on demolitions of contributing structures and other historic properties if it decides not to amend the Code to provide explicit authority to DRB, while permanent protections are being considered?

If not - what protection exists during the period between the Village’s announcement that historic preservation will be “front and center” and the adoption of any eventual Code amendments? What would prevent another demolition application from being filed and approved during that period?

6. Lessons from 107 Jessup Avenue

107 Jessup Avenue is identified in the Village’s Historic District documentation as a contributing structure.

What has that case taught the Trustees about whether Quogue’s existing preservation system provides adequate protection for contributing historic properties?

Should preserving another contributing structure require residents to mobilize hundreds of letters and petitions each time a demolition is proposed, or should the Code establish a clear preservation standard, subject to an appropriate hardship exception?

7. DRB Authority over Height and Scale

Does the Village interpret Village Code § 196-36.3(B)(8) as giving it independent authority to determine that the height or scale of a proposed building is inappropriate, even when the building otherwise complies with the dimensional limits of the zoning code?

If no, why not?

If so, has the DRB exercised that authority in the past, and is it applying that standard to applications today?

8. DRB Guidelines

The DRB’s recent adoption of a one-page guideline to assess building permit applications, a good start, pales in comparison to the detailed guidelines adopted by many Hamptons communities.

When will the Village adopt stronger guidelines and how will it go about doing that?

The Village does not appear to be keeping track of demolitions of houses in the Historic District and material exterior alterations since February of 2016, when the Historic District was listed in the National Register.  How do we really know how we are doing?

The Village needs to do the following as soon as possible:

• Review files to determine how many contributing and other properties in the Historic District have been demolished or materially altered (exterior) since the listing.

• Post the properties by the date of the Village approval, address, and photo prior to demolition or material exterior alteration; specify whether there was a written decision, whether there was a public hearing on the application, and whether the Village relied on the advice of a structural engineer as to whether the house to be demolished was unsalvageable.

• Review the files to determine the new houses built in the Historic District since its listing.

• Post the new house addresses, dates of approval, and photo, and whether the application was approved by the DRB or its Committee; whether there was a written opinion, and whether there was a public hearing prior to approval.

On August 31, Mayor Treuhold announced that the Village is putting historic preservation "front and center."  Mayor Treuhold's announcement appears in the fifth paragraph here.  We welcome his commitment to address the problem. On September 8, we responded with our thoughts.

Memorandum

To: Mayor Treuhold
From: Save Quogue, Inc.
Date: September 8, 2026
Subject: Response to August 31 Announcement

Your August 31 comments to Quogue residents putting historic preservation “front and center” are a significant step. We welcome your initiative and will do what we can to support efforts to preserve Quogue’s historic character.

Your comments help surface weaknesses in the Village’s current approach.

You remind us that Village boards have been instructed to consider Quogue’s historic character when reviewing demolitions of historic houses. Yet the Village Code still lacks unambiguous language empowering the DRB to deny a demolition permit.

You also write that there is now “hope” that 107 Jessup Avenue will be saved. That captures the problem. The fate of a highly important historic property should not depend on hope - or on a developer’s willingness to save it.

If public hearings are held “in the coming months” to help review options, what protects Quogue in the meantime? Announcing the possibility of future restrictions may only encourage submission of demolition applications by developers and others before the rules change.

The Trustees have two straightforward options, among others. Amend the Code to:

• Adopt a moratorium (six months or less) on demolitions of historic houses to study and adopt effective measures to prevent continuing degradation of Quogue’s historic character or

• Grant the DRB substantially similar preservation authority as the architectural review boards of the Villages of Southampton, Sagaponack, and East Hampton, among others.

The Village can adopt these measures and make them effective within weeks, not months, and will afford protection to historic homes during what otherwise might be a gap in protection.

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.

Long before SAVE QUOGUE became public, we spent months researching Quogue’s preservation rules, studying how neighboring communities protect their historic character, and communicating directly with Village officials about our concerns.

Through emails, letters, meetings, and other correspondence, we repeatedly raised preservation issues and urged the Village to strengthen its protections.

SAVE QUOGUE grew out of that sustained effort.