What's Wrong — and Why

The Village Did Not Lead the Historic District Effort

The application to place the Quogue Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places was prepared in 2015, and the District was officially listed on February 2, 2016. The work was undertaken by the Quogue Historical Society and individual residents dedicated to historic preservation.

Unlike other local governments, the Quogue Village government did not change the Village's Design Review Code to recognize the Historic District or make its review standards historic-preservation specific.

The Village government leadership also failed to provide the sustained follow-up necessary to protect and maintain the Historic District.

The Design Review Code Does Not Prioritize Preservation

The Village's Design Review provisions do not expressly identify historic preservation as an objective, identify the Quogue Historic District, or establish specific historic-preservation standards for properties within it—even though the District was listed on the National Register more than ten years ago.

Clearer language in the Code could:

• Establish historic preservation as an official Village priority.
• Clarify that the Design Review Board has the authority to deny demolition permits.
• Provide standards for reviews of building and demolition permits that specifically include historic-preservation evaluations in the Historic District and its environs.
• Require new construction to respect Quogue's established historic character.
• Give the Village stronger legal support when defending its decisions by clarifying the Code and strengthening DRB decision-making and documentation.

Sources: National Park Service · Quogue Design Review Code

One Page Is Not Enough

For years, the Village government did not direct the Design Review Board to adopt written guidelines explaining how applications should be evaluated. In June 2026, the DRB finally adopted a one-page set of guidelines. This is a step in the right direction, but it is modest compared with the detailed standards used by neighboring communities.

Bridgehampton has 93 pages of design guidelines. East Hampton Village has 40. Southampton Village has 21.

Quogue has one. It simply does not provide the same level of guidance or protection.

The Village government's leaders need to support the DRB's efforts to strengthen the guidelines so that the public will know what can and cannot be done to Quogue properties—and so the Board can be more effective in preserving Quogue's historic character.

Existing Authority Is Not Being Fully Used

The Village Code can be read to already grant the Design Review Board authority to bar unnecessary demolitions of contributing properties in the Historic District and other historic houses. The Code grants authority to deny material exterior alterations that clash with Quogue's neighborhoods.

Demolitions are the ultimate form of material exterior alteration.

The Village government can easily clarify any ambiguity by amending the Code to give the DRB clear and explicit authority. But it has chosen not to do so.

There is no similar ambiguity when it comes to the size and scale of new construction. Village Code § 196-36.3B(8) requires the DRB to determine that a building's height and scale are appropriate to the size of the lot. A house may satisfy the Village's zoning limits and still fail that separate DRB standard.

Yet the DRB does not appear to consistently make that independent determination. In practice, compliance with zoning limits often appears to be treated as effectively resolving the question of permissible size and scale, despite the separate review required by the Code.

Outside the Historic District and its immediate environs, there should remain room for contemporary and architecturally forward design. Clearer guidelines can allow that creativity while prohibiting formulaic, generic builder-spec houses that detract from Quogue's distinctive character.

Source: Quogue Code § 196-36.3

In January 2026, Mayor Robert Treuhold announced that demolition and building-permit applicants would be required to disclose:

• Whether the property is located within the Historic District.
• Whether it is listed as a contributing property on the National Register.

The Mayor's announcement did not explain how the DRB and other Village boards would use that information in reviewing applications. That information was already available to the Village through the Historic District's National Register listing.

To our knowledge, the Village has not consistently required applicants to answer more substantive questions asked in other Hamptons communities, including:

• Is the historic building structurally salvageable?
• Have alternatives to demolition been meaningfully considered?
• Does the applicant qualify for a legitimate hardship exception?
• Is the proposed construction compatible with the Historic District and Quogue's historic character?
• Could the project be redesigned to preserve more of the existing property?
• Would the proposal diminish the historic character of the surrounding streetscape?

These questions should be central to the review process—not afterthoughts.

This is no reflection on the members of the DRB, who are dedicated Quogue residents and volunteer their time to meet these challenges. It is the responsibility of the Village leadership to ensure that the Board has the authority, standards, and resources necessary to help preserve Quogue's historic character.

Significant Applications Deserve Full-Board Review

The Village Code permits an application to be initially reviewed by the DRB Chairperson or a single designated member. If that reviewer determines that full-Board review is unnecessary, that one-person committee may grant design approval in writing.

For significant projects—particularly demolition, major alterations to historic buildings, and substantial new construction within or near the Historic District—full-Board review should be the norm.

Decisions Need Written Findings

In the past, the DRB has not issued detailed written decisions explaining the basis for its determinations. This may be changing. A recent example is the denial of a building application, including demolition, for 107 Jessup Avenue.

Written findings would create a clearer public record for residents and prospective applicants, help demonstrate that decisions are supported by evidence rather than being arbitrary or capricious, and strengthen the Village's position if a decision were challenged in court.

The DRB's May 2026 written procedures require written decisions on building-permit applications, but it is too early to tell to what extent the Board will follow through. Some public files we reviewed do not reflect a decision by the committee or even by the Board itself.

Source: Quogue Design Review Code

The DRB has frequently decided applications during the same public hearing in which new information is presented, or immediately thereafter. See, for example, the July 17, 2026 hearing on the application to demolish a house and build a new house at 6 Leaward Lane.

That practice leaves little opportunity for careful review, independent analysis, or meaningful deliberation.

Nothing requires the DRB to decide an important application immediately after hearing it. The Board can receive testimony, continue or close the hearing as appropriate, review the record, seek additional information, and deliberate at a properly noticed public meeting before reaching a decision.

A stronger process would allow the Board to:

1. Receive testimony and evidence at the public hearing, as it is doing.
2. Close or continue the hearing as appropriate.
3. Review the complete record to decide what additional information is needed.
4. Consult qualified experts when appropriate, including the Village Historian.
5. Deliberate at a later meeting permitted or required under New York law.
6. Issue a reasoned decision supported by written findings.

Historic-preservation decisions can permanently alter the Village. They should not be rushed.

The DRB Needs Independent Expertise

It appears that the DRB does not include—or regularly consult—certified architects and historic-preservation professionals in its review and decision-making processes for properties in or near the Historic District.

Without independent expertise, the Board may be forced to rely too heavily on the representations of applicants and their consultants.

The Village leadership should ensure that the DRB has access to qualified professionals capable of independently evaluating:

• Structural conditions.
• Restoration feasibility.
• Architectural compatibility.
• Historic significance.
• Proposed materials and massing.
• The effect of demolitions and new construction on Quogue and its Historic District.

Source: Quogue Design Review Code

The DRB should deny applications when warranted—not negotiate with an applicant ad infinitum.

To avoid the potential for litigation, the DRB will frequently negotiate with applicants to change design features. But this process has taken on a life of its own.

What often happens is that the DRB ultimately approves an application after extensive negotiations, but the result still degrades Quogue's historic character. See, for example, the process followed for the application to build a new house on the corner of Quogue Street and Beach Lane.

The DRB needs to deny applications when warranted and consistent with its authority—with the support of the Village's elected leadership.

The Board should also consider expanding its role in pre-filing communications and meetings, advising prospective applicants in appropriate cases that a proposed application is unlikely to be approved.

Applicants have cited properties within the Historic District and elsewhere that clash with Quogue's historic character as support for further incompatible development. The DRB and Village leadership should not be beholden to mistakes made in the past. Recent actions recognizing the importance of Quogue's history can support future decisions that do not repeat those mistakes.

We have heard that the Village government is reluctant to deny applications for historic-preservation reasons because of the possibility of lawsuits.

Litigation risk is always real. But the possibility of being sued cannot become a justification for failing to act in the public interest.

Anyone can file a lawsuit. After all, this is America. The appropriate Village response should not be automatic approval. It should be to create a stronger, clearer, and more defensible review process.

The Village and the DRB can reduce legal exposure by:

• Clarifying the DRB's authority in the Village Code.
• Adopting detailed and objective historic-preservation standards.
• Following consistent procedures.
• Building a complete evidentiary record.
• Consulting qualified experts.
• Issuing written findings for every significant decision applying the relevant Code standards.

The Village's current approach does little to avoid litigation while leaving Quogue's historic resources inadequately protected.

Fear of litigation is not a preservation strategy.

For Quogue's Village leadership, this is ultimately a matter of choice:

• It chose not to include recognition of the Historic District in the Design Review Code.
• It chose not to use the authority in the existing Code to its fullest extent.
• It chose not to amend the Code to support stronger stewardship of Quogue's historic character.
• It chose not to require a demolition-permit application to include plans for a replacement house.
• It chose not to explicitly empower the DRB with jurisdiction over demolitions in the Historic District and of other historic houses.
• It chose not to authorize and direct the DRB to use expert input from architects and historic preservationists in reviewing applications and guidelines.
• It chose not to adopt DRB guidelines until 2026, when it adopted a one-page document.
• It chose not to adopt many of the preservation measures already used by neighboring Hamptons communities.