The Quogue Historic District was officially listed on the National Register of Historic Places on February 2, 2016 - a major recognition of the Village’s architectural heritage and historic character.

The designation was the result of substantial work by the Quogue Historical Society and individual residents committed to historic preservation.

But unlike other local governments, the Quogue Village government did not amend its Design Review Code to formally recognize the Historic District or adopt preservation-specific review standards.

Nor did Village leadership provide the sustained follow-through needed to fully protect and maintain the District after its designation.

Quogue has had a National Register Historic District since 2016. Yet the Village’s Design Review provisions do not even use the words “historic” or “historical,” identify the Historic District, or establish specific standards for protecting historic properties.

Instead, the DRB is left to rely on general standards such as neighborhood character, compatibility, and property values. The Code still does not expressly make historic preservation part of the DRB’s mandate or provide specific criteria for reviewing historic properties.

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. 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.

The Code already contains language that can support DRB authority to reject unnecessary demolition of contributing and other historic properties: material exterior changes require DRB approval, and the Board may disapprove applications that harm neighborhood character. Demolition is the ultimate form of material exterior alteration. If the Village believes that authority is unclear, it can amend the Code to make it explicit.

On size and scale, the Code is clearer. § 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 separate standard from compliance with zoning limits. In practice, however, the DRB appears to defer to what zoning allows rather than make that independent determination. That effectively allows zoning compliance to stand in for what should be a separate design-review judgment.

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. Nor was the information itself new: the Historic District’s National Register documentation already identifies the District and inventories its contributing structures.

The real question is what happens once a historic property has been identified. To our knowledge, the Village has not consistently required applicants to address more substantive questions used 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.

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 all new construction within or near the Historic District - full-Board review should be the norm.

Historically, the DRB has not issued detailed written decisions explaining the basis for its determinations. That may be beginning to change. One recent example is the denial of the building application, including demolition, for 107 Jessup Avenue.

Written findings create a clearer public record for residents and applicants, show how decisions are tied to the evidence and applicable standards, and strengthen the Village’s position if a decision is challenged.

The DRB’s May 2026 written procedures now require written decisions on building-permit applications. But it is still too early to know how consistently that requirement will be followed. Some public files we reviewed do not contain a clear written determination by the committee or even by the Board itself.

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 permanently alter the Village. They should not be rushed.

Unlike neighboring communities, Quogue does not expressly build independent architectural or historic-preservation expertise into its Design Review process.

East Hampton Town requires a registered architect to serve on or advise its Architectural Review Board, Southampton Village expressly provides for an architect to advise its Board when one is not already serving, and East Hampton Village authorizes its DRB to retain professional consultants. Quogue’s Design Review provisions contain no comparable requirement or specific provision for architectural or preservation expertise.

Without comparable independent expertise, the DRB risks relying too heavily on applicants and their consultants when evaluating proposed demolitions, structural condition or restoration feasibility, historic significance, architectural compatibility, and new construction.

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.

Negotiation and design revisions are a normal part of architectural review. But when the underlying design is fundamentally unsuitable, the better course is to say no early rather than try to redesign it through repeated revisions.

The house approved at the prominent corner of Quogue Street and Beach Lane is a clear example. After months of discussion and incremental revisions, the core problems remained unresolved, and the final design still raised serious questions about compatibility with its historic surroundings. The process consumed significant time for both the Board and the applicant without producing an acceptable result.

Other communities recognize this distinction more clearly. The Town of East Hampton, for example, expressly charges its Architectural Review Board with rejecting plans that are not harmonious and states that the Board generally should not redesign a project for the applicant.

The DRB should also consider a greater role in pre-filing discussions, giving prospective applicants early guidance when a proposal is unlikely to be approved.

Past approvals should not set the standard for future development. Recent recognition of the importance of Quogue’s history provides an opportunity to make stronger decisions going forward.

Moratoria are a well-established tool regularly used by municipalities in New York to preserve the status quo while they study and update land-use regulations. In the historic-preservation context, temporary demolition moratoria can prevent irreversible losses while new protections are being considered. They can be narrowly tailored, limited in duration and scope, and include a hardship or waiver process.

Quogue has said it is considering additional measures to protect historic homes, but has not announced a temporary moratorium while that review proceeds. In the meantime, the existing rules remain in effect even as the Village considers whether they should be strengthened.

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. This is America, after all. The appropriate response should not be to default to 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 that connect each significant decision to the relevant Code standards and supporting record.

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