Quogue has been fortunate. Many residents cherish the Village’s historic roots and carefully maintain their older homes or build new homes with similar character so that their children and grandchildren can experience the same sense of place.

But private stewardship alone is not enough.

Individual property decisions do not always align with the broader public interest in preserving Quogue’s historic heritage. Increasingly, speculators have discovered that historic homes can be demolished and replaced with out-of-scale houses in an architectural and design style they choose. They can’t do that in many other Hamptons communities.

The result is a gradual transformation of Quogue from a historic village into another wealthy subdivision.

This level of demolition and incompatible development would be far more difficult in the historic districts of many neighboring Hamptons communities.

The villages and historic districts of Southampton, Bridgehampton, East Hampton, and other nearby communities have adopted stronger preservation codes, more detailed design standards, and clearer review procedures.

Quogue has not kept pace.

In 2015, applications were filed to place the Quogue Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places.  The work was undertaken by the Quogue Historical Society and individual residents dedicated to historic preservation.

Unlike other local governments, the Quogue Village government chose not to change anything in the Village Code to recognize the Historic District and to make the language in the Code historic preservation specific.

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

The Code does not identify historic preservation as a central Village objective.  Even the words “history” and “historical” do not appear in the Code.  This is so, even though Quogue’s Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places over 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 in its environs.

• Require new construction to respect Quogue’s established historic character.

• Give the Village stronger legal support when defending its decisions by amending the Code and strengthening the decision making and documentation of decisions of the Design Review Board.

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 government response should not be automatic approval. It is to create a stronger, clearer, and more defensible review process.

The Village (and the Design Review Board) can reduce its legal exposure by:

• Clarifying the Design Review Board’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 applicable Code standards.

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

Unlike the federal government, which limits concentration of authority by use of three separate branches of government, Quogue and other local governments have both legislative and executive powers, and even quasi-judicial powers. It’s a short process to amend the Code if the Village government chooses to do so. A ten-day notice of a public hearing, the holding of the public hearing, a brief review by the county planning commission, then adoption of the amendment by the Board of Trustees any time thereafter, is all it takes.

For years, the Village government’s leaders have not directed the Design Review Board to adopt written guidelines explaining how applications should be evaluated. In June 2026, the Design Review Board 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 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 Design Review Board’s efforts to make changes to the guidelines so that the public will know what can or cannot be done to Quogue properties and that the Design Review Board may heighten its effectiveness in preserving Quogue’s history.

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

Demolitions are the ultimate form of material exterior alterations.

The Village government leaders can easily clarify any ambiguity in the Code by amending it to provide clear and explicit authority to the Design Review Board. But they have 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 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.

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 suggest how the Design Review Board and other Village boards would use that information in reviewing applications.  That information was already available to the Village through the listing of the Historic District in the National Register.

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.

In the past, the Design Review Board 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 Quogue residents and prospective applicants, and help demonstrate that decisions are supported by evidence rather than being arbitrary or capricious.

They would also strengthen the Village’s position if a decision were challenged in court.

The Design Review Board’s May 2026 written procedures require a written decision by the Design Review Board on building permit applications, but it is too early to tell to what extent the Design Review Board will follow through.

The written procedures authorize the use of a one-person committee who can decide on the application without the approval of the board.  Some public files that we reviewed do not reflect the decision of the committee or even that of the board itself.

Applicants to demolish an historic house or build in the Historic District and environs that is antithetical to Quogue’s history have cited properties within the Historic District and elsewhere which clash with the historic character of Quogue.  This is the result of poor prior decisions by DRB and the Village leadership.  But there are other existing historic properties that the DRB can rely on to deny new proposals that will further diminish Quogue’s historic character.

The DRB and the Village government leadership should not be beholden to mistakes made in the past.  Recent actions by the government and DRB to recognize the importance of preserving Quogue’s history can support future actions that will not repeat mistakes.

The Design Review Board has frequently decided applications during the same public hearing in which new information is presented or immediately thereafter.  See, for example, the hearing dated July 17, 2026 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.

New York state’s Open Meetings law places restrictions on public bodies making decisions outside a public hearing or meeting.  However, it  does not prohibit all such discussions, reviews, or deliberations.  The Village leadership should provide as much leeway to the Design Review Board as possible to carry on thorough discussions among themselves that would make their decisions as supportive as possible for historic preservation.

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 participation of 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.

It appears that the Design Review Board 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 government leadership should ensure that the Design Review Board 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.

The Design Review Board should deny applications when warranted, not negotiate with the applicant ad infinitum.

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

What often happens is that the Design Review Board will end up approving the application after extensive negotiations, but which still results in a degradation of 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 Design Review Board needs to deny applications when warranted and consistent with its authority, with the support of the Village government leaders.

The Design Review Board should also consider expanding its role in pre-filing communications and meetings with possible applicants to advise them up front in appropriate cases that their proposed application is unlikely to be approved.