1 Photo
Quogue Club at Hallock House. DANA SHAW
Over the objections of neighboring homeowners, the Quogue Village Board voted, 4-0, on Friday, May 21, to allow outdoor dining on a trial basis at the Quogue Club at Hallock House, a site where food service outdoors had been prohibited for 40 years.
Village Board member Robert Treuhold, who is the president of the Quogue Club — a private dining club and hotel opened in 2014 — abstained from the vote, but Mayor Peter Sartorius and board members Randy Cardo and Ted Necarsulmer are members of the Quogue Club as well and did not abstain. Those who voted declared that their membership in the club does not compromise them and that they can be impartial.
A stipulation of settlement from 1981, when the Hallock House was occupied by the Inn at Quogue, barred outdoor dining at 47 Quogue Street without prior approval from the Quogue Village Zoning Board of Appeals. In light of the COVID pandemic and social distancing measures, the Quogue Club received approval from the zoning board in June 2020, but the permission was only temporary.
In February 2021, the club asked the Village Board to modify the 1981 settlement to revoke the zoning board’s purview over the matter and to allow outdoor dining on an ongoing basis, a request that all six neighboring homeowners urged the board to reject.
The Village Board’s six-page decision noted that the idea was discussed at a May 7 special meeting and that the neighbors and the club could not come to an amicable solution.
The club had insisted that the lack of noise complaints last summer was evidence that outdoor dining would not cause a disturbance, while the neighbors told the Village Board that they had refrained from complaining because they wanted to be tolerant during the pandemic. The Village Board’s written decision also acknowledged the neighbors’ point that allowing outdoor dining for a members-only club would serve no public benefit, but countered that “the membership does constitute a significant segment of the Quogue community.”
According to the club, 78 percent of its 395 members have a Quogue address.
The Village Board reinstated the outdoor dining capacity rules that were in place last summer: up to 24 diners on the back patio and 16 on the front porch, and a maximum of six people per table. Outdoor dining hours have been extended from no later than 7:30 p.m. to no later than 9 p.m.
The club had been seeking permission for 32 diners on the back patio and 20 on the front porch, with the kitchen closing at 9 p.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. on weekends.
The permission is granted for seven days a week through September 18 and then on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays preceding holidays through October 10 as long as COVID-related restrictions continue on indoor dining capacity. However, if indoor dining is allowed to return to 100 percent capacity, the “evaluation period” will still continue through “at least Saturday, July 31,” on Friday and Saturday nights on the back patio and on any night that the club is open on the front porch.
Should the board determine that noise from dining on the back patio is not a disturbance to neighbors, then it will be allowed to continue Thursdays through Sundays. If the front porch noise is determined not to be a disturbance, it may be continued any night.
If outdoor dining does prove to be a disturbance, it will be suspended at the end of the evaluation period, though the club may introduce noise mitigation measures and reapply.
The club is asked to keep a log of the weather and the number of diners seated outside in each location and to allow village personnel to take decibel readings without prior notice. The neighbors are likewise asked to allow decibel readings in their yards without notice.
The Village Board defined a disturbance as “enduring noise that a reasonable person would find annoying or disruptive of his or her ability to enjoy the premises while they are inside or outside engaged in typical homeowner activities.”
On the subject of whether the board members have a conflict of interest, the six-page decision explains that Mr. Sartorius, Mr. Cardo and Mr. Necarsulmer are three out of 200 charter members of the club, each having paid $10,000 in 2012 to become a member of an entity that owns a 20 percent interest in the club. The document states that this amounts to an indirect ownership interest of one-tenth of 1 percent each and entitles them to use the club’s facilities and enjoy its offerings subject to the payment of dues and meeting the annual minimum for food.
The ownership interest of the charter members is subordinate to the ownership interest of the 100 proprietary members who initially invested $100,000 each and have exclusive voting rights and sole management responsibility and control, the decision continues.
The decision concludes that despite Mr. Sartorius, Mr. Cardo and Mr. Necarsulmer owning an interest in the club, New York General Municipal Law does not bar them from voting on the matter. It points to a number of exemptions, including contracts entered into prior to being elected, owning less than a 5 percent interest, and not receiving compensation.
“Even though there is no statutory violation, however, there are other instances in which an interest in an entity held by an official could give rise to concern over the official’s impartiality in deciding a matter involving that entity,” the decision states. “We do not believe that this is such a case.”
The decision says it is “theoretically possible” that the three Village Board members could realize a profit from the sale of their interest, but unlikely that they would resign and sell their shares, and in the case of death, the shares would likely go to local family members rather than be sold.
“Would having outdoor dining at the Club enhance its value? Possibly, but that would be entirely speculative, and any enhancement in value would likely never be realized in any case,” the decision states.
