HILLSBOROUGH: Duke demolition opponents cite National Park Service support

On the eve of what of a significant court hearing on the fate of the former home of heiress Doris Duke, opponents of the house’s demolition are claiming “significant” news of support by the National Park Service.
A hearing on the opponents’ lawsuit to block demolition is scheduled before Superior Court Judge Yolanda Ciccone in Room 301, of the Somerville courthouse at 10 a.m. Friday, Feb. 26 at 10 a.m. The public may attend any public court session.
DORIS (an acronym for Demolition Of Residence Is Senseless) is a group dedicated to saving the Doris Duke Mansion. It filed suit after the Hillsborough Historic Preservation Commission voted to grant a demolition permit to the Duke Farms Foundation. The foundation, which manages the 2,400-acre estate, says the house is badly deteriorated and wants to remove it and add about 50 acres to the public site dedicated to environmental education and sustainability.
DORIS said the National Park Service and the National Trust for Historic Preservation have both issued letters confirming the historical significance of the Doris Duke Mansion.
On Feb. 19, both letters were sent to David Brook, a DORIS supporter, a Hillsborough resident and the attorney representing DORIS in its court case. Mr. Brook said he notified the court and filed a supplement to his briefing papers.
Mr. Brook called the letter "an incredibly significant legal analysis provided by a federal government national expert of historic preservation. The National Park Service interprets these laws for all Americans and it has made some dramatically critical comments on the errors in the testimony provided by Duke Farms."
Mr. Brook said, "According to this national authority, the testimony of the Duke Farms Foundation’s expert witness is discredited. The testimony was not ‘based on a proper interpretation of the regulations and guidance issued by the National Park Service regarding the National Register of Historic Places.’ The legal analysis in the letter supports the basis of the DORIS lawsuit claim."
Mr. Brook said, "It has always been our position, which is now supported by the National Park Service, that the Doris Duke Mansion is historic and worthy of preservation and that the Historic Commission relied upon misinformation provided by Duke Farms. We hope to now convince the judge to act to send the case back to the Historic Commission for a re-hearing so that they act in accordance with the law."
Mr. Brook said William Bolger, National Landmarks Program Manager of the National Park Service, came to Hillsborough to attend and speak at a fall historic commission hearing.
"It’s unfortunate that the commission and the Township Attorney refused to allow him the opportunity to speak directly with them and instead relegated him to the public portion of the hearing,” said Mr. Book. “At the meeting he attended, Mr. Bolger was told to wait for the public portion, but then the commission closed the public portion after only one person speaking and adjourned to a future date.
“Certainly, if allowed, Mr. Bolger’s testimony would have been compelling," Mr. Brook said.
Mr. Brook cites Mr. Bolger’s comments that the Doris Duke Mansion is “a component that contributes to the overall integrity of the historic district that it is a part of is beyond dispute, and its demolition will certainly represent a loss of one of the historic district’s most distinctive, and perhaps most important, features.’"
"It’s a pity that the Hillsborough Historic Commission did not allow themselves to hear the testimony of the National Park Service Official," said Jessie Havens, a local history advocate. "If they had had his input, very likely they would have reached a different conclusion. The commission was anxious to reach a decision and cut themselves off from what they needed to know in order to have made a reasoned judgment," Ms. Havens further stated. "In the three minutes I was allowed to speak, I attempted to make some of very points made in the National Park letter. I did not have the time to elaborate since the Commission set strict limits on public input, and besides, an authoritative source such as Mr. Bolger would have carried far more weight. He should have been allowed a full opportunity to be heard and considered in the decision-making.”