After another lengthy session taken up by extensive cross-examination of expert witnesses, the Regional Planning Board did not make a decision on the fate of the faculty housing project proposed by the Institute of Advanced Study. The next hearing on the plan, which is being challenged by the Princeton Battlefield Society, is scheduled for January 26, 2012.

The meeting last Thursday was the second that the Planning Board devoted almost exclusively to the subject, and it again drew a capacity crowd of supporters from both sides. The 15 homes would be built behind a buffer zone on land that the Institute owns between its existing buildings and Princeton Battlefield State Park. Those opposed to the development say the land should not be disturbed because it was the site of General George Washington’s counterattack and first victory against the British during the Battle of Princeton in 1777.

Bruce Afran, lawyer for the Battlefield Society and several individuals against the plan, questioned American Revolution historian Robert Selig as to whether the Institute land was pivotal in the Battle of Princeton. Mr. Selig cited several studies and said that the land was key in the struggle. Attorney Christopher Tarr, representing the Institute, asked historian Mark Peterson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who specializes in the Colonial period, for his assessment. Mr. Peterson questioned the validity of the main report from which opponents of the plan draw their information.

It was Princeton University emeritus professor of history James McPherson who suggested a compromise on the ongoing issue. Mr. McPherson, whose own field of specialization is the Civil War, said that Congressman Rush Holt had arranged for Mr. McPherson and fellow historian David Hackett Fischer to meet with Institute director Peter Goddard to try and amend the plan. “We saw ourselves as mediators between these two honorable, desirable goals,” he said.

The meeting touched on several possibilities including moving the site to another location on the Institute property. But wetlands and drainage problems made that an impossibility, Mr. McPherson reported.

The revised proposal that they did come up with was presented to the Planning Board toward the end of the meeting, by architect J. Robert Hillier [a Town Topics shareholder]. The modifications would include reducing the size of one house lot to preserve more space, moving the tree line screening the houses from the west side of Battlefield Park to the east side, providing public access to the buffer zone, and building a path through the Institute property with interpretive signage commemorating the Battle of Princeton. “This is a feasible compromise that will allow both parties to go forward,” Mr. McPherson said.

Mr. McPherson commented that he shares the concerns of the Battlefield Society. “We’re not talking about something unimportant or marginal here,” he said. Asked by Mr. Afran whether he thinks the faculty housing development is a good idea, Mr. McPherson said, “If I had my way, it would not be done.” But his role, he added, was to come up with a compromise.

The Institute seeks to build the cul-de-sac of eight townhouses and seven single-family homes because faculty members cannot afford the high prices of houses in the area. Being within walking distance of the campus is highly desirable to Institute scholars, only about 28 percent of whom currently reside in that radius.