Palmer Square Christmas Tree Lighting

As the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) prepares to appear before the Princeton Regional Planning Board this week with a proposal for its 7.3-acre residential project, the Princeton Battlefield Society has armed itself with a statement denouncing the plan because they say it encroaches on the historic site of a pivotal battle in the American Revolution.

The land, which is owned by the IAS, lies between the Institute and the Battlefield State Park. The Institute wants to build 15 houses for faculty on the site comprised of seven single units and eight townhouses. The project was first proposed to the Planning Board in 2003, but was rejected at the time because of a disagreement over the size of a buffer zone between the houses and the park.

The revised plans include a 200-foot buffer zone with a dense row of hedges between the houses and the park. The single family homes would be closest to the battlefield. A retention basin would be placed between the houses and the buffer zone. The development would be on a single street with a cul-de-sac.

Representatives of the Institute will appear before the Planning Board Thursday, December 1 with their architects, engineers, and others involved with the project to try and win approval for the residential development. The Institute has owned the land since the 1930s.

Preservationists say that this site is where the “counterattack” that decided the Battle of Princeton was fought, and they claim to have the archaeological evidence to prove it.

“Certainly the site of the counterattack is hallowed ground,” reads a statement prepared by Battlefield Society member Kip Cherry. “Both American and British soldiers died in the counterattack. This was not a skirmish. It was the heart of the Battle of Princeton. And certainly following the counterattack there were skirmishes as the Continental Army moved north to avoid the British Army, which was returning to Princeton at a fast march.”

The Battlefield Society bases its claims on a Federal study prepared by Milner Associates of Philadelphia. The IAS maintains that the project sits entirely outside and to the east of the buffer zone, and also cites their own studies contradicting the Milner firm’s findings.

Those opposed to the project say it will change the topography of the land. “The site will be regraded to create a plateau, which at one end will be 10-11 feet above the current grade of the site,” reads Ms. Cherry’s statement. “This will dramatically change the ability for Americans to understand and interpret how the battle progressed and the difficulties in winning this battle, the first won against professional British soldiers.”

In a recent Town Topics interview, Institute director Peter Goddard cited the organization’s long-standing consideration for its “environment and historical context” as a positive precedent for the proposed development. But Battlefield Society members feel it is not enough.

“We fully realize that in 1992 there was a legal settlement that ultimately involved the payment of $14 million to the Institute and provided protection for the Institute Woods,” their statement reads. “Nevertheless, the Princeton Regional Planning Board is required to consider the site’s historical resources and features and determining whether future development of this site is appropriate under the Master Plan.”

The Institute says it needs new housing to serve its permanent and guest faculty, only 28 percent of whom currently live in the surrounding neighborhood. Rising home costs have made it difficult to find affordable housing. Several years ago, 66 percent of the faculty lived near the campus.

The statement from the Battlefield Society concludes, “We would like to see the property put into the public domain. Just as eminent domain was considered in creating the Park, it might be reasonable again to seriously think about using eminent domain to preserve this property for the American people. It is our hope, still, that as a great educational institution, that the IAS should respect the historical facts and realize that it should preserve the property as it is now.”