To the Editor:

The members of the Planning Board, the planning staff, and the steering committee deserve our thanks for their efforts on the Master Plan, which has many good components. However, the preservation provisions are surprisingly weak and in some places confusing and inaccurate, and they need adjusting to appropriately balance the anticipated new growth with Princeton’s unique historic character.

The weak presentation of preservation starts in Outreach Section 1.2 with the heading “Historic preservation is important and should be easier.” Easier reads pejoratively, as if there is something wrong with preservation here, and it belies findings in the Plan’s community survey wherein a total of 54 percent of respondents agreed that preservation efforts “should be expanded” or “strike the right balance between preservation and development.” Only 14.5 percent thought that preservation is a “hinder to growth and development.” An appropriate vision for Princeton’s historic resources in the Master Plan is “Historic preservation is important and should be improved.”

In Land Use Goals Section 1.8 preservation is only mentioned in Goal 3 under the heading “Remove barriers to increased residential density.” Just as Land Use Goal 6 calls for protection of our natural resources, preservation in Princeton warrants a similar Land Use Goal, a No. 10 to be added — “Protect and preserve historic sites and districts by ensuring that new development follows local and national preservation guidelines.”

To improve project reviews, the Historic Preservation Goals in Section 1.8 and Historic Preservation Recommendations in Section 8.7 should specifically include adopting design guidelines following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as is standard in other historic towns in New Jersey and elsewhere, to give the Historic Preservation Commission and property owners proven guidance on appropriate alterations and new construction affecting historic properties.

Current historic sites and districts on the state and national registers and those locally designated are confusingly presented and incompletely mapped under Community Facilities Section 5.6 and in the Historic Preservation Element Section 8.2. These current historic sites and districts should be clearly and accurately presented to help the public understand their extent and locations.

Historic Resources for Potential Local Designation Section 8.5 needs much review to carefully itemize and prioritize sites and districts based on the potential impact of new development, including on the Vandeventer/Wiggins/Madison and Tree streets areas and others.

Regarding potential impact, Section 8.6 “Impact of Other Elements of the Master Plan on Historic Preservation,” does not identify any. We have already seen examples of impacts and this section needs to follow the Municipal Code by analyzing the potential impact of the anticipated new development on historic sites and districts. 

With these and other weaknesses, I strongly recommend that the Planning Board and staff meet further with the Historic Preservation officer and commission to appropriately present preservation in the Master Plan. While it imagines much new development, the Master Plan must also articulate a fitting vision for good stewardship of Princeton’s unique historic character and resources.

Clifford W. Zink
Aiken Avenue