U.S. District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson has denied the Princeton Battlefield Society’s (PBS) motion for a preliminary injunction to halt faculty housing construction by the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) on a seven-acre parcel of land adjacent to the Battlefield.
. more
The Princeton Battlefield Society has filed an appeal in the ongoing battle to prevent the Institute for Advanced Study from building a faculty housing development on land the group maintains was key to the Revolutionary War. The appeal was filed on September 21 in Superior Court, to try and reverse an approval given to the project by the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commisson on August 15.
The Institute had sought a waiver from the Commission because part of the development is in stream corridors, according to the Battlefield Society. But because they lacked a quorum, the Commission could not act on the proposal. They gave default approval, due to a rule that a project gets automatically approved should the Commission be unable to act on it within 45 days.
“We’re questioning the constitutionality of it,” says Jerald Hurwitz, president of the Battlefield Society. “If you don’t have a quorum, it automatically gets approved? How does that work? That means that all somebody needs to do to sabotage a process is simply make sure they can’t be heard within the 45 days. There’s something wrong with that.”
The project, which was approved by the Regional Planning Board last March, would include homes on seven acres, with 14 acres left open for use by the public. The Battlefield Society filed a lawsuit in July appealing the approval. They are preparing an additional lawsuit involving the use of wetlands, maintaining that the project would violate the Clean Water Act.
Additionally, the group filed a complaint in Chancery Court in April, asking for a judicial determination on various site limitations created by a 1992 agreement between the Institute and Princeton Township.
While he doesn’t believe that the recent ruling by the Canal Commission was intended to automatically grant the Institute a waiver, Mr. Hurwitz doesn’t think the process is fair. “We don’t get our day in court because there is no hearing. How is that? We felt we had to do or say something,” he said. “This is a gray area and I think there are some serious problems with it.”
The Canal Commission has had several vacancies recently, and there have been no recent appointments by Governor Chris Christie. But several new members have been nominated and are awaiting legislative approval.
The Princeton Battlefield Society has filed a lawsuit to block the Institute for Advanced Study’s (IAS) plan to build faculty housing on land it owns bordering the Princeton Battlefield. Filed in Superior Court in Trenton last Thursday, April 5, the suit says that the project, which was approved by the Regional Planning Board last month, would destroy the site of General George Washington’s historic counterattack against the British during the 1777 Battle of Princeton.
The suit also states that a 1992 settlement agreement between the Institute and Princeton Township took away the Institute’s right to build on the site. “This was addressed in the Township meeting by our lawyer, and refuted with a statute that says we do indeed have the right to build residences for our faculty,” says Christine Ferrara, senior public affairs officer at the IAS.
The Institute plans to build 15 faculty homes, eight of which are townhomes, on seven acres bordering the battlefield. An additional 10 acres adjacent to the Park would be preserved as open space. The focus of four packed Planning Board meetings since last fall, the plan was amended after suggestions by historians James McPherson and David Hackett Fischer to reduce the size of one house, preserve more open space, and move the tree line screening the houses. The historians, who met with IAS director Peter Goddard to try and mediate between the Institute and the opponents to the plan, also recommended building a path through the Institute property with interpretive signage commemorating the Battle of Princeton.
It was that amended version that was approved by the Planning Board on March 1. The Battlefield Society says it will separately appeal that decision.
The opponents of the project maintain that the development “will completely obliterate the Battlefield site that has remained untouched for the last 235 years,” said Bruce Afran, attorney for the Battlefield Society, in a press statement. “The Institute housing plan will destroy what is probably the most significant Revolutionary War site left in the United States along with critical archaeological and historical evidence.”
The Battlefield Society members say further that the project will bury important artifacts under a 10-foot artificial plateau, and destroy valuable wetlands. “The proposed cluster housing project will destroy one of the most valuable archaeological sites in the United States,” says Battlefield Society president Jerald Hurwitz, adding that the 1992 agreement denied the IAS the power to build cluster housing on the site since cluster housing was not in the E-2 zoning code at the time of the settlement. Cluster housing was not approved in E-2 zones until 10 years later, the complaint states.
The plan’s opponents say they will also take legal action regarding unreported wetlands on the site they say the Institute did not disclose when it sought permission from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to build the houses. “These wetlands were mapped by the Institute itself in 1990,” Mr. Afran said, “but they were not disclosed by the Institute when it applied for permission to build the current housing project.”
Responding to the allegations, Ms. Ferrara said, “The unanimous approval of the Planning Board certainly speaks to the fact that we have what we need to move forward. And the plan approved with amendments by Mr. Hackett-Fischer and Professor McPherson yields the greatest solution for the Battlefield itself in terms of enhancing it with additional open space, interpretive signage, and pathways for the public.”
Dear Editor:
I am a resident of Yardley, Pa., but work at a research center in Princeton. For many years I have attended talks at the Institute for Advanced Study, walked in its woods, and enjoyed simply sitting and reading by the pond. I would like to think that I am an objective and neutral observer, with no vested interest in the fight between the Institute for Advanced Study and the Princeton Battlefield Society beyond a desire to preserve the ability of this intellectual hub of history, social science, mathematics, and physics to continue and to improve. But I cannot get past the thought that the Battlefield Society does itself more harm than good by continuing to obstruct what is an historically sensitive, well-reasoned, and ultimately well-within-its-rights proposal, put forth by the Institute.
Let’s look at the facts. The IAS project is on its own land. It seeks only one minor variance, to do away with street lights, which will also benefit its neighbors. The Institute was assured years ago by the State of New Jersey that it could build faculty housing in the location it now proposes. Do we not honor commitments any longer? It is undisputed that the Institute’s contribution of land to the existing Battlefield Park has made the park the large tract it is today. Moreover, the Institute has agreed to a compromise brokered by Congressman Holt and offered by noted historians James McPherson and David Hackett-Fisher that enhances battlefield commemoration. What more can one ask from an applicant?
And still, the Battlefield Society persists in its obstruction, causing endless public hearings and cost. Does it care so little for its reputation that it now turns to challenging the Institute over feigned wetlands issues? Having failed to persuade even preservationist scholars, what’s next, the proverbial kitchen sink? Enough. We are all suffering from battle fatigue. May the Battlefield Society finally come to its senses and embrace the compromise, lest it snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I encourage the Princeton Regional Planning Commission to approve the Institute’s Faculty Housing Plan. It’s time to put this to rest.
Howard Rees
Yardley, Pa.
To the Editor:
As mayor, I have received numerous letters for and against the proposed housing development for the Institute for Advanced Study. As many may know, the Battle of Princeton was not just a battle at what is today’s Princeton Battlefield park. It was a battle that moved through a number of sites all the way to Nassau Hall. It is clear to me that the most value in interpreting many revolutionary era battles, as they typically spanned large areas of ground and consisted of various skirmishes, is to do so through interpretive signage, archaeology, historical tours, and of course, preserved land.
To that end, I agree with the two esteemed historians, Jim McPherson and David Hackett Fischer, in their proposed compromise regarding this development. They have put forth a compromise that would allow for the housing project to move forward with the ability to preserve a large area of the overall site from development through a permanent conservation easement. The size of the land preserved would be about double the footprint of the Institute’s housing project.
In addition, the Institute will provide for archeological work on site before and during construction, access to a path through the preserved land and public interpretive signage upon completion of the project, and potential coordination with historical agencies for historical tours, thereby enabling the public to learn more about the Battle of Princeton.
Compromises inevitably leave both sides with perceived gains and losses. However, in this case I believe the right balance presents itself. We will enable many generations to more fully understand the Battle of Princeton and its importance through interpretive signage, historical tours, archaeology, and preserved land. We will also see to the housing needs met for the talented and creative faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study.
Chad Goerner
Mayor, Princeton Township
To the Editor:
Recently several people claiming to be “independent observers” have said that the Princeton Battlefield Society has been unfair in challenging the Institute for Advanced Study’s proposed faculty housing project. Please note that the Battlefield Society was founded as the Princeton Battlefield AREA PRESERVATION Society, with the express mission of preserving and protecting the battlefield, much of which lies outside the park.
A number of people are under the impression that the Institute had a major role in founding the park. Untrue. Governor Edge approached the Institute about contributing to the park in 1944, and he provided a map showing his plan. The IAS indicated to the governor that they were “interested,” but they did nothing to contribute to the park until 1973, almost 30 years later. At that time they finally sold two pieces of property to the State, many years after the park was founded. Further, it could easily be argued that the IAS undermined formation of the park by purchasing property that Governor Edge was expressly seeking for the park, much of which, to this day, is still not a part of the park. This includes the site of the winning counterattack, the very property where the IAS wants to build its housing project.
A recent letter to the press claimed that the State assured the Institute that it could build on the location it now proposes. This statement only represented the perspective of a single individual at the time. Further the State of New Jersey does not have authority over determinations of local land use.
Hopefully the IAS isn’t saying that it doesn’t have to meet the requirements of local land-use laws and environmental regulations. To qualify for Cluster Zoning, the developer must show that its project meets the standard 1-acre zoning required for this property. The Institute has not done this. In addition, there are wetlands that were identified on the property in 1990 and again in 2011 that were somehow not included on maps submitted by the IAS to DEP.
The “compromise” that was offered to the Battlefield Society was essentially what the IAS was proposing all along as a cluster development. Furthermore, Professor McPherson clearly confirmed at the Planning Board meeting that the counterattack that won the battle occurred on the site the Institute wants to develop. This is something the Institute has always denied.
The Planning Board should decide that this project with its multiple violations of land use and environmental regulations does not meet the requirements of the town’s ordinances and master plan.
Daniel Thompson
Dempsey Avenue
Member, Princeton Battlefield Society
To the Editor:
I fully support the Institute for Advanced Study’s plans for faculty housing, which are currently before the Princeton Township Planning Board.
I attended the last meeting, and was amazed at the many barriers and irrelevant arguments mounted by those associated with the Princeton Battlefield Society, especially given the Institute’s carefully thought out and accommodating proposal. The Institute has been very mindful of minimizing the impact of the housing on the Battlefield Park, and it has also diligently addressed preservation concerns by conducting archaeological surveys of the whole site. In fact, the Battlefield Society’s own historical witness, Dr. Babit, conceded at the February 2 Planning Board meeting (when properly informed of the Institute’s plans to yet again survey the archaeology of the site before and monitor it during construction) that, with that commitment, the Institute’s plan was something even he could accept. To now try to undermine the proposal with claims about wetlands and stream corridors only dishonors the mission of the Society. I have been involved with and followed this project for years during my tenure as mayor and as a member of the Planning Board. It is now time for the Planning Board to acknowledge that the IAS has not only the legal right to build on this site but also has presented an application that merits approval.
I urge the Planning Board to vote for the approval at its next meeting.
Phyllis Marchand
Former Mayor Princeton Township
To the Editor:
I have been following the dispute between the Princeton Battlefield Society and the Institute for Advanced Study with great interest. I have written many books about New Jersey’s Revolutionary history, including 1776: Year of Illusions, which deals with the battle. In 2007 I received the Gov. Richard Hughes award for lifetime achievement in writing about New Jersey.
There is no longer the slightest doubt in my mind that the Institute is ignoring fundamental facts about the battle. They are planning to build housing on a part of the battlefield that is vital to understanding the event — the site of George Washington’s climactic counterattack. This is like asking people to enjoy a famous play, minus the last act.
I am disturbed by the IAS’s cavalier and arrogant attitude toward the convincing evidence that the Princeton Battlefield Society has presented. It is especially troubling to discover they have space for the housing elsewhere on their acres, but they are simply not inclined to use it.
Thomas Fleming
New York City
To the Editor:
With all the furor being created by the Princeton Battlefield Society about “preserving” for posterity a 22-acre parcel of land contiguous to the existing acreage of the Princeton Battlefield Park, you have to wonder where the Society’s members have been all these years while the Park’s infrastructure has been steadily decaying before their eyes. Have they added any additional land to the Park’s boundaries, as has the Institute (32 acres)? Have they provided any historical markers to better explain the progress of the actual battle? Have they helped maintain the existing infrastuctures in the Park itself?
As an example of constructive involvement, I can refer them back to the year 1957 when the Park’s Portico/Colonnade was about to be dismantled from the nearby Mercer Manor, a private home nearby, on Institute land. At the time, my father, Sherley W. Morgan, was dean of Princeton’s School of Architecture and president of the New Jersey Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Because he felt the Battlefield lacked a focal point to direct visitors to the Unknown Soldiers’ graves which lie on the Park’s northwestern boundary, and because the portico was designed by Thomas Walters, the first president of the A.I.A., he set about raising sufficient funds to move the columns to their present location. In this effort he was greatly helped by congressman Frank Thompson, Governor Robert Meyner and the architect members of NJ’s Chapter of A.I.A., and by the Institute.
I think everyone today will agree that his goal has been achieved and the portico is what people remember when they recall a visit to the Battlefield. Unfortunately, both the portico and the grave area behind it, are in urgent need of cleaning, repair, and consistent maintenance.
Instead of hiring expensive “experts” to worry about how many musket balls may/may not be found under the land which the Institute owns and has every legal right to build on, or wasting everyone’s time in endless public meetings, I believe the Battlefield Society’s efforts would be more productive if they hired the appropriate experts to take care of what we already have in place for the public’s edification and enjoyment.
Arthur Morgan
Springdale Road
To the Editor:
I am a retired professor at the Institute for Advanced Study. I have enjoyed the beauty of our Battlefield Park and the memory of its history for more than 50 years. To serve as a fitting memorial of the battle, the Battlefield Park does not need to include the whole area over which fighting took place. Fighting extended over a wide area and into the center of Princeton, including the Institute buildings. Nobody suggests that the town or the Institute should be demolished in order to include the whole area of the fighting within the park. So I find it strange that the building of 11 houses for Institute faculty on Institute land should be opposed, just because this little piece of Institute land was included in the area of the fighting. The building of these houses will do no damage to the beauty and solemnity of the Battlefield Park. They will be as harmless and as respectful to our history as the existing Institute buildings.
Freeman Dyson
Professor Emeritus,
Institute for Advanced Study
To the Editor:
The Institute for Advanced Study is seeking approval to build faculty housing on its campus. I am writing to express my strong support for the project.
As a faculty member who lives on campus and a former member who spent his postdoctoral years at the IAS I can attest to the importance of the residential nature of IAS. Living on campus greatly facilitates my work, substantially increasing my interactions with IAS members and faculty. This residential nature makes the IAS unique and benefits members and faculty alike.
I believe that through the years the Institute has been a model citizen of this community. As a current neighbor of the Institute I deeply value the Institute’s commitment to preserving open spaces that include the wonderful “Institute woods,” nearly 600 acres of woodlands available to public use, and a substantial fraction of the Battlefield Park. The proposed project will add 13 acres of new land that will be permanently preserved as open space next to the Park.
During the last meeting of the Township’s planning board, Prof. Mark Peterson, a specialist in the American Revolution and early American History at the University of California at Berkeley, gave a very interesting presentation about how different localities preserve their historical heritage. Prof. Peterson helped towns in the Boston area develop plans to better preserve their historical sites and enhance the experience of visitors. I moved to Princeton from the Boston area, so I am very familiar with the sites he described, having enjoyed them on multiple occasions. As I heard him speak, I could not help but think that the current discussion surrounding the Institute’s project presents a perfect opportunity to improve the experiences of visitors to the Battlefield Park and their connection to this area’s past. I was glad to learn that the Institute has stated that it was ready to be a partner in trying to enhance the experience of visitors to the Battlefield
Park, for example by improving the interpretive materials provided in the site.
The Institute is by now also an important part of Princeton’s history. It has housed as faculty and members a large number of Nobel-prize winners, Field medalists, and the intellectual leaders of many fields of study. In my own area, astrophysics, the contributions of scientists who spent time at the IAS can be found almost everywhere and have shaped our current understanding of such diverse topics as cosmology and celestial mechanics.
I am convinced that this project will not only benefit the IAS community but also the Princeton community at large. It will help maintain one of its vibrant academic institutions; it will add permanently preserved open land and can create the opportunity to improve the way the area’s residents can interact with its history.
Matias Zaldarriaga
Battle Road
To the Editor:
The Battle of Princeton is surely a remarkable moment in the history of Princeton as well as the United States. In January of 1777 Patriots battled for American Independence and to protect the rights of future generations.
It is important to commemorate and memorialize the Battle of Princeton, and that has been done with the Battlefield Park. The Institute for Advanced Study, another great historical institution in Princeton, has been a vital partner and supporter of the Battlefield Park. In fact, the Battlefield would not even exist in it’s current state, without the generosity of the Institute. The Institute donated the Portico that stands in Battlefield Park and commemorates the common grave of American and British soldiers. In 1973, the Institute conveyed 32 acres of land to the State which more than doubled the size of Battlefield Park. This conveyance was completed with the express understanding that the Institute could and would build housing on some of the remaining land. The Institute for Advanced Study has also preserved all of the land surrounding the Battlefield, and has made it accessible to the public.
The Institute for Advanced Study owns the tract of land on which they are proposing to build faculty housing. They have met every requirement of the planning board and the historical preservationists that would allow them to build the site plan currently proposed. In fact, they have gone above and beyond what was asked and have made sure the project has minimal impact on the Battlefield Park.
To suggest that the Institute should be prohibited from using their property, simply because it was a site upon which some of the battle took place, is exactly the type of oppression the Patriots were trying to eliminate. We are a country that values the rights bestowed upon us by law. Property rights are certainly one of the oldest and most treasured rights. Those trying so desperately to restrict those rights, by waging a battle against the Institute, should consider whether they value their own property rights. Surely the Patriots did not expect future generations to use the battle as a means of restricting the rights they were fighting for.
Shari Black
Allison Road
To the Editor:
I write in strong support of the Institute’s proposal for more faculty living on its campus, maintaining its walkable community. It would provide landscape screening along its border with the Battlefield Park; and build a memorial pathway as conceived by distinguished historians James McPherson and David Hackett Fischer. Altogether, the Institute’s proposal commemorates our historic past, and sustains our living community.
Robert Geddes
Dean Emeritus, Princeton University
School of Architecture
To the Editor:
It is vitally important that any new construction at the Institute for Advanced Study not detract from the dignity of the Battlefield Park. The faculty and friends of the Institute (of whom I am one) understand the importance of honoring our history. The proposed new faculty housing at IAS meets this test. The proposed housing consists of a small cluster of single family homes and townhouses located over two hundred feet from the edge of the park. A row of evergreens will stand between the housing and the park. The housing will barely be visible from the park, much less intrusive.
The need to preserve the dignity of the park should not be used as a reason to block all development in this part of Princeton.
Lewis Maltby, President
National Workrights Institute
Wall Street, Princeton
To the Editor:
Based on decades of experience we have long believed that controversies such as the current one involving the Institute’s proposal to build faculty housing near the Battlefield can be resolved in such a way that everyone comes out ahead, especially where people of good will are involved, as is the case here.
If you stand in the middle of the present Battlefield site and look up toward the land in question, what do you see? Well, what you don’t see is the Institute’s land. What you do see is a rather unattractive angled slash of tall trees impeding the overall perspective of the Battlefield site.
Now let’s look ahead around two years and what will you see? First, you will see another row of trees but these, replacing the ones currently there, will be set back some 200 feet and will screen the new housing. What you will also see is another 13 acres of unimpeded land which will greatly open up the visual experience. This land
will have been donated in perpetuity to the Battlefield by the Institute.
We had the privilege of living virtually across the street from the Institute for 21 years and found them to be outstanding neighbors and citizens. It is our great pleasure to strongly endorse their proposal, an outcome where everyone wins, the Battlefield, the Institute and the community.
Harriet and Jay Vawter
Constitution Hill
To the Editor:
On behalf of the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, I am writing this letter in support of the Princeton Battlefield Society and its efforts to protect and preserve the lands surrounding the Princeton Battlefield State Park. As guardians of George Washington’s home and legacy, the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association shares the Princeton Battlefield Society’s desire to educate the public about the American Revolution. Our organizations also share a commitment to fostering awareness about the character and leadership of General Washington, who celebrated one of his greatest military victories on that very battlefield.
During the American Revolution, Washington’s triumph at Princeton in January 1777 energized the floundering American cause and forced the British to rethink their quick dismissal of the Continental Army. Following on the heels of his surprise Christmas Day attack on Trenton, the Battle of Princeton was Washington’s first victory in open combat against British regulars. Washington’s leadership on the battlefield inspired his fellow patriots, bringing about an impressive turnaround that ultimately led to American independence.
Like the Princeton Battlefield, George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate, Museum & Gardens is located in a densely populated region. In northern Virginia, just as in New Jersey, land comes at a premium and preservationists often find themselves at odds with developers. Although Mount Vernon’s record of passionate commitment to historic preservation stretches back more than 150 years, predating some of the development pressures faced in today’s time, it serves as a prime example of how historic sites play an important role in their communities. They create a sense of place and character. They fuel civic pride, and they drive economic development and job creation through travel and tourism.
Although we applaud your past success in preserving some portions of this battlefield, we recognize that only a small percentage of the grounds on which Washington and his troops outmaneuvered the British forces are currently protected from development. Keys to understanding the events of that pivotal battle and additional evidence of Washington’s heroics still likely lie buried under the soil. If the proposed development is allowed to continue, these secrets of the past will be lost.
After surrendering at Yorktown in 1781, Lord Cornwallis is reported to have told Washington, “Your Excellency’s achievements in New Jersey were such that nothing could surpass them.” As decision-makers, influencers, and leaders, I hope that the same can be said of your achievements in New Jersey as you recognize that preservation, too, is a form of progress.
Respectfully,
James C. Rees
President Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association,
George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate,
Museum & Gardens
