Battlefield construction faces dissent

The report, which was finished in September but is not yet available to the public, provides new evidence that the site of the proposed housing project — which lies between the Institute’s main campus and Princeton Battlefield State Park — was the location of a crucial Revolutionary War battle.

The Institute has planned to build on the site since the early 1970s. Current plans include the construction of 15 “low profile” homes on seven acres of private land owned by the Institute, Christine Ferrara, a spokeswoman for the Institute, said in an e-mail.

The Princeton Battlefield Area Preservation Society has long opposed the Institute’s construction plans based on the site’s historical significance. After receiving a grant from the federal government under the American Battlefield Protection Program, the preservation society contracted John Milner Associates, a historical preservation firm, to conduct a comprehensive survey of the battlefield. Bob Selig, an independent historian who worked on the report, spoke to The Daily Princetonian about the survey’s findings and its accompanying report.

The survey, which began in 2009, examined materials like diaries left behind by soldiers to construct maps of the Battle of Princeton. The battle took place Jan. 3, 1777, and was part of George Washington’s “10 crucial days,” in which the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army won a series of battles and turned the Revolutionary War in America’s favor.

One of the report’s major findings is the original location of Saw Mill Road, the path that Washington and the Continental Army took to get to Princeton, Selig explained.

“We now have a very good idea of where Saw Mill Road was,” Selig said. “It goes across the property where the Institute wants to build dormitories.”

Jerry Hurwitz, president of the preservation society, said that the report “really strengthens our position; it says more of the battle was fought here than we initially predicted.”

“What it shows is that the climax of the battle — George Washington’s counterattack — took place on the parcel they want to build on,” he added.

Ferrara declined to comment on the report.

A 2003 archaeological survey of the site unearthed musket balls, broken bayonets and grapeshot dating back to the 18th century. In a 2008 report to Congress, the National Park Service named Princeton Battlefield on its list of the top 29 endangered battlefields from the Revolutionary War. The battlefield was dedicated as a state park in 1946 and was named a historical landmark in 1961.

The Institute has a long history with the state park and its surrounding land. In 1997, the Institute relinquished developmental rights to 589 acres of woodland and farmland, which now comprise the Institute Woods.

But, Hurwitz said, “when they negotiated that, they left out this very important parcel where the battle was fought, which they want to build upon now.”

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Ferrara said the Institute has received the “explicit approval of the state” to build housing on the proposed construction site.

The Institute first proposed the housing project to the Princeton Regional Planning Board in 2003. The board rejected the plan at that time because of a disagreement over the size of a buffer zone between the park and the houses.

The Institute “continues to carry forward its plans for housing and remains responsive to comments from the planning board,” Ferrara said, though it has not yet renewed its request for approval from the board.

Current plans have incorporated a buffer zone of 200 feet and a “dense hedgerow” between the homes and the park. The Institute also plans to relinquish the developmental rights to at least 10 acres of land around the housing site.

Each year, the Institute houses resident faculty and visiting members in homes near its campus. Housing is “essential in maintaining the level and intensity of intellectual exchange that occurs,” Ferrara said, adding that the currently proposed site is the only place suitable for the project.

“The Institute is not increasing the number of its faculty and members, but rather is anticipating the needs of current faculty and the active involvement of retiring faculty, both of whom are affected by the ongoing scarcity of affordable real estate in the vicinity of the Institute,” she explained.

Jerry Hurwitz said he hopes the Institute will agree to a deal similar to the one that established the Institute Woods in 1997. In such a deal, known as an easement exchange, the Institute would relinquish all development rights to the site while retaining ownership.

While the 10 acres surrounding the housing site would be preserved under the current plan, Hurwitz said he hopes the Institute will relinquish the entire tract.

“We’re hoping this is not necessarily a legal battle, more a battle for public opinion,” Hurwitz said. “We ought not to permit the desecration of hallowed ground.”