N.J. Supreme Court rejects appeal to halt Institute for Advanced Society construction

The Institute for Advanced Study’s planned housing development on Maxwell Field was allowed to proceed after New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Lee Solomon declined to place the Princeton Battlefield Society'smotion for a stay of construction on an emergency basis on Nov. 13.

Solomon's office did not respond to a request for comment.

"The Institute for Advanced Study is very pleased with the recent decisions by the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court of New Jersey to deny the requested stay on the faculty housing project, and we look forward to moving ahead,” Senior Public Affairs Officer for the Institute for Advanced Study Christine Ferrara said.

She declined to comment further on projected construction start and completion dates, as well as questions regarding the Princeton Battlefield Society.

The Institute had planned to build seven single-family homes and eight townhouses on a seven-acre piece of land,according to a recent copy of the proposal, and had received Princeton Planning Board approval in 2012. The Princeton Battlefield Society appealed this decision in New Jersey’s Appellate Division and requested a stay on the project.

The Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission did not approve the Institute’s development plans in January, but it had reversed its decision by February. The Institute had agreed to a few conditions that served to protect the stream corridor buffer from being disrupted. The project now complies with the DRCC’s regulations,according to Bob Considine, press officer of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The Princeton Battlefield Society filed an appeal against this.

The Princeton Battlefield Society appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Appellate Division in late October. Mercer County ruled against the Society’s appeal of the Princeton Planning Board’s approval, but granted a stay on construction until Nov. 6 so the Society could appeal the case in the New Jersey Supreme Court.

According to Kip Cherry, the Princeton Battlefield Society’s vice president, the Society is allowed to and intends to file a motion of stay of construction on the regular 10-day motion calendar. Mercer County Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson had upheld a temporary restraining order against construction since midsummer but in October decided to overturn it. When the Society filed another appeal against her decision, it was rejected by Appellate Court.

Jacobson's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Cherry said that thatthe Society still intends to make additional requests, andwill also continue with appeals of the Planning Board and revoted DRCC decisions.

According to Cherry, there is a potential loss of wetlands on the site that were not included in the Institute’s Application for a Letter of Interpretation.

“The Institute plans to regrade and flatten the property and add some 350 truckloads of fill, destroying the original topography and the historic landscape of the site, a landscape that has changed little in 239 years,” Cherry said.

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

The ruling is the latest in a series of legal battles the Society and the Institute have been involved inover more than a decaderegarding development on the disputed land. The Institute has owned the land since the 1930s, and a recent effort to develop housing for faculty was a response to the unaffordable neighborhood surrounding the Institute.

Princeton Battlefield Park wasestablished in 1946to commemorate the Battle of Princeton, and including a significant portion of Maxwell's Field around Stonehouse Drive, was listed as on the National Register and as a National Landmark, according to Cherry. National Landmarks are the highest designation that can be given to a historic site, and include the White House and Supreme Court Building.

In a 2003 archaeological survey, musket balls, broken bayonets and grapeshot ammunition that dated to the 18th century were found to be proof of its significance,according to the Society. Most recently, consultants from the Ottery Group, an archaeological consultant firm, found five more musket balls and five pieces of grape shot.

“There is no doubt that the winning counterattack occurred on this field and that the site would be irreparably harmed by construction,” Cherry said.

A 2007 cultural impact survey conducted on behalf of the Institute showed that the project would cause little historical damage. However, a 2009 report by an independent historical preservation firm disputed this, positing that George Washington had staged a counterattack in 1777 on that parcel of land. The Institute responded by having three historians examine the report and declared it inconclusive.

“The battle ranged all over this town; it’s likely that troops moved across this land, of course, as they did over much of southwestern Princeton, but studies indicate there were not high levels of military activity on this land,”former director Peter Goddard of the Institute saidin a 2011 interview.

In a recent report, the Ottery Group stated that Maxwell’s Field is a significant archaeological site and historic landscape associated with the Battle of Princeton and represents a pivotal point in the Revolutionary War.

Cherry added that the report encouraged continued research and dialogue among members of the archaeological community and the public, involving this historic landscape. Artifacts can be examined and ground penetrating radar can search for a mass graves and burial areas. She added that leaving most samples “in situ” is preferred by the National Park Service’s Battlefield Survey Methodology, as it conveys more historical meaning. If the area is disturbed in construction, it loses this context.

“Some feel that if all you are going to find only more musket balls, which may not be true, but assuming that this is all that remains, what is the point?” Cherry asked. “The point is that every musket ball or piece of grapeshot tells a story that adds to our understanding of the battle, and as technology gets better, we learn more and more.”

According to Cherry, the Society is considering the purchase of another property that may add to the preservation of features now in the Park and enhance the interpretation of the Battle. She added that the Society hopes that there are solutions outside of legal action that can be brought to bear on saving Maxwell Field in perpetuity, so that all of us can focus on other challenges and opportunities for our respective organizations.

“2017 is the 240th Anniversary of the Battle of Princeton,” Cherry said. “We hope by then that we and the IAS can be working together to give the public the opportunity to experience what it was like in freezing temperatures just as dawn broke on Jan. 3, 1777, to fight a bloody battle.”