To the Editor:
Last Thursday night we attended the third Planning Board meeting on the application of The Institute for Advanced Study to build 15 much-needed faculty residences on their land adjacent to Princeton Battlefield Park. It was a tedious continuation of the efforts of the Princeton Battlefield Society to prevent approval through delaying tactics and obfuscation, raising issues not relevant to consideration by this governing body.
This project meets the requirements of our zoning regulations without the need for variations. The IAS development plan carries out the intent of our Land Use Ordinance by accepting cluster zoning options. The application of these guidelines minimize land disturbance, reduce utility runs, limit storm water run-off by reducing impervious surfaces of roads and walks, and create large areas of commonly-owned open space. This is an excellent example of a creative land-use ordinance at work.
In our opinion the current nearly 65 acres of Battle Field Park, more than a third of which was obtained from The Institute for Advanced Study, is more than adequate to commemorate, and to exhibit the scope of, this important battle. In fact the proposed plan will enlarge the park by the inclusion of 13 acres of public-access open space adjacent to the park as well as extend visual access by the relocation the bordering tree line some 200 feet back from its present location.
It is sad to contemplate the extent to which visitor appreciation of the battle could have been enhanced through better interpretative signage, pathways, interactive dioramas, and the like had the Princeton Battlefield Society spent their money for such facilities rather than for attorney and witness fees.
Tom and Peggy Fulmer
Hunt Drive
Respectfully, I would be interested in knowing exactly what you base your opinion on when stating that the land currently preserved by the battlefield park is sufficient for commemorating the engagement of January 3, 1777. Have you tried using that land to explain the nature of the battle, the experience of the participants, and the overall significance of the event to the public at large? Since November 2010, I have led six battlefield tours, with three more booked for this spring. In each case, attendees from across the United States indicated to me that without seeing the acreage currently under question, they would not have been able to fully grasp the extent of the original engagement, nor come away with as good an idea of the role that terrain played in the battle and the sorts of challenges that the original forces encountered when moving across it. The land under question covers roughly 60% of the original battlefield area, where the hottest fighting occurred, including the first US Marine casualties in a land engagement. Developing this land would be similar to the University of Pennsylvania knocking down Independence Hall to build faculty housing. The IAS has many other options that do not involve destroying this vital artifact of the Revolution. The Princeton Battlefield Society is not employing senseless stalling tactics– rather, it is attempting to educate the planning board and the public at large on the greater issues involved here. As for money spent on interpretive trails, &c, the Princeton Battlefield Society is currently working with the state to preserve the Thomas Clarke House and initiate an interpretive trails and signage program, which requires significant time. Until we know whether or not the IAS will proceed with destroying this vital piece of American History, we cannot complete our proposal, since we need to know whether or not we will have to interpret landscape features that might not be present for future generations to see.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fulmer,
Were we at the same meeting?
It was not tedious, but a careful, thoughtful investigation of all the problems the IAS has with this application.
The application does not meeting zoning guidelines as was shown. The first plan had holes in it and the second plan had more and it went into the buffer area that they were to maintain. All the plans proposed had no variances approved, how is that meeting all requirements?
The land of the park was acquired for 14 million dollars. The IAS could have taken care of their housing needs when they got the money, they did not and now they are moving to destroy the National Heritage.
Respectfully,
J. Carney
Mr. & Mrs. Fulmer,
Respectfully I must disagree with all points of your argument. The badly needed faculty residences were already characterized by Goddard in town topics article as a convenience for faculty. So I would seek out clarification from Mr. Goddard as it relates to the definition of a need verse a want. I also would make the point that the meeting did take some time but let’s consider the fact that the IAS presented not 1 but 2 and even a third map, which caused great confusion for the Planning Board.
As pointed out by the IAS lawyer, they changed their original plan because they recognized that they did not meet the requirements for buffer shaving calculations. If the Planning Board and Battlefield Society recognize that the IAS do not meet a simple requirement like buffer shaving then I think it fair to say that other inaccuracies exist on the part of the IAS plan preparation.
The battlefield Park is not the issue- the Issue is the Battlefield Land. The land that is under direct threat by the IAS construction. The Battlefield Park land does not only exist to commemorate the battle it exist to be studied, it gives us insight into Washington’s eye and the factors that lead to his decisions made on January 3rd 1777, the decisions that changed the war in our favor and brought us victory. The interpretive nature and educational value will be completely lost if the IAS builds on the land particularly if they build on with inaccurate plans.
Finally-Mr. Fulmer I would be happy to give you an electronic copy of the ABPP study which will detail the Battle for you, I could also give you a tour, point out the signs, and existing markers.
Kind Regards
Brian Kovacs