Princeton discusses Massey Meadows preliminary plat; sidewalk, drainage and septic constraints drive debate

The Princeton Board of Commissioners on Aug. 4 reviewed the preliminary plat for the Massey Meadows subdivision and spent more than 20 minutes weighing sidewalk requirements, roadside drainage details and septic-system constraints that affect lot layout and buildable area.

The issue centered on whether the town should require a five‑foot sidewalk in the public right of way for the new subdivision or accept a fee in lieu and record a sidewalk easement outside the 50‑foot right of way. Steven Sanderson of Sanderson Engineering, who prepared the sketch plan, told the board the required roadway and ditch cross‑section leave insufficient room for a sidewalk inside the right of way without changing the right‑of‑way width or moving the road off‑center.

"I can't make I can't put 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound sack. It just don't work," Sanderson said, explaining the geometric limits of the proposed typical street section and the need for a protective separation between pavement and pedestrians.

Why it matters: Sidewalk and drainage choices will affect future connectivity to nearby development and trails, the size of buildable areas on individual lots, and how much impervious surface the subdivision contributes to town stormwater calculations.

Key technical points and options discussed - Cross‑section constraints: Sanderson described a typical section that, from centerline outward, includes roadway pavement and shoulders such that only about 3 feet remained for a 5‑foot sidewalk if the ditch and required side slopes are included. He said a 2‑foot ditch depth with preferred 3:1 side slopes requires roughly 6 feet of horizontal space from shoulder to ditch bottom. - Drainage pipes: Sanderson said the pipe under the road would be about 30 inches, the entrance pipe 18 inches and minimum driveway pipes 15 inches; cross‑line pipes are sized for larger storms (he referenced a 25‑inch design standard for some cross pipes). - Stormwater and impervious limits: The developer noted the subdivision is being designed with roughly 15% impervious surface for the tract and that the town’s standard allows up to about 36% impervious across lots; he warned adding sidewalks will reduce the area available for house footprints on each lot. - Lot/building impacts: Sanderson calculated the proposed sidewalk would require roughly 6,413 square feet of sidewalk across the subdivision. Divided by 29 lots, he said that equates to roughly 250 square feet of buildable area reduction per lot under the proposed layout, which could limit future accessory structures unless owners pursue lot‑level engineering or variances. - Fee in lieu: Sanderson proposed — and said his client would accept — paying a fee in lieu instead of constructing sidewalks within the subdivision. He and staff said the fee in lieu as calculated for this plan would total $23,200 (about $800 per lot); the board discussed whether that amount would allow the town to build sidewalks in locations with greater public benefit. - Easement vs. asymmetrical right of way: Staff and the developer discussed two options: keep a symmetrical 50‑foot right of way and record a separate 10‑foot sidewalk easement outside it, or expand the right of way to 60 feet and offset the road. Town staff and others warned asymmetrical right‑of‑way layouts can cause future surveying, setback and fence disputes and complicate septic placement on lots where rear easements and wet areas exist.

Process and planning review - Planning board: Members confirmed the proposal came before the planning board, which recommended approval of the preliminary plat. - Permitting: Sanderson said erosion‑control and other permits will come through the Raleigh regional office; construction plans and a full set of detailed plans will return to planning and then the board for final review before construction.

Board action and next steps - Motion: A motion was offered to approve the preliminary plat as drawn, with the stipulation that the subdivision be recorded with a 50‑foot symmetrical right of way and a separate 10‑foot sidewalk easement; the motion also included a requirement that the sidewalk be installed by the builder at the time each house is constructed (Sanderson asked specifically that sidewalks for certain lots be installed with each house rather than all at once). The motion was seconded. - Vote: The meeting transcript records the motion and multiple seconds but does not record a final roll‑call or voice tally for that motion; the transcript does not specify an outcome. Planning staff noted the final construction plans will return to planning for detailed review prior to construction.

Quotes "I can't make I can't put 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound sack. It just don't work," Steven Sanderson, engineer with Sanderson Engineering, said when describing the cross‑section constraints that limit how a sidewalk can be placed relative to the ditch and pavement.

What to watch for - Final construction drawings and the town’s decision on easement versus wider right of way when detailed grading, septic repairs areas and pipe sizing are finalized. - Whether the town accepts the $23,200 fee in lieu or requires sidewalks and whether the recorded easement or asymmetrical right of way language appears on the recorded plat.

The board heard the item as a preliminary plat matter; staff said the developer will return with full construction plans and permitting information for subsequent approvals. The transcript does not record a final vote tally for the motion on the preliminary plat.