Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies New East York Intermediate School plan over Sundale access and parking issues
Summary
The board voted to deny the school district's LD2024003 plan for a new intermediate school, citing unresolved turning movement deficiencies and the lack of a required no-parking ordinance on Sundale Drive; the district offered targeted restrictions and easement solutions but could not secure approval at the meeting.
The Springettsbury Township Board of Supervisors voted to deny the land-development submission (LD2024003) for the New East York Intermediate School after township engineers identified unresolved turning and parking deficiencies that the plan relied upon the township to fix.
School district representatives and consultants outlined three outstanding items: ownership and maintenance of a township utility/stormwater easement, safe turning movements for buses onto Sundale Drive, and noise and parking-management measures. Brian Schuster (consultant) and architect Seth Wentz presented exhibits showing limited proposed on-street parking restrictions timed to school hours (roughly 8–9 a.m. and 3–4 p.m.) to facilitate bus drop-off and pick-up and described a delegated-design approach to enclose a generator that now exceeds zoning noise limits.
"The first exhibit shows an existing driveway on the eastern side of Sundale Drive so there will not be parking spaces along that curb line that will be impacted by that turning movement," Schuster said; he added the proposed restrictions would be limited to a few hours a day on weekdays when school is in session. Wentz said the rooftop HVAC units met decibel limits at the property boundary, but the generator measured higher than zoning permits and the contractor would be required to provide a noise-dampening enclosure and post-installation testing.
Solicitor Jones and township legal staff explained the constraints: the school cannot build on a township easement without a separate agreement, and a no-parking restriction on Sundale would require the township to adopt a local ordinance. The engineer’s review letter dated Dec. 4 flagged turning movements and the lack of a no-parking ordinance as deficiencies that prevented plan approval.
On that basis a supervisor moved to deny the plan "based on the township engineer’s review letter dated December 4, particularly relative to the turning and the inability to do so without a no-parking ordinance." The motion was seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote.
Residents who addressed the board voiced mixed views. Ryan White urged support for a new neighborhood school while proposing complementary neighborhood-preservation initiatives such as tree replacement and pedestrian-safety improvements. Samuel Piercy urged the board to approve new school construction to avoid retrofitting older buildings that may contain asbestos or lead. Other residents — Louise Soskin, Danny Barker and Brenda Andrews among them — expressed worries about narrow local streets, parking overflow, alleged sinkhole risks and construction impacts.
The denial does not foreclose a revised submission. The district told the board it could prepare an ordinance request, refine turning and parking plans, and provide required easement agreements; the board may reconsider the plan if the district returns with those items addressed.
