Springettsbury supervisors and developer debate emergency access and 600-foot cul‑de‑sac rule for Drip Valley subdivision

Springettsbury Township — The board spent the largest portion of its meeting debating a sketch plan for the Drip Valley Road preliminary subdivision, centering on whether a proposed Knox‑box emergency access on Radio Road satisfies Springettsbury’s 600‑foot cul‑de‑sac maximum and whether the plan requires a 26‑foot paved connector or a full second public entrance.

Project Engineer (Speaker 3) presented a plan that includes an emergency access drive with a Knox box and chain on Radio Road; he said the access was coordinated with the fire marshal and that the emergency drive would remain closed to general traffic but available to emergency responders. The engineer argued that adding the connector creates internal intersections that, by the ordinance’s text, would make each cul‑de‑sac less than the 600‑foot maximum.

Ray Rice, a member of the applicant partnership, said the project has been before township staff and the planning commission for two years and that the developer’s engineers interpret the ordinance differently. Rice said the team is willing to construct a 26‑foot paved connector and remove the Knox box if doing so would secure board support. “We’ve spent a huge amount of money designing this job, permitting this job, and now we’re hearing tonight the interpretation of what constitutes the length of the cul‑de‑sac is different than I read these codes,” Rice said.

Supervisors repeatedly expressed safety concerns about relying on a Knox‑box emergency access as a practical means for resident egress in events such as storm‑downed trees or extended roadway blockages, and questioned whether emergency‑only openings (requiring first-responder unlocking) provide sufficient redundancy. One supervisor said a narrow Knox‑box‑gated drive “is not a loop” and that treating it as an intersection for measurement would not address the underlying safety concern.

Township staff cited ordinance language (section cited in meeting letters as 289416 k6) that measures loop or cul‑de‑sac centerline distance “from the centerline intersection of the through street to the center of the cul de sac turnaround or to the most distant point on the loop street centerline.” The engineer countered that creating a new internal intersection shifts the measurement point closer and would bring the cul‑de‑sac lengths below 600 feet.

The board requested the applicant provide additional documentation: the PennDOT scoping memo mentioned in the presentation, plan sheets overlaying the proposal on current aerials, and a comparison to other township developments. No vote was taken. The applicant said it will resubmit revised plans, pursue further clarification from PennDOT about whether they will permit a public second entrance, and consider constructing the connector as a full 26‑foot public road if necessary.

Outcome and next steps: The board did not grant waivers or approvals tonight and directed staff to review the revised submission and other township precedent; the applicant will return with updated plans and (if possible) PennDOT correspondence about ingress/egress options.