Supervisors table York Suburban plan after residents and engineers raise traffic and sinkhole concerns

At a regularly scheduled township Board of Supervisors meeting, residents and engineers pressed the board to delay action on a land-development plan for a proposed New East York Intermediate School at 701 Erland Drive, and supervisors voted to table the item to allow engineers to address unresolved technical issues.

The public comment period featured multiple neighbors who live adjacent to the site. Danny Barker, who said he borders the school property, asked directly about circulation and student safety: “How is the school going to fix this?” He raised specific concerns about whether school buses can enter and exit at the same time on the access drive, the potential for buses to queue on Sundale Drive, permit parking for residents during construction, and where sidewalks will be provided during construction.

Judy Barker told the board she feared the project would “assault the essential character of our neighborhood” and cited geotechnical warnings. She urged caution and urged denial if risks are assumed by the township, saying, "Make the prudent decision and deny this project at this location entirely on the basis of the real and present danger." Louise Soskin, another nearby property owner, pointed to repeated warnings in K & W Engineering’s geological study about carbonate formations and sinkhole risk, noting the report “warn[s] the district again 7 times … the site owner must recognize the risks associated with the development of sinkholes.”

Ryan Shuster of K & W, the project engineer, told the board the design team had submitted bus-turning templates for review and that the most recent plan revision bore an August 21 revision date. "We provided bus turning templates," he said, and noted the templates were submitted for review on July 18 with a review dated September 17. Board members and the township engineer said they had not received the revised templates in their meeting packet and that the drawing evidence in the record still showed conflicts.

Township engineering staff flagged a specific vehicle-circulation problem: the plans showed turning movements that conflict with vehicles entering or exiting simultaneously and, according to the engineer speaking for the township, “the radii need to be enlarged to accommodate those movements.” Because the board had not been presented with the revised templates in advance and because unresolved safety and geotechnical questions remained, a supervisor moved to table the land-development item. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

What happens next: the board left the application on the agenda but tabled formal action so the applicant and its engineers can provide the revised plans and bus-turning templates for review. No formal approval or denial was recorded at the meeting; the tabling preserves the township’s ability to act after submission and review of the requested technical clarifications.