Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springettsbury supervisors table Druck Valley subdivision after safety, stormwater concerns
Summary
Developers seeking approval for an 84‑lot Druck Valley subdivision asked for multiple waivers, including long cul‑de‑sac lengths and stormwater loading‑ratio exceptions; supervisors expressed public‑safety concerns and voted to table the plan for redesign and further coordination with staff and consultants.
Montrose Environmental representatives presented SD‑2023‑0002 on Tuesday — a preliminary plan for a multi‑phase residential subdivision on Druck Valley Road proposing 84 single‑family lots and 10 open‑space lots.
Consultant Dan Wright said the project has conditional recommendation history with the planning commission and noted the York County Conservation District and PADEP‑related technical guidance had informed stormwater design. He outlined six waiver requests including a larger engineering plan size, different driveway/apron materials, an access‑configuration change (PennDOT recommended a single primary access and an emergency access on Radio Road with a gate and Knox box), and cul‑de‑sac length exceptions.
Board members and the township engineer raised safety concerns about long dead‑end lengths. The township’s ordinance limits cul‑de‑sac lengths to 600 feet; staff and supervisors said the applicant's design would create segments of roughly 1,200–2,000 feet between a key intersection and the lower cul‑de‑sac in places. The engineer warned a single point of failure could leave residents without egress if a segment were blocked during an emergency.
Stormwater loading ratios were another disputed item. The applicant cited PADEP guidance shifting impervious‑coverage ratios toward 10:1; the township engineer said the plan’s overall loading ratios appeared much higher than township practice and raised long‑term performance concerns for basins.
Given these concerns and the need for alternative designs (a boulevard cross‑section, added separated access, or other mitigations), a supervisor moved to table the preliminary plan so the applicant can work with staff and the planning commission on revisions. The motion passed by voice vote.
Next steps: staff and the applicant will pursue alternatives to reduce single‑failure access and resolve stormwater loading questions; the plan will return once revisions address the board’s concerns.
