Chanceford supervisors approve multiple conditional subdivisions and stormwater waivers

At its Feb. 9 meeting, the Chanceford Township Board of Supervisors approved multiple land‑use actions, including conditional plan approvals, waivers, and financial‑security determinations.

The board adopted Resolution #2026‑3 to forward the Persing Family Planning Module to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection; the module had been returned earlier for additional soil testing, which the applicants completed prior to the meeting. (Motion to adopt Resolution #2026‑3 carried unanimously.)

Douglas A. and Kelly J. King received conditional approval to subdivide a 1.96‑acre building lot from a 68.7‑acre farm parcel. The board granted waivers for plan scale (§601.a) and for showing the entire property boundary (501.d & 601.d) and required the applicant to finalize stormwater management and soil E&S controls at the time of building permit application and to record deeds and pay recording fees.

Jere Hoover requested approval for a new poultry operation on a 53.37‑acre parcel; the board set financial security for the project at $183,924.00, approved several waivers (including downstream hydraulic capacity analysis and basin slope/fencing exceptions), and conditioned final plan approval on correcting boundary survey lines and outstanding permit approvals (NPDES pending). The transcript records that the motion to set the financial security and approve waivers carried unanimously.

The Mark Bupp final subdivision plan — separating a 23.823‑acre lot from a 75.109‑acre homestead — was conditionally approved after PA DEP approved the Planning Module and PennDOT issued the highway occupancy permit; the board granted waivers (§601.a plan scale; 502.a water and sewer feasibility) and required recording fees and deed recording.

Separately, the board moved to release $56,101.72 of financial security for the previously approved Stephen Beiler SWM site plan and retain $7,500 to address swale erosion; that motion also carried unanimously.

All land‑use motions at the meeting were approved by motion and recorded as carried unanimously; no votes were recorded as opposed or abstained in the meeting minutes.