Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Strabane planning commission tables draft data-center ordinances after residents seek clearer notice
Summary
After sustained public concern about late posting and local impacts, the South Strabane Planning Commission voted to table three draft data-center ordinances and agreed to update online postings and hold a further public meeting for more review and input.
The South Strabane Township Planning Commission voted to table consideration of three draft data-center ordinances after residents raised concerns about late postings and potential local impacts.
The move came after multiple residents and commission members pressed for clearer notice and for ordinance language that addresses noise, vibration and other operational effects. "The transparency is just lacking egregiously on this," resident Diane Ecker told the commission, saying draft ordinances on the township website had not been updated since Nov. 19, 2025 and that the most recent version appeared on the agenda only that afternoon.
Why it matters: commissioners and residents agreed the ordinances will guide whether and how data centers — and related technologies such as on-site battery storage — operate near homes. A commissioner told the audience, "We cannot exclude data centers in the township," and said any restriction must be legally defensible; that concern shaped the commission's decision to pause action and refine the drafts.
Discussion and exchanges: public commenters pressed the commission to post drafts earlier and hold dedicated community meetings. Judy Penassee urged the commission to "make it something official where your board asked that these things are posted maybe a week ahead of time," so residents can plan. Resident Kevin Booth described local sound travel patterns and said noise and lighting must be considered in ordinance language: "Sound from that area travels in a mysterious way," he said, arguing for noise limits and overlay zoning that would control where industrial uses are allowed.
Commissioners and staff emphasized enforceability and measurement. Staff member TJ explained that a more prescriptive noise ordinance would specify measurement procedures, devices and locations for readings, making regulatory enforcement clearer. The group also discussed vibration rules and whether separate vibration limits are necessary given that vibrations can travel through solids differently than airborne sound.
Procedural next steps: the commission voted to table the ordinances and asked staff to post the most recent drafts online, to coordinate with the Board of Supervisors and Washington County Planning Commission, and to schedule a further meeting that will include a public hearing or allow for public comment. Staff said a public-advertisement packet and solicitor review were in progress and would be posted once the commission's edits are incorporated.
What remains unresolved: commissioners repeatedly noted legal constraints on excluding uses outright and said ordinance language must be defensible; the commission also did not adopt final noise or vibration thresholds at the meeting. The planners said they would attempt to set a special meeting and propose revisions for the commission to recommend to the supervisors.
The commission adjourned after agreeing to coordinate advertisement and scheduling with supervisors; no final ordinance was adopted.
