Residents press Smithfield Township supervisors for stricter data center rules

The Smithfield Township Board of Supervisors heard more than three hours of public comment at a special meeting on a proposed curative amendment to regulate data centers and related uses. Residents told the board they support local regulation but want far stronger protections than those in the draft ordinance, particularly on setbacks, water monitoring and disclosure, and decommissioning guarantees.

Many speakers criticized the draft’s 500-foot setback as insufficient and pointed to 2,500 feet as a safer model. "This ordinance is much improved," said resident Eduardo Veda, "but we must increase the distance not just from facility to residential boundary, but from the facility to the closest property line," and he urged mandatory, developer-funded baseline and routine third‑party water testing and disclosure of chemicals used in cooling blowdown. Several speakers said private well users and nearby institutions such as the St. Luke's Smithfield Health Center could be affected and urged the township to require developers to pay for testing and remediation, not residents.

Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania member Josephine Gingrich urged denial of the Smithfield Gateway conditional-use application as incomplete and called for model zoning additions including acoustical studies, light‑pollution controls, air‑quality standards, vibration limits and thermal‑nuisance standards. Gingrich said large data centers can use substantial water and cited figures presented at the meeting, and she pressed for stronger setbacks backed by studies and monitoring.

Other speakers raised construction and operational risks: a union steam fitter warned that cooling-system cleaning chemicals and "blowdown" discharges require clear oversight; multiple residents cited experience with construction spills and dam safety; residents and a guest with data‑center operations experience urged long‑term remediation planning; and local gardeners asked for ecological inventories and native‑species replacement when woodlands are cleared.

Speakers also pressed the board to require developers to pay for any new power infrastructure and to limit maximum on‑site electrical capacity so hospitals, schools and critical services are not put at risk. Several commenters proposed stronger financial assurances for decommissioning than the draft’s 110% letter‑of‑credit figure, citing levels of 125%–150% or larger escrow amounts to ensure cleanup and homeowner protections in the event of contamination.

Board president Greg Cartray and staff acknowledged many concerns and explained legal constraints: the board noted a 500‑foot setback is not exclusionary by default and that mapping with the county planning commission is underway to determine what larger setbacks would make practical sense without violating state law. Township manager Julia Pilica said staff will incorporate public comments, that the board must finalize regulations so planning commissions have 30 days before the November 2, 2026 deadline under the Municipalities Planning Code, and that the goal is to produce a revised draft for public review by summer. Staff also noted the application on the township website is signed by "Jim Depress," and that typical development submittals include traffic, emergency response and construction inspection plans.

The meeting closed with officials urging residents to submit written, technical suggestions by email so staff can craft clearer ordinance language. A motion to adjourn passed at the end of the session (motion by Mr. Bheim; second by Mr. Albero).