West Rockhill planning commission urges legal review of proposed data‑center ordinance

The West Rockhill Township Planning Commission voted to recommend that the board of supervisors not adopt the latest draft of a proposed data‑center ordinance (referred to as draft 257) without further legal and technical review.

Commissioner John, who read a prepared statement, told the commission the draft risks being built on "legal quicksand" and repeatedly warned the township against passing provisions that could be struck down under Pennsylvania law. "There seems to be a false sense of security that if the township puts a protective rule into an ordinance, it automatically becomes enforceable law," John said, arguing the township must operate within the limits of the state Municipal Planning Code and the doctrine commonly known as Dillon's Rule.

Why it matters: commissioners said several provisions in the draft could expose the township to successful legal challenges that would undermine local control rather than strengthen it. John outlined six specific problem areas — from a raised minimum site-size that could make lawful development practically impossible to requirements that appear to regulate utility rates or to delegate vague discretion to an engineer — and urged the commission to press for either a detailed solicitor explanation or a third‑party legal and engineering review before supervisors act.

John warned of immediate consequences if the draft becomes law: "If we pass this potentially flawed ordinance, we are handing a data center developer a golden ticket to sue us ..." He argued a court could strike down parts of the ordinance and, depending on the court's findings, permit a developer to proceed without local conditions beyond basic PI district standards.

Commissioners discussed next steps. Several said the first step should be to obtain a clear written opinion from the municipal solicitor about the extent of legal review performed and the enforceability of the ordinance's provisions. If that opinion does not address the commissioners' concerns, they recommended commissioning specialized counsel and an independent systems engineer to examine utility, structural, and safety questions.

A public commenter, Dave, urged parallel paths: continue citizen drafting and engagement while professionals review the ordinance so community input is not delayed.

Outcome: the commission moved and seconded a recommendation that supervisors not adopt draft 257 without further solicitor review and potential third‑party review; the motion carried, with one member recorded in opposition. The commission requested that its concerns, including John's written six‑point critique, be recorded in the minutes for supervisors and the solicitor to review.

Next steps: the planning commission will forward its recommendation and John's critique to the board of supervisors and ask the township solicitor to detail the due diligence behind the draft; supervisors may still consider or adopt the ordinance at their meeting, but the commission asked that the solicitor's written response be made available to inform that decision.