Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press township to hire experts as data‑center ordinance debate continues
Summary
West Rockhill residents urged supervisors June 17 to slow the review of a proposed data‑center zoning amendment, hire independent technical experts and counsel, and work with a citizens group — arguing the township faces litigation risk and environmental concerns if it moves too quickly.
West Rockhill Township supervisors and residents spent a substantial portion of the June 17 meeting debating how the township should develop its response to proposed data‑center zoning amendments and whether to form a formal township advisory committee or allow a private citizens group to organize.
The planning commission reported it had voted not to recommend adopting the ordinance as drafted, citing concerns the text could be "overly challengeable" and urging the board to "incorporate the technical items raised by Alex" and to consider third‑party legal review, Planning Commission representative Chris Darstine said.
Why it matters: residents and some supervisors said the township is already visible to developers and must avoid drafting regulations that will be struck down in court. Multiple speakers called for hiring independent experts — environmental engineers and counsel with data‑center experience — rather than relying solely on the township solicitor.
"We're on the clock," Ashley Adams, a Ridge Valley Road resident and one of three applicants to the proposed advisory group, told the board. "We did that to ourselves. We, in our haste to pass something that I remember standing here two months ago saying was woefully inadequate. And then we passed it anyway." She and others urged the township to start outreach to specialists now, because draft proposals are publicly visible to developers.
Township staff described two advisory options under review: a formal township committee that would require advertised meetings, agendas and minutes, or a private citizens group that could meet and work more flexibly. Officials recommended permitting a private citizens group to organize independently while using the township manager as a point of contact for submissions from the group.
Supervisors voted to allow residents to organize a private citizens group rather than forming an official township advisory committee; the board said it will not adopt the draft township resolution and will rely on the manager to receive and forward any citizen proposals.
What residents want: community speakers urged a parallel approach — standing up a citizens group quickly while the township concurrently contracts for specialized review. Several called for the township to "farm out" work to consultants who understand data‑center operations, environmental impacts and the novel legal questions these projects raise, rather than trying to draft defenses at the solicitor's office alone.
Technical clarification requested: when appellants' land‑use proposals are discussed, speakers and planning commission members asked for clearer building‑height definitions, wastewater and flow mapping, and careful restrictions on outdoor storage and truck circulation to protect residential neighbors.
Next steps: the board indicated the currently advertised second version of the ordinance is scheduled for consideration at the July meeting; residents and the planning commission said any subsequent revisions should be informed by independent technical and legal review. The manager will serve as the point of contact for any materials the private citizens group wishes to submit to the township.
Attribution: quotes in this article are from participants who identified themselves in the meeting record. The planning commission concerns came through in the commission report; residents and applicants made the direct appeals during public comment.
