Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill letting municipalities pause consideration of data‑center projects
Summary
The House Local Government Committee reported House Bill 2496, as amended, which gives municipalities the option to adopt a 180‑day pause on consideration of hyperscale data‑center applications so local officials can update land‑use rules; an omnibus amendment clarifies retroactivity, scope and timing and was adopted by unanimous recorded vote.
House Bill 2496, sponsored by Representative Friel, would allow a municipality to adopt a temporary pause — up to 180 days — on the consideration of data‑center applications so local governments can review impacts and update land‑use ordinances.
Representative Friel told the committee municipalities face a surge of large data‑center proposals and need ‘‘time to review local conditions, engage residents, and develop appropriate zoning strategies’’ rather than deciding without tailored rules. Committee staff described an omnibus amendment (A03718) that narrows the pause to ‘‘consideration’’ rather than ‘‘submission,’’ expands references from ‘‘zoning ordinance’’ to ‘‘land use ordinance’’ (to include subdivision and land development), prevents Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) statutory time limits from accruing during the pause, shifts retroactivity from publication of the meeting notice to publication of the meeting agenda under the Sunshine Act’s 24‑hour rule, prohibits handling applications not on the meeting agenda by majority‑vote exception, deems applications submitted during the pause received the day after the pause ends, and tailors the definition of ‘‘data center’’ toward hyperscale developments.
Committee members pressed legal and constitutional questions about vested rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Chairman Miller asked whether an applicant who already submitted a land‑development plan would be deprived of constitutional rights if the municipality later adopted a pause. Chairman Freeman and staff responded that the legislation pauses consideration but does not eliminate the applicant’s right to submit or to have the application considered once the pause ends; staff said the bill’s intent is to stop a rush of filings after an agenda is posted and to give municipalities a breathing space to draft appropriate regulations. Legal counsel clarified that an application submitted before a posted agenda would be considered under existing ordinances, while applications submitted after the agenda posting but during the pause would be paused and deemed received after the pause ends.
The committee inserted amendment A03718 by roll‑call vote, recorded as 26 to 0 in favor. Two additional amendments were adopted: A03674 (changing the bill’s effective date from 60 days to immediately) carried on a voice vote after being recommended by PSATS; and A03697 (adding cities of the first class to the definition of municipality so the option would be available statewide) was added by voice vote. Members speaking in favor emphasized local control and the difficulties smaller municipalities face in quickly drafting appropriate ordinances.
The bill, as amended, was reported out of committee for consideration on the House floor. Next steps: HB 2496 will go to the full House for floor consideration and any further amendments there.
Votes at committee: amendment A03718 inserted (recorded vote: 26–0); additional amendments adopted by voice vote; bill reported as amended (voice vote, carried unanimously).
