Plymouth zoning board grants party status to multiple neighbors, continues hearing on proposed Conshohocken data center

The Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board on June 25 established party status for multiple neighbors and local entities in the application by 900 Conshohocken LLC to add a data center in a heavy industrial district and continued the matter to July 28, 2026.

Board solicitor David Sander opened the special hearing, saying the session would be “dedicated solely to establishing the parties in this case,” and that testimony would be taken at subsequent hearings and the board must issue a written decision within 45 days after the hearing record closed. Sander read a written statement from the Colonial School District, which said hosting the meeting “should not be construed as support for the proposed data center.”

Evan Campbell, attorney for the applicant, and Gregory Hollendieck, Plymouth’s solicitor, identified themselves on the record. Attorneys and residents then sought party status. Attorney Joe Clement secured party status for several nearby property interests — including Plymouth Industrial Center Inc. (owner of roughly 104 acres at 707 and 725 Conshohocken Road), Tee’s Golf Center LLC and The Proving Grounds PA LLC — on proximity grounds. The Conshohocken Borough Authority, represented by Michael Dorschneider, was also granted party status citing potential effects on its infrastructure.

Individual property owners and residents who were granted party status included Nick Lierman (624 Fulton Street), Ardis Lukens (508 Conshohocken Road), Lavonne Gregory (631 Old Elm Street), Belinda Gadomski (635 Old Elm Street), Michael Dvorak (1027 Conshohocken Road), Mr. Rakowski (New Elm Street properties), Cassandra and Greg Fusco (510 Old Elm Street), Michelle Hayden (621 Old Alyne Street), Jamie Stilson (661 Fulton Street), David Berger (91 West North Lane) and Genevieve Boland (626 Fulton Street). Several petitioners cited proximity and site‑specific health or property impacts when the board found their concerns sufficiently particularized to qualify for party status. One attendee, Billie (Karen) Coyne, a retired nurse practitioner who lives about a mile away, was denied party status because the board characterized her concerns as generalized rather than particularized to the site; she was invited to offer public comment at the hearing proper.

Residents raised similar concerns during the party‑status presentations: potential air and water pollution, continuous noise from large cooling fans and backup generators, infrasound, impacts on property values and health effects including headaches, insomnia and cardiovascular risk. Natalie Turner, who said she suffers from migraines and insomnia, asked to be a party because she fears noise and air pollution would worsen her condition; the board allowed her party status based on the specific health concerns she described.

Several parties and residents urged the board to require the applicant to provide advance expert disclosures — names, CVs, reports and preliminary opinions — so parties could prepare for cross‑examination. Attorney and community members argued that the application materials provide limited technical detail beyond references to a 2 million square‑foot facility, diesel backup generators and a “closed‑loop” system. Mr. Lierman (spelled in the record as Lierman) and others pressed for additional pre‑hearing information; David Sander and Evan Campbell noted there is no statutory requirement in zoning practice to provide pre‑hearing discovery, though Campbell said he would speak with his client about voluntarily providing expert materials.

On a procedural vote, a motion to continue the hearing to Tuesday, July 28, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. at Colonial Middle School passed (the motion was seconded by Mr. Frangioso). The board also announced a possible second hearing on July 30; that date was described as planned but not finalized. Parties were asked to see Zoning Officer Mr. Rowe before leaving so contact information and exhibit logistics could be compiled and distributed.

What happens next: testimony and evidence will be presented at the continued hearings, during which the applicant will call witnesses and parties of record will have an opportunity to cross‑examine. The Zoning Hearing Board reminded attendees that the hearing is a quasi‑judicial proceeding and decorum requirements will be enforced. The board will issue a written decision within 45 days after the record closes.