Limerick supervisors continue data‑center hearing after parties object to late exhibits; applicant to post materials before July 21

The Limerick Township Board of Supervisors voted to continue a conditional‑use hearing on a proposed data‑center campus and scheduled the next session for July 21 at 6:30 p.m. at the township building after parties raised procedural and technical objections to exhibits introduced at the meeting.

Chair Cheryl Lawson opened the session and urged attendees to “remember that we are neighbors and members of the same community,” saying the board’s responsibility was “to conduct a fair and orderly hearing under the law and to build a complete and accurate record.” Solicitor Sean Kilkenny reminded participants that witnesses are sworn and the stenographer’s transcript will be the record for any appeals.

The evening turned to procedural disputes after the applicant presented a set of demonstrative exhibits labeled 7 through 12, including an alternate site schematic and excerpts from the county parcel database. Opposing counsel, Miss McKenna, objected to Exhibit 7 as not being part of the original application and questioned whether the document had been available for public review. The applicant’s representative said the exhibits were demonstrative and useful for redirect testimony but agreed the documents should be shared in advance so parties can prepare meaningful cross‑examination.

“Mr. Magnotta will be recalled, and all parties will have an opportunity to cross‑examine him based on his subsequent testimony,” Kilkenny said, after parties asked to reserve rights to recall witnesses. Resident and party‑status participant Joshua Mangle told the board he had not received the new documentation in time and reserved the right to recall witnesses, saying, “this hearing was posted in plenty enough time, Mr. Campbell came unprepared. It did not supply everybody with the new documentation, so I reserve the right to recall anybody I need to after I receive those documents.”

Substantive testimony at the meeting focused on site design, utilities and environmental safeguards. The project manager, who identified himself as overseeing the site‑plan work, testified that final equipment details — including chiller and generator models, noise and emissions — will be addressed by the data‑center operator and specialty consultants. He said operational fuel‑storage systems would require permits and spill‑prevention control plans and that any on‑site fuel storage would need double containment and Department of Environmental Protection oversight.

Board members pressed the project team on numbers that have been discussed publicly: one witness referenced 402 chillers; another part of the hearing referenced a figure of 306 (discussed in the meeting as a generator count). The project manager repeatedly deferred to the data‑center operator for precise operational assumptions, saying those technical experts will testify at a later date.

Anthony Maras, the project principal for the applicant, reviewed the land‑assembly history and power studies for the site. He said the project began with a roughly 117‑acre parcel known in the record as the Boyd tract and that the developer subsequently acquired adjacent properties that had been held by the Tornetta family and affiliates. Maras told the board a preliminary PECO study and a high‑voltage interconnection feasibility study indicated roughly 750 megawatts of potential capacity near the site.

Maras also described prior commitments tied to roadway changes: the Tornetta‑era development concept included vacating Possum Hollow Road and building a Longview Road extension, and Maras said MCD 7 agreed to honor commitments to construct Longview and associated escrows to ensure the work would be completed.

To ensure parties had adequate time to prepare, the applicant agreed to provide electronic copies of exhibits 7–12 and any expert CVs at least 10 days before the July 21 hearing; the township said it would post the materials online and assemble a distribution list. The board then moved to continue the hearing and recorded a roll‑call: Miss Schueller, Dr. Walraven, Mr. Maroney and Chair Lawson all voted “Aye,” and the motion passed.

The hearing record will resume on July 21, when the board plans to allow additional cross‑examination of recalled witnesses based on the newly distributed exhibits and expert materials.