Upper Merion planning panel reviews five proposed data centers as residents raise health, environmental and procedural concerns

The Upper Merion Township Planning Commission on May 27 heard a collective preliminary presentation for five land-development applications proposing hyperscale data centers at sites including Renaissance Boulevard, Swedeland Road and 600 River Road, while commissioners and staff flagged missing technical studies and dozens of residents urged thorough independent review.

The applications were presented by Brian O’Neill of MLP Ventures and counsel Edward Campbell. Township Planner Jarrett Lash told the commission the applications had been filed before the Township’s March 12, 2026 data center ordinance and therefore must be reviewed under the zoning rules in effect at filing under the Municipalities Planning Code. "These submissions were filed prior to adoption of the ordinance," Lash said, and the Township will evaluate them under the regulations that applied on the filing dates.

O’Neill and Campbell said the developer will attempt to meet the new ordinance where practicable and described technical features they said would reduce local impacts. O’Neill said the projects would use closed-loop cooling "analogous to an automobile cooling system," would provide on-site alternate power with some excess capacity offered to the grid, and would meet Township noise and lighting requirements. The applicant estimated the smallest building at about 10 megawatts, the largest at about 135 megawatts, and a combined capacity across sites of approximately 900 megawatts; he also asserted the developments would raise Township tax revenue by 54 percent and generate school-district revenue equivalent to 28 percent of district receipts, described in the presentation as about $7,800 per enrolled child per year.

Commissioners and Township staff pressed for documentation the Township said it had not received. Planner Lash noted that Act 537 sewage planning modules in the filings referenced sanitary sewer flows equivalent to 87 EDUs per day, using standardized assumptions of 10 gallons per office employee per day and 35 gallons per non-office employee per day; project engineer Adam Brower said those figures reflect employee sanitary discharge rather than process water. "We have not received documentation describing the closed-loop process water flows," Lash said; the applicant agreed to provide additional information, noise studies, the David Babbitt & Associates financial study referenced at a prior neighborhood meeting, and a Municipal Industrial Pretreatment Program intake survey to help determine whether an industrial discharge permit is required.

Commissioners raised a range of technical and safety concerns. Commissioner Kenneth Brown asked about the lifecycle and disposal of antifreezes and other closed-loop additives, the use and disposal of backup battery systems and fire-suppression water demands, and potential interactions with remaining methane monitoring at a former county landfill underlying the 411 Swedeland Road parcel. O’Neill said connections would be copper and stainless steel, that glycol is likely the cooling medium and that disposal would follow EPA and DEP protocols, and that methane levels have declined though he would verify pad siting and monitoring records.

Noise, particularly low-frequency and infrasound impacts, was a recurring topic. Commissioner Brown and public commenters cited reports of low-frequency complaints near other large data centers; the applicant said extended ambient sound studies had been done and that mitigation would be designed to comply with Township noise standards. "Low-frequency noise travels differently than ordinary audible sound," resident Juliette Dunn said during public comment, citing health effects she attributed to infrasound and presenting a petition opposing the applications.

Environmental and land-use concerns surfaced repeatedly. Commissioners and commenters noted that portions of Renaissance Boulevard parcels sit on capped land within the Keystone Coke Superfund area and asked how construction would maintain cap integrity and comply with EPA restrictions; O’Neill confirmed capped parcels would be managed under applicable EPA requirements and said EPA had recently performed a site walk. Residents and technical commenters also raised questions about stormwater infiltration in karst geology and sinkhole risk, potential air emissions from backup generators or on-site power generation, and the adequacy of local water and wastewater infrastructure should facility operations or decommissioning require treatment beyond what the Township currently provides.

Public comment was extensive. Evelyn Ankers, the Township's elected tax collector, said an entity connected to the applicant had been a significant delinquent taxpayer in the past and urged the developer to satisfy outstanding tax obligations before relying on projected future revenues. Environmental and health professionals among the speakers called for independent noise and public-health assessments, and some advocated a moratorium on hyperscale data center development until statewide or independent reviews are completed. "These are not simply warehouses," said Zach Davis, a scientist appearing in a personal capacity, calling for full rejection of the applications and a statewide moratorium; several other speakers argued the projects function as power plants rather than typical warehouse or office uses.

Chair Mr. Popek emphasized that no approvals were being rendered at the meeting and asked the applicant to provide revised submissions responsive to consultant and Commission comments. The Commission took no formal votes on the applications; the meeting concluded with a procedural motion to adjourn, which passed unanimously. The Commission expects revised plan submissions and additional consultant reviews before any final action is considered.

What happens next: Township staff and consultants will review the additional documentation the applicant has agreed to provide (noise studies, the financial study cited publicly, MIPP intake information, more detailed site-specific engineering and stormwater plans). The applications will return for further Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors review; no dates were set.