Residents urge South Whitehall board to reject proposed Atlas hyperscale data center near Parkland High School

Residents pressed the South Whitehall Township Board of Commissioners on July 15 to deny a proposed hyperscale data center they say would harm Parkland High School and surrounding neighborhoods.

Greg Sussman, representing the South Whitehall Civic Alliance, told the board he believes the developer and its consultants have "been running a playbook" to "manipulate the process," and cited images taken from a township staff member's phone and the company's subsequent firing of that employee as evidence of troubling conduct. "They don't see us as community partners or stakeholders," Sussman said, urging the board to consider safety and community impacts.

Kathy Bruno, a longtime resident, described the developer's presentation as "full of misdirection, scare tactic[s], misinformation, and lies by omission," and raised specific technical and safety concerns she said were omitted, including noise, continuous construction, water use, closed-loop cooling chemicals and large diesel storage for backup power. "Were you aware, like I wasn't, when completed, that there would be hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel stored on the property to run their 2,000 generators for backup power and maintenance? This alone is an amazing hazard," she said. Bruno also warned the project would depress property values and harm the high school's reputation.

Several other residents raised site-specific questions: Mary Anne Bobbin reported seeing surveyors in 2025 and asked whether the township has investigated nearby underground pipeline easements; staff said pipeline owners (for example, Sunoco) would need to be engaged and that required clearance and PA One coordination would be part of project review. Katie Onomis, a chemical engineer who said she is considering moving to the township, asked how many times a developer may resubmit plans and whether the board could reject technically approvable plans based on public opposition.

Township manager Tom Petrucci and board members described the procedural timeline and legal constraints. Petrucci said Atlas submitted revised plans on July 9 and the township deemed them administratively complete July 13. "The township has now initiated its third highly rigorous review of those plans," he said, adding engineers' comments would be posted by Aug. 7, the planning commission is scheduled for Aug. 13 and the board could consider the plan on Aug. 19 to meet an Aug. 31 statutory deadline. Petrucci underscored that the township must base any denial on legal grounds that will withstand appeal, and that staff retain consultants to evaluate technical issues.

Residents and board members also discussed potential state action. The board cited Senate Bill 1345 — which staff said passed committee 10–1 — as legislation that, if enacted, could allow an 18‑month moratorium on projects like Atlas; board members urged residents to contact state legislators about that bill.

What's next: township engineers will post review comments by Aug. 7; the planning commission meets Aug. 13; the board could act Aug. 19. The meeting materials and submitted plans are available on the township website.

Ending: The public comment portion of the meeting concluded with repeated calls from residents for greater transparency, more detailed environmental and safety answers from the applicant and for the board to ensure any decision has clear legal and technical justification.