Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables data-center zoning ordinance for revisions and re-advertising
Summary
After a public hearing and detailed staff review, Norristown council voted to table Ordinance 26-04 (data centers in the Heavy Industrial District) and directed staff to incorporate county and planning-commission recommendations and re-advertise a revised draft for another public hearing.
Norristown Municipal Council voted on July 21 to table Ordinance 26-04, a proposed zoning regulation that would govern data centers in the borough’s Heavy Industrial District, and directed staff to incorporate planning-commission and county recommendations before re-advertising the ordinance for another public hearing. The public hearing drew several residents and technical commenters urging strong definitions and impact studies.
Vincent Papa, who led the staff presentation, said the draft ordinance establishes definitions, conditional-use review, and standards for setbacks, building height, coverage, energy and water use, noise, emergency response, decommissioning and public information. "We went deep with this one," Papa said, noting that Montgomery County Planning Commission (MCPC) recommended clarifications to definitions, acreage thresholds, and screening and buffering requirements. Staff and counsel recommended revising the draft so it will be more legally defensible and clearer for applicants.
Residents at the hearing urged protections. Caden Beagle, a Norristown resident with IT experience, urged that the borough "clearly define what a data center is" and require impact studies for power, water and noise. Olivia Brady, a longtime resident, cautioned council not to overvalue job promises from developers, saying that "aside from construction, once it's in place there is not a whole lot of employment that is going to be available at that center." Several council members raised concerns that some setback and acreage limits in the draft might make legitimate sites infeasible or invite legal challenge if left unrefined.
Municipal counsel recommended closing the hearing, tabling the ordinance on the agenda and authorizing staff to prepare amendments incorporating the planning-commission and county comments for re-advertising. Council made the motion to table and re-advertise, and the motion carried. The council instructed staff to bring a revised draft and return it to the public for comment before final action.
What happens next: staff will draft revisions that respond to MCPC and local planning-commission feedback, advertise changes, and schedule another public hearing before council considers adoption.
