[0:19] Good luck. >> Yeah. Are you guys set?

[0:22] » All right. Going to call the meeting to order. Thank you everyone for coming

[0:26] out. Uh, first thing on the agenda is approval of our meeting in August.

[0:32] Any corrections, concerns? >> I'm good.

[0:36] » I have none. >> Get a motion to approve.

[0:42] » One second. >> Okay. So, Andy made it. Alex second. All

[0:45] in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.

[0:49] All right. So, what do we got? Uh, pending next rule here.

[0:54] » Actually, you don't between when I prepared this and now we've

[0:58] received extensions for these projects.

[1:06] I made extension for 109 and for FO. >> That's right.

[1:11] » Yeah. And I got one from Tim Snider for the green top.

[1:14] » All righty. All right. So, we'll move forward. Uh,

[1:19] Fasco Heckler.

[1:29] » Uh, good evening. I'm Brian Folk with COC Design Group. Um, here tonight talk

[1:34] about the Fusco Heckler subdivision. Um, have a couple handouts here. May

[1:39] help it. I got

[1:45] » Thank you.

[1:49] » [laughter]

[1:51] » Yeah, that actually helps. >> Thanks.

[2:02] All right. So, um, this project is is actually a I call it an lot annexation.

[2:09] We're just basically moving lot lines around. There's three existing parcels

[2:13] and there's going to be three parcels when we're finished. Um

[2:20] there there's two parcels out along uh Forest Avenue. Um that's I'll refer to

[2:26] the green parcel, that's the Fusco lot. Um and then the light yellow one will be

[2:31] the Heckler lot. And then the the pink lot I'll refer to as the Real Pro lot.

[2:38] Um so um kind of working our way around here as you see the the the the um busco

[2:45] lot. It's existing 10 acre parcel. It has an existing home on it with access

[2:51] out the forest. Um what we're proposing to do is to take um a portion of the

[2:58] land and convey it to the Heckler parcel right next door. Um that's the darker

[3:02] yellow area. Um and as well as a portion of the land in the rear which is in in

[3:09] dark pink and convey that over to what will be the real prolot in the end. Um,

[3:16] so that that parcel is going to go from 10 acres to about just under six and a

[3:20] half, 6.43 acres, uh, in the end. Um, then the Heckler lot is is the, uh,

[3:26] light yellow one. Um, that has an existing home on it. Um, currently it's

[3:32] an ex existing non-conforming lot. The the home is located um, too close to the

[3:38] existing property line. Uh, so it's considered an existing non-conforming

[3:43] uh, structure. Um, by conveying that parcel over, we will eliminate that

[3:48] nonconformity and and improve that issue. Uh, so it would no longer be

[3:52] non-conforming. Um, and then so it's going to take the

[3:57] dark yellow in and then it's going to convey.

[4:01] » Can you point to any color?

[4:07] Oh, you got Oh, sorry. Sorry. You're good.

[4:14] Um and then uh the pink area in the back um of the Heckler lot is also going to

[4:19] get conveyed to the Real Pro. So that's a 10acre lot that's going to be reduced

[4:23] down to 4.7 when it's finished. Um and then the Real Pro lot is is not

[4:28] conveying any land out. It's just accepting parcels from both Heckler and

[4:32] Fusco. And it's originally was 15.3 acres and it's going to be a little over

[4:38] 24 and a half acres when it's finished. Um, so again, the the the intent here is

[4:44] just to move some lot lines around. Um, the reason we're here doing this now and

[4:50] not part of any other plan is there's an contractual agreements with with the fus

[4:56] um that require us to get things moving along and get finished and get the

[5:00] settlement by a certain date. So, we need to move forward to to meet those

[5:05] obligations. So that's the purpose of this um going through this process here

[5:10] independent of of the full development plans um that everybody's aware are are

[5:15] being worked on. Um we did receive a review letter from Steve's office um

[5:22] back in June I believe it was. We did resubmit plans. Um I don't think there

[5:27] were any issues in that from our from our end. They were will comply. We did

[5:32] not receive an updated letter letter yet from Steve, but I don't have any uh real

[5:37] concerns that that there's anything in there of substance. Um I'm sure Steve

[5:41] will will speak up here if he has any concerns. Um

[5:44] » I guess just to clarify, I had a larger comment here about sewage

[5:49] planning modules. I think I saw just saw an email from you that D has confirmed

[5:54] that they're not going to require sewage planning.

[5:57] » That's correct. We got an email this morning finalizing that because there's

[6:01] existing dwellings on the properties and there's no new development, no sewage

[6:04] planning is required. >> Follow up on that.

[6:10] We've asked several times in the past for some kind of master plan for sewage

[6:17] planning for the entire subdivision. that is

[6:23] this property, the adjoining properties, the ones out on Lawn Avenue. We just

[6:28] want to see how all of that is going to be tied into Penridge Regional.

[6:34] » Yeah, that's I mean, again, that's not for discussion here tonight. We're just

[6:38] talking about the adjustments for these parcels. There's no development. There's

[6:42] no proposed sewer. There's there's nothing along

[6:46] » this is in process to getting to a much bit

[6:52] larger development >> potentially, but I mean we're in a lot

[6:55] of discussions with the township and the local authorities to to work all those

[6:59] details out. This is just there's three three lots and there's going to be three

[7:04] lots when we're finished. So, they exist.

[7:06] » Is is the real pro property part of the larger subdivision? Uh, the real pro

[7:13] will be part of that subdivision. Yes. All right.

[7:15] » How about the heckler property? >> Uh, no. I don't believe in the end it

[7:19] will be. >> And the real pro is partially in the

[7:24] village and partially in the RA. Is that how I read that?

[7:29] » That's correct. The the zoning line runs right along the

[7:34] back of that the dark red. >> I got you.

[7:40] What is that diagonal mean? >> What was that diagonal line from? That's

[7:44] the existing track lines from well before we were involved.

[7:52] » Any problem conveying land out of RA into the VR?

[7:57] » Not changing the zone? >> No,

[7:59] » just moving the lot line. >> Correct. John's correct there. The

[8:04] zoning two are the same and just >> and what's going on with the two. So you

[8:10] got a medium yellow and you got a lighter yellow green. What's what's

[8:14] going on there? Like with the whole >> the darker yellow is just going to be

[8:17] conveyed from the fusco parcel to the heckler. It's going to be now owned by

[8:20] Heckler. It one of the big benefits there is it eliminates the need for the

[8:24] the the existing house on Heckler is right up against the property line. So

[8:28] it doesn't meet the sideyard setback. So that whole yellow is going to go to

[8:32] » correct >> lot well lot one

[8:35] » that's correct

[8:42] » um one of the waivers was for that correct

[8:47] » uh the well there's there's one waiver request having to do with existing

[8:51] vegetation um I guess locating trees over 6 in

[8:55] caliper or whatever similar to what we did on the the fisher track There's no

[9:00] construction, there's no disturbance. So, we're asking for that waiver. As far

[9:03] as road improvements go, we were um asking for the deferral. Um

[9:09] » Okay. So, similar to what was done with that property.

[9:12] » I always forget, >> but around the corner on Fisher on Mount

[9:16] » Fisher. Yes, >> that's Fisher. The next one down

[9:18] » the treatment plant. That wasn't Fisher. >> Fisher.

[9:21] » Yeah, that's Fisher. >> Fisher is the pump station.

[9:23] » I'm getting >> up on Mountain View.

[9:26] » Mountain View. >> Yep. So, similar to that one there,

[9:29] you'd be asking for a deferral or covenant on a lot when the larger

[9:33] subdivision if and when the larger subdivision proceeds it that will get

[9:38] revisited. >> Correct.

[9:40] » Yeah, understood. >> So, I didn't list that as a waiver. I

[9:44] think it's just a deferral. I think it's the

[9:50] » Is there any other concerns from you, Steve?

[9:57] No, I just wanted to I I actually I have a draft letter for the new law, but then

[10:02] it became too late for this meeting, so I didn't want to issue it and confuse

[10:07] what letters got distributed. >> I figured

[10:09] » I just want to look at that quick. I don't think there was anything on there.

[10:19] No, there'll be a lot of deeds of consolidation and whatnot that will be

[10:22] by your attorney which is a confirmation for the township.

[10:26] » No, I have no other issues because there's no construction on

[10:29] » construction.

[10:32] » All right. Any discussion for you fellas?

[10:44] If not, uh, any public comment on this project?

[10:50] If you have some, please come up to the microphone.

[10:54] » All right. Seeing none, we'll move forward. Uh,

[10:57] » you want to get up, come on up. Uh, give me your name and address when you get up

[11:00] here, please. Please speak into the microphone.

[11:04] » Harry Costic, 111 and 117 Holiday House Road. um keep on moving these ahead,

[11:10] which is fine and that's what has to be done. But we do we get any improvements

[11:14] on the intersection up here or any drawings that you've been asking for for

[11:18] the the main intersection where all these developments are coming together?

[11:23] » Not that I'm aware of, but >> Well, that's we're having a lot of

[11:26] problems with all the other developments. Outrage Road. The

[11:29] traffic's getting so bad and and I understand if they had the right if if

[11:33] it's legally in in our code and they have the right to build these, but we

[11:36] can't have a [clears throat] bottleneck. We only have one one from the hospital

[11:40] done and the other three aren't. So, we really need this should be addressed,

[11:44] not when everything's rearranged and ready to go.

[11:47] » I I think that you know everything's still in a planning stage once things

[11:51] get rolling. >> Yeah. Well, you're rejocking everything

[11:53] around to make it in a planning stage to make it bigger and make it work. So

[11:58] anyhow, just >> there is a point in the process where

[12:00] there has to be a traffic stud. Yeah, we're just not to

[12:03] » but they've been talking about that for 6 months a year now too,

[12:06] » probably even longer. It may still be six months from now. But

[12:09] » so it's a problem and as long as it you know as long as it's addressed that's

[12:13] fine but it has to be addressed. >> It will be addressed forever.

[12:17] » Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else?

[12:23] » All right thoughts from you guys. So, you're looking for a waiver.

[12:30] » Yes. >> And a deferral.

[12:32] » A waiver. A deferral. And then a recommendation on the plan. That's

[12:36] » right. Any comments on the waiver.

[12:43] » It makes sense. Any any concerns with the waiver?

[12:48] » No. >> No.

[12:49] » How about the deferral? >> It makes sense to me as well. Yes.

[12:56] [clears throat] >> All right. So, let's uh take a vote on

[12:59] the waiver. So, we can recommend that.

[13:06] We want to make a motion to approve the waiver.

[13:11] » Make a motion to approve the waiver for section 365-8

[13:18] for the existing vegetation. >> I'll second. All in favor? I opposed.

[13:25] Motion carries. All right. So, you got your waiver. We need to vote on the

[13:28] deferral as well. >> You can make that part of your

[13:32] conditions of the plan of >> All right.

[13:36] All right. So, are we [clears throat] satisfied to make a recommendation with

[13:41] this?

[13:45] I I don't see anything tripping us up at this point.

[13:59] So nobody has any comment. I would look for a motion to recommend conditional

[14:04] approval.

[14:11] » I'll make said motion.

[14:15] » Second. >> We got it.

[14:19] » Andy got the second. All right. All in favor?

[14:22] » I car. [clears throat]

[14:25] » Okay. Thank you. You got it.

[14:41] » All I needed was a color map. [laughter] >> It helped.

[14:48] » Yes. All right. So, next will be Pen Valley

[14:55] representation. Are you the representation?

[15:00] » I'm Phil Durststein, an employee of Pen Valley Gas. Um, representing the Bulmer

[15:06] family or Bulmer Farms property. I don't know if you had a picture up there. Um,

[15:11] we want to I didn't print out anything. I didn't know if you had anything from

[15:15] Cynthia from Horizon Engineer. >> Yes.

[15:20] Um, we would like just to on our plot plan, we would like to increase one of

[15:26] the building sizes by 476 ft. We would like to make an employee room onto one

[15:32] of our storage buildings. And so the area around where we're building on top

[15:38] of is already impervious surface. It's a a stone area there uh that we don't

[15:44] really use for um anything there. And so we thought we would want to build just

[15:50] an employee room there. So that's basically what I'm just asking for.

[15:54] » So we don't have a for

[15:59] » all right >> on the map. It's

[16:02] » you have the the storage tanks the >> right

[16:05] » up on township line, >> right? It's the upper part up there

[16:09] where we have about three storage buildings up there.

[16:13] » Right. Are all those buildings built? >> They're all built. Yes. Okay.

[16:18] » It says on the on the schedule given that there's proposed storage building.

[16:23] » I can [clears throat] explain that. >> Okay.

[16:25] » Thank you. >> For ease of processing this application,

[16:29] we chose to have them go through it as a amended final plan. So

[16:36] instead of starting the process over for a new waiver of land development, this

[16:41] goes through more steps. So some of those things that are listed proposed

[16:44] because they were proposed on the original final plan.

[16:47] » This is a 2019 plan. >> Yeah.

[16:50] » Well, no, it was even earlier than that. >> The very first

[16:55] » 2005 is probably when it was started. >> Yeah.

[16:59] » That's when the first building went >> and then 2015

[17:04] » 15 >> maybe. Yeah.

[17:06] » And then we did one last year. >> Right. So that's why some of the things

[17:12] they proposed on it because it's carryover from the old plan.

[17:16] » So it's a little 34 by 14. >> Yeah.

[17:21] » The I call it a lean to onto the one end of the building, but it's Yeah. I have a

[17:28] foundation under. We just find that instead of having everybody come down to

[17:33] the office, we thought we would keep a lot of the truck drivers and

[17:38] delivery guys up top there. >> Right.

[17:43] » All right. So, it doesn't sound like it's a major deal, right?

[17:48] » No, it doesn't impact parking because you're not talking about new employees.

[17:51] It doesn't impact storm water >> because you're

[17:54] » sewer, water, any of that. >> That's now on public sewer. where way

[17:58] back when this started, the site was all on on lot sewer,

[18:02] » right? But yeah, we have public sewer now.

[18:04] » Public sewer >> and we're not adding any bathrooms or

[18:07] anything. >> You're not put any bathrooms on the

[18:09] employee room? >> No, it's basically for like employee

[18:12] boxes and for like there's computers that they they've been doing it inside

[18:17] the storage building, >> right?

[18:19] » It's just dirty. And so we're going to just make it and there'll be a little

[18:23] kitchenet in there. >> All right.

[18:28] Is there so we just looking for a waiver of land development here?

[18:31] » No, you're approving an amendment to the final plan.

[18:36] » Oh, okay. >> All right. Um discussion with you guys.

[18:41] I think >> is the stone that's there is that um

[18:45] impervious already? >> Yes.

[18:50] » Is it stone or is it paved? >> It's stone. It's um modified packed.

[18:55] » That's impervious. Yeah.

[19:00] » Yeah. I mean, I don't have a problem with this.

[19:04] » All right. >> All right. Somebody want to make a

[19:06] motion. What are we doing again? Amending the

[19:09] » amending the Oh, sorry. >> Amending our plans. Yeah.

[19:12] » Any public comment on this project? I'm sorry.

[19:15] All right. See? None. So, it's an amended. Say it again.

[19:21] » Final plan. I motion that we amend the final plan to include this break room.

[19:26] » I'll second. >> All right. All in favor?

[19:29] » I opposed. Motion carries. >> Thank you very much.

[19:31] » You got it. >> I'm sorry. Your name again?

[19:35] » Okay. Thank you. >> I don't know. [laughter]

[19:39] » I don't want to say anything. I have to somewhere

[19:44] go back on one, I guess. >> All right. So, next on the agenda is

[19:52] I know what it is. I hold business. I lost my agenda.

[19:59] Never mind. Thanks. I got two. Probably have three. All right. Old business. Uh,

[20:04] anyone have any old business?

[20:09] This question was answered before the meeting. So, all right. So, new business

[20:12] would be the uh proposed amendment to the ordinance. uh the data center

[20:19] ordinance. Um John, I know you have a lot to talk about, but we'll take care

[20:24] of a couple things. First, um is there anyone here from that group that put

[20:29] this together?

[20:33] » I was going to thank them, but I I will to that group. Thank you for

[20:38] putting this together. The >> video, right?

[20:42] I know it probably required a lot of a lot of work. So appreciate their

[20:47] efforts. Um we did get review from Bucks County. We got a review from our

[20:53] what are we calling Tom Kitta planner.

[20:58] Um Bucks County didn't seem to have any issues with it. Um or planner. I wasn't

[21:06] print that. He had a couple of suggestions.

[21:11] Um,

[21:14] » you want to talk about those first? Come on in.

[21:20] » He hit some of these same issues that I did. So,

[21:23] » right. >> So, what I what I'd like to do if we're

[21:28] not going to have any more discussion about the planners review, John, I know

[21:34] you you put a lot of work into it. Um, I want to give you the floor to go through

[21:39] what your your comments are. Um, what I'm going to suggest though, we'll have

[21:45] some discussion on your your thoughts, your comments. What I'm going to suggest

[21:49] is we table this, ask that your comments get reviewed by either the planner or or

[21:58] solicitor or another attorney. Um, not that I don't trust you, but I don't

[22:05] think you're you're a specialist on everything that you touched on.

[22:10] Does that make sense to you? >> Well, I I guess

[22:14] so. You're not going to let me go through?

[22:16] » No, I'm going to let Yeah. No, I want you to go through it. We'll have some

[22:19] discussion on it, but I I I would like it to be reviewed by another

[22:22] professional. >> Oh, absolutely.

[22:24] » Before we make any decisions on it. >> And And that's I would agree to that. I

[22:29] would propose that. Does that does that make sense?

[22:31] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Whatever you do, don't trust me.

[22:33] Let me just [laughter] show I don't know how many degrees you

[22:37] have. [laughter] >> Uh so anyway, um if you want to let me I

[22:43] couldn't print out your 32 pages, so I got to follow it on this.

[22:48] Um >> so the good news is I wasn't going to go

[22:51] through all 32 pages. >> Oh, awesome.

[22:54] » But I put together a four-page summary. >> I was going to go through

[22:57] » You gonna hand it out to everybody? >> I'll hand that out to everybody. So

[23:05] » all right.

[23:23] So, as I mentioned the Yeah, that that darn Gregie threw me for a loop because

[23:27] I was all ready. I had my agenda all set and I open my email this morning and I

[23:32] see the thing from the planners. [laughter]

[23:34] » Stole your phone. >> You didn't steal it. actually he um

[23:40] he verified several of the points that I made and I I have a sheet to talk

[23:45] because I only was able to briefly try to put together a comparison between

[23:48] what he said and what I said and that as we're going along but I'll I'll

[23:54] start on my review before reviewing the individual

[23:58] sections. This review is grounded strictly in the fundamental pillars of

[24:02] constitutional law known as Dylan's rule. Doctrine of state legislative

[24:07] supremacy over municipal governments as established by the Pennsylvania Supreme

[24:12] Court in landmark cases like Commonwealth versus Moore from 1901,

[24:17] Klein versus Harrisburg in 1949. The township possesses zero inherent

[24:22] sovereign power. is strictly a creature of the commonwealth and can only

[24:26] exercise the specific land use powers explicitly granted to it by the state

[24:32] legislature through the Pennsylvania municipal Pennsylvania municipal

[24:36] planning code. If a township passes a zoning mandate that goes beyond those

[24:40] explicitly authorized powers, such as trying to regulate regional electricity

[24:45] rates or override the uniform state building code, the courts must rule

[24:49] against the municipality and strike down the text as an act completely beyond our

[24:54] legal powers. We can see a modern example of this

[24:58] boundary right here in our community. In the fall 2026 township newsletter,

[25:03] Supervisor Kaiser stated the board of supervisors formally adopted resolution

[25:08] 2026, which strongly supports Pennsylvania

[25:12] House Bill 2533. This amendment to the municipal planning

[25:16] code would empower local governments to implement a temporary moratorum on

[25:21] massive data centers, giving municipalities the necessary time to

[25:26] update zoning ordinance and protection laws against sorry and protect local

[25:31] electric grids, water resources, and emergency services.

[25:35] As Chairman Kaiser correctly stated, our current municipal span of control holds

[25:40] strict binding limits. The board explicitly recognized that we currently

[25:44] lack statutory power to regulate regional electric infrastructure.

[25:49] My technical revision simply brings ordinance 260 into legal alignment with

[25:54] the exact statutory boundary that the board of supervisors already public

[25:58] acknowledge we must follow. Why include wording in a local ordinance that

[26:02] assumes we remain that we maintain such authority if we are actively asking the

[26:08] state to grant us that same authority. The standard administrative updates

[26:12] below are designed to ensure our ordinance aligns perfectly with

[26:16] Pennsylvania law, protecting the citizens strong environmental and noise

[26:20] goals within litigation proof shield. One week prior to tonight's meeting, I

[26:26] submitted a full review of this ordinance of ordinance 260 and a revised

[26:30] copy of the ordinance to the township manager, township solicitor, and the

[26:35] planning commission members, which I trust you have all read. Those documents

[26:40] I request be included in the final minutes of tonight's meeting, which I

[26:43] have a copy of here. What I'll read here is a brief summary of that review and

[26:47] the proposed changes to ordinance 260. This goes fairly quick from here. The

[26:54] preamble cleans up text to prevent version stacking loopholes between the

[26:58] different ordinance drafts. Section A, use rules clarifies the statutory role

[27:04] the zoning hearing board. Section B, accessory structures, distinguishes

[27:08] everyday sheds and trash enclosures from multi-megawatt generator yards and

[27:12] hybrid substations. That's one of the things that the the planner cited on in

[27:18] his report. Section C on lot size. This is the big

[27:22] restores the baseline to 25 acres. The 35 acre shift was made without map

[27:27] analysis because our zoning map has zero vacant contiguous 35 acre parcels left

[27:33] in the PI district. The 35 acre rule functions as an uncondition

[27:38] unconstitutional total ban. Even if a specific applicant manages to merge

[27:43] smaller tracks, the standard remains legally invalid because it creates an

[27:48] unorthodized monopoly for one developer while maintaining an unconstitutional de

[27:53] facto total ban for every other land owner in the district. So, my analogy of

[27:58] that is if you see a sign saying iPhones, brand new iPhone, 35% off, and

[28:03] you go into the store and say, I'd like one of those 35% off iPhones. I'm sorry,

[28:08] we don't have any. When are you going to get them more in? No, we're not going to

[28:11] get any more in. How many did you have originally? Well, we didn't have any

[28:14] originally. We call that false advertising. This is like the legal

[28:19] coral area that you're saying you got to have 35 acres to build a data center,

[28:23] but oh, by the way, we don't have any 35acre lots for you to choose.

[28:27] I put wording in there that I think straightens that out, but again,

[28:31] somebody else needs to look at it. >> Can I comment on that?

[28:33] » Yes. >> I mean, we do have obviously we have one

[28:37] » that they're they're trying to build a data center on now.

[28:42] » It's 38, isn't it? >> 25.

[28:46] » 38. >> There's [clears throat] two lots.

[28:47] » Yeah. >> Together, they might be 38,

[28:49] » but individually they're not. >> So, they can combine them. But if you

[28:55] pass the ordinance says it's required to be 35, you not only blocked out anybody

[28:59] else, but you've created this artificial monopoly saying you let one guy through,

[29:04] but you can't let anybody else through. The ordinance has got to be designed for

[29:07] the whole township, not just for one applicant.

[29:12] » Well,

[29:15] again, I'm not a lawyer. [laughter] But

[29:18] » you did stay the holiday. But I did say the holiday.

[29:23] Um, we do have I mean what's what's the vary property size? I mean they they

[29:29] could very well turn around and say you know warehouses the appetite is weighing

[29:33] for a warehouse. Let's put a data center there. That's that's over 35 acres.

[29:39] » I don't know. I'm pretty sure >> I looked I found there were total there

[29:44] were there were when I read the map there were three that I found and I went

[29:47] into Google Earth and I found buildings on all three of them. I don't know one

[29:51] of I don't know who they all belong to, but

[29:54] they're they were already developed >> and like you know like we're seeing

[29:59] that question and each acquire property to get the desired amount of property

[30:04] they need. I mean they they can buy contiguous lots parcels

[30:11] from what I understand my reading of the rule is that's still a violation forcing

[30:16] them to do that.

[30:21] All right. Well, let's let legal look at that one.

[30:23] » Yes. But those are my thoughts on and I understand.

[30:27] Section D, acoustic and noise measurements irons out a hidden

[30:31] contradiction where section S of the draft permits 55 dB while section D

[30:36] limits it to 25 instead of 45. Because decibb are logarithmic, a 10dB gap

[30:43] allows the facility to run twice as loud at night. PA law dictates all text

[30:48] contradictions must be resolved in favor of the developer.

[30:53] That was also one of the items that um planner identified and I like my answer

[30:59] better. Of course, also under enforcement tools, changed a should to

[31:04] shall, which makes testing protocols mandatory, isolates background traffic

[31:08] noises, removes the Y20 DBA generator testing loophole, requires high

[31:15] precision ANC type 1 research instruments instead of loose consumer

[31:20] meters. Section E for loading docks increases

[31:24] off- streetet loading births to prevent heavy 18-wheelers from idling or staging

[31:29] on public roads. Section F, this is another biggie,

[31:33] replaces the vague opinion-based phrasing with objective will serve

[31:36] capacity letters from utility providers. removes the groundwater extraction ban

[31:42] and regional electricity infrastructure expansion demands as water allocation

[31:47] and transmission facilities are strictly and exclusively jurisdiction of the

[31:53] Pennsylvania sorry of the PJM interconnection, the Delaware River

[31:56] Basin Commission and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

[32:02] In all the ver all the drafts of all the different ordinance I've read, nobody

[32:06] has touched electricity infrastructure or electricity rates. And I believe as I

[32:11] said here, it's it's not in our jurisdiction to touch those things. It's

[32:16] handled by others. Section G for utility lines clarifies

[32:21] underground line placement through rules and fuzzy wording. First responders.

[32:26] Section H removes uninforceable training fee demands and subjective livestock

[32:31] wording to ensure full compliance with the state building code. Mrs. Olirri's

[32:36] cow passed away. You can't assume it's the data center's fault.

[32:40] The height baseline adjusts the measurement rule to account for slope

[32:43] topographies preventing massive visual walls on downward slopes. This is

[32:48] something I think we we should take a look at across the board. This was the

[32:51] uh you know the cold storage facility issue that we

[32:56] » saying we need >> we've had plenty of discussion on that.

[32:59] » Yes. >> Section J landscape buffer strengthens

[33:02] the screening by mandating high impact type three industrial buffers and

[33:06] continue with sixoot earth and BMS. That was also one of the issues that the

[33:10] planner addressed. Section K lighting enhances criteria to establish net

[33:14] ambient trespass limits and shields neighbors from downward slope glare.

[33:20] Section L, signage corrects formatting flaws regarding emergency contact

[33:24] postings. Section M, cooling systems as

[33:27] requirement for closed loop cooling infrastructure to be in strict

[33:31] compliance with the mechanical and pressure containment standards of the

[33:35] Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code, the American Society of Heating,

[33:39] Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineering Standards.

[33:43] Halfway there. Section N environmental impacts deletes

[33:47] the subjective unmeasurable smell test for diesel exhaust and replaces with an

[33:52] objective 7 to1 all factor meter limit. Section O hydraological standards

[33:58] hydraological safeguards strips out an unconstitutional presumed guilty

[34:03] liability clause that would collapse in court. replaced it with mandatory

[34:08] network of three on-site monitoring wells with live telemetry data logging

[34:13] to automatically protect residential water tables. So the wording in there

[34:17] before was, you know, if somebody's well runs dry, we assume it's the data

[34:21] center's fault. What I'm proposing here is that the data center would have to

[34:25] install test wells with real time monitoring to monitor the the water

[34:31] level in those in those test wells. And from there would be able to better

[34:36] gather whether it was indeed the data center that caused somebody else's well

[34:40] run dry or some other issue.

[34:46] Section P construction hours removes fuzzy wording that gave the township

[34:49] manager absolute personal discretion to change operating hours locking down a

[34:54] non-negotiable construction timeline limited strictly to public safety

[34:58] emergencies. Section Q, this is another one. converts

[35:02] the rigid solar building requirement into a progressive zoning incentive. The

[35:07] original text force the placement of solar panel hardware would lack the

[35:11] legal mechanism to compel its connection or use.

[35:15] Section R, battery rules removes the unconstitutional chemical material ban

[35:19] on lithium-ion batteries. Substitute strict containment setbacks with

[35:23] mandatory NFPA 855 explosion venting code enforcement.

[35:30] Section S, backup generator testing and use, irons out the dangerous

[35:34] contradiction which section D required strict noise compliance. Yet section S,

[35:38] need a blank check to bypass noise caps during outages.

[35:42] What I propose in here is that the the restriction is 45. No matter what,

[35:47] whether it's an outage emergency, whether generators are running or not,

[35:50] they got to stick to the 45 dB at night. Section T. Electronic waste removal

[35:56] replaces a vague and uninforcable corporate procedure statement with

[36:00] strict clear code enforcement tracking. Operators are required to maintain a

[36:05] certified EPA hazardous waste identification number and route all

[36:10] commission server infrastructure exclusively through certified eswarts

[36:15] or R2 recycling pipelines. Section U, economic funding, converts

[36:21] the illegal cash funding requirement into a standard legally permissible

[36:25] capital infrastructure impact study. Section V dis decommissioning and

[36:31] abatement replaces invalid private building bond with legally defensible

[36:36] public nuisance abatement tracking using court issued administrative warrants.

[36:42] Section W. Escore review fees adjust the review building tracks to match NPC

[36:47] guidelines. Protects townshipdirected studies while removing ordinary legal

[36:51] overhead. Section X ordinance integration removes

[36:56] ambiguous ambiguities regarding how this text interacts with our other existing

[37:01] municipal codes. And I added three new requirements. In section M, I add a

[37:06] requirement for air filtration as an automated MV 13 particulate

[37:12] filter louver requirement to protect local power system from emergency

[37:17] generator triggers caused by external agricultural or environmental smoke. So

[37:22] if there's a fire down the street and there's a lot of smoke in the area

[37:27] right now without any filtering, the smoke gets inside triggers the equipment

[37:31] to think that there's an emergency and kicks in the generators. This requires

[37:35] them to put filters on the air coming into their facility to filter out any

[37:39] any particulate matter like that. >> Where did you find that?

[37:44] » Lots of digging. Yeah, I was busy for last week.

[37:48] » Apparently, >> section N EMF radiation shielding adds a

[37:54] strict 4.0 0 millig maximum boundary threshold to protect surrounding homes

[37:59] and schools from high voltage electromatic field electromagnetic field

[38:04] radiation. In section Y, hardware upgrade triggers

[38:10] adds a new post construction modification clause. This requires a

[38:14] developer developer to return for a fresh technical review if they upgrade

[38:19] server densities or swap out rooftop solar fan sorry rooftop fans ladder

[38:24] equipment after construction is complete. I mean all new housing changes

[38:28] so fast every couple years things change. So if I think it was 20% I had

[38:33] in there that if they if they replace more than 20% of their gear, they got to

[38:38] come back through for another round of restudies to make sure they still meet

[38:41] all the other requirements part of their original construction.

[38:46] So in summary, when a tenant rolls the dice on a poorly drafted ordinance,

[38:49] Pennsylvania judges do not simply te adjust the text, they strike it down

[38:54] entirely. Under long-standing Pennsylvania appellet case law, the

[38:58] counter faces direct exposure under three specific doctrines.

[39:03] Number one, the exclusionary mirage standards in Surirk from 1977,

[39:08] NEOC from 1988. If an orderant sets dimensional barriers like an

[39:13] unachievable 35 acre lot size, it cannot physically fit on the remaining vacant

[39:18] land within the district, judges strike it down as an unconstitutional total

[39:22] ban. Number two, statutory preeemption SECCC

[39:28] versus London Grove Township for 2008 and Dukane Light from 1954. When the

[39:33] state legislature established uniform statewide rules like the Pennsylvania

[39:38] Uniform Construction Code Act 45 or the Pennsylvania Public Utility Code, local

[39:43] zoning cannot alter or add to those technical systems. Courts routinely

[39:48] invalidate local texts and overreaches into fire, battery, solar, and

[39:53] electrical system boundaries. Number three, the favorability mandate.

[39:58] If an ordinance contains internal contradictions or mathematical conflicts

[40:02] such as the 45dba versus 55dba property line noise mismatch, Pennsylvania law

[40:08] dictates that judges must resolve the ambiguity strictly in favor of the

[40:12] developer and against the township. The reason I compiled this line by line

[40:17] audit was to protect our county from severe legal liabilities. The

[40:21] Independent Citizen Group did an absolutely phenomenal job establishing

[40:25] the strong environmental, water, and acoustic goals that we all want to see

[40:30] protect West Rockill Township. They gave us a masterful design tree. My work here

[40:35] was not to cut down the tree, but rather to use the pruning shears of

[40:39] Pennsylvania case law to remove the unconstitutional dead wood before

[40:44] developers litigation team uses to tear down our entire zoning control in county

[40:49] court. When this commission reviewed ordinance

[40:52] 257, the majority voted that the text was adopted, it should receive an

[40:57] independent third party legal review. I ask, where did that official

[41:02] recommendation go? it went nowhere. I'm not a gambler. I

[41:07] don't like to just roll the dice and gamble that no one files a claim against

[41:11] us. I don't like unnecessary risks. And most of all, I don't like the idea of

[41:15] risking the township and its resident's future on the question document.

[41:20] » Thank you, Kale. Thank you. Y

[41:29] » you have more. >> You say you had something else.

[41:33] » Well, I I said >> take a break.

[41:35] » No, I I just this quick. So, I compared the um the planner's comments under

[41:41] landscape buffering. He recommended a type two buffer 150 ft wide and landing

[41:47] 12 foot tall evergreen evergreen trees. In my

[41:53] response, it mandates a continuous type three heavy industrial buffers with a

[41:58] six-foot earth and burm and continuous native evergreens.

[42:02] Under the section s for backup generators, his comments, he forces the

[42:06] operator to attempt to restore noise compliance within one to three hours

[42:10] after power is restored to to the system.

[42:15] In mine, I eliminated the loophole completely mandating that permanent

[42:18] structure level three sound enclosure perimeter acoustic barriers keep the

[42:23] quiet during under F,

[42:28] expand the study to I mean the planner's comments expand the study to list supply

[42:33] sources renewable capacities and change the name to energy use analysis.

[42:39] In my comments, I changed the framework to a mandatoryformational power

[42:43] infrastructure statement that certainly will serve utility capacity letters.

[42:50] Um, under other missing provisions, he recommend adding definitions, security,

[42:55] fencing rules, architectural standards, and traffic study references.

[43:00] My revised text features a continuous 24 by7

[43:06] sign registry, hotline, structural equipment shielding, dedicated off-

[43:11] streetet loading births. I didn't look at architecture.

[43:15] So that in the couple hours I had to compare his notes against my notes after

[43:20] getting the emails this morning. That's that's a quick summary of what I came up

[43:24] with with the the similarities and differences where he identified

[43:30] some of the same items I did. You had slightly different recommendations for

[43:34] how to resolve.

[43:38] Okay. Any comments?

[43:43] » Once again, thank you, Joe. That's a ton of work and I appreciate you doing it. I

[43:48] I don't um thank you also John for for preparing

[43:53] this um you know the the the 35 acre 25 acre

[43:59] discussion I'm sure at at in some way some path

[44:04] there would be a way that a developer could you know get a 35 acre lot through

[44:12] some combination of something >> if

[44:17] From what I read, a developer could do that. If if he was of the mindset, he

[44:24] could go out, find parcels like this other one did, add them together, get 35

[44:29] acres. >> The thing I found is if he chooses to

[44:33] fight, he could also fight on the basis that there's no 35 acre. So then it goes

[44:38] to the lawyers to resolve. >> Um, okay. Okay. So, you know, you're

[44:45] suggesting uh restoring it to the 25 acres. So, and there's how many parcels

[44:51] that do do you know did you count 25 acre parcels?

[44:55] » I originally counted seven and I think out of that seven there were

[45:00] four or so that were still available. >> So, you're I mean I guess my point that

[45:04] I'm trying to make is what is enough, right? Is zero.

[45:08] » Well, and that's a good point that why not

[45:10] » 100, right? So, you know, >> pick a number. But I if you pick a

[45:13] number, it's it's got to be something that's achievable. You know, you can't

[45:16] make it, as I said, if >> if you want to buy an iPhone, it would

[45:20] be false advertising. If you put it into an ordinance called exclusionary where

[45:25] you as as I said here, you create standards

[45:28] that are impossible to meet. So, >> well, not impossible, but difficult or

[45:33] challenging under >> challenging, right? So the question is

[45:36] do you want to do you want to cross that you want to

[45:41] fight that battle I guess. >> Right. Right.

[45:43] » It's people with higher pay grades than I do to make that decision. I'm just

[45:47] pointing out the fact that the way it is written now it's written as an

[45:51] exclusionary clause. >> Is there some uh

[45:57] basis for 35 versus 25?

[46:03] I can't go off the record, but when the first version of the ordinance was

[46:08] reviewed in the public meeting, this room,

[46:13] somebody raised their hand. They came up to the podium and said, "I think it

[46:16] should be 35 acres." That's how it got to be 35 acres was based on one person's

[46:21] public comment. I said there, as far as I could tell, there was no other

[46:25] analysis review that was done. Somebody said make it 35. So, it got to be 35.

[46:34] I don't know if that's necessarily true because I think there was other

[46:37] ordinances reviewed and they said some township.

[46:41] » Oh, that's true. But I'm talking about our township

[46:44] » 35.

[46:48] » I said that's how it got to be 35. It was 25. Somebody said why don't we make

[46:53] it 35. >> It was based on the fact that there was

[46:56] proof that there was other townships that had greater than 25.

[46:58] » Oh yeah. I mean, there are some towns that have hundred 100 acre limits

[47:01] because they put in these massive centers, but we also don't have any 100

[47:05] acre lots that they could they could build on.

[47:08] So, 30, 35, 20, I you know, what's your favorite number? It's 100. [laughter]

[47:20] » [clears throat] >> I guess I was just trying to figure out

[47:23] if there was a scientific reason for 35 versus 25. But

[47:29] it does sound like >> having sat in the room when that was

[47:33] discussed, I don't believe there was there was any like that that was done.

[47:37] » Gotcha. >> And there's there's also always a

[47:41] balance between the lot size and the setbacks. you have more setbacks in the

[47:45] ordinance and whether you could meet those setbacks on

[47:50] any of the 25 acre lots that exist in the township would be the same kind of

[47:54] question. >> Yes, that's true. It's not just the

[47:57] size, it's also the shape of the property,

[47:59] » right? >> Might be creating a lot that's too small

[48:04] to to create the building that they need.

[48:09] you know, they need they need half a million square feet to to accomplish

[48:13] what they want to do. Trying to squeeze that on 25

[48:17] with with the setbacks and any uh any type of

[48:23] environmental issues. >> Yeah. Wetlands, steep slopes, any of

[48:26] that. >> And but that's that's another that was

[48:29] my initial reaction was if you got a 25 acre requirement, they could only build

[48:34] a building so big on a 25 acre lot. If you raise the limit to 35 acres, you're

[48:41] somewhat encouraging someone to build a bigger building because they've got more

[48:44] room that they could use. So there it's, you know, there's two sides to it. Yeah.

[48:49] I mean, 25 would be the minimum. It's not that's not the maximum. So they

[48:53] could have more property than big to build their facility size that they

[48:57] need.

[49:02] » Well, I mean, personally, I'm still comfortable with 35. I don't think it's

[49:06] a tremendous roll of the dice. Um, again, dealing with the fact that we do

[49:11] have a property available and and there's, you know, the option of of

[49:16] purchasing contiguous parcels. That's me. I'm one of five.

[49:23] And we can, like I said, we'll get a we'll get another on your

[49:27] recommendations um and and see what they have to say.

[49:32] They might, you know, they might say, "Yeah, he's he's right, you know.

[49:36] So there's two parts to that. One, the I looked at the planner. I actually look

[49:42] at his background. His is he looks at architecture and and landscape and he's

[49:51] looking at he's not looking at the legal issues. I guess

[49:56] he's looking at the the technical building issues. The legal issues he

[50:00] didn't touch because I don't think that that's his background. I think that is

[50:04] actually the more important piece is getting a thorough legal review and for

[50:12] the supervisor to decide, you know, we want to go strictly by the rules as the

[50:16] state has laid them out to us or do we want to try to push the envelope, kind

[50:21] of take the chance that either nobody's going to try suing us or if they sue us

[50:26] we'll we'll win in court. you know, there's the safe route, there's the not

[50:30] so safe route, and said that's kind of up to the board to make that

[50:34] determination which way they want to go with.

[50:41] Any other thoughts?

[50:45] » I'd agree. I think a uh solid legal review would be

[50:50] » in the township's best interest. Yeah, >> I would agree.

[50:54] » Yeah, I agree. >> Um, all right. Let me open the floor up.

[50:57] public comment. >> I had like two questions

[51:02] I decided I better list them because I ended up with 30 [laughter]

[51:08] team Joe Swinny Holiday House Road. So just a few questions that I had here

[51:12] here when you went through and thank you. Uh if we did all these requirements

[51:16] right like in compliance who polices them

[51:22] » seriously >> the zoning officer [laughter] the guy

[51:25] with the short pants. I mean I mean you stop and think about it, right? Like we

[51:28] say, "Hey, you got to do this, this, this, and this."

[51:30] » And then nobody ever shows up to confirm that they're in compliance. The decibb

[51:36] is the neighbors going to say, "Hey, anything loud over there?"

[51:38] » Wasn't in one of the drafts like an annual review or something?

[51:42] [clears throat] >> Yeah, right. I think there was something

[51:45] in there like >> in one of the in one of the first

[51:47] rounds, first or second round, there was something about annual annual review.

[51:51] » Yeah, >> I think I've got something in there that

[51:54] expands on that. like it was the the asbuilt then like six months after built

[51:59] right and then maybe like another 12 months after that.

[52:02] » But you're right. I mean ultimately >> people will get away with whatever they

[52:07] can get away with. Absolutely. No complaints.

[52:09] » Absolutely. So I was in corporate for a while, right? And if you knew corporate

[52:12] was coming, you got ready for them. So I'd rather them not know when we're

[52:16] coming. >> You know what I mean? So there should be

[52:18] some surprise inspections. And also I think the the agreement should be

[52:21] written that we have the right to inspect at whenever we want. That should

[52:26] be written into it. Just a thought, right? Uh like I said, a set inspection

[52:31] schedule, you know, it's kind of scary because they'll probably make the decibb

[52:34] real low when you show up, right? And it won't be that surprise. So think about

[52:39] that. All right. U if they're out of compliance, is there

[52:44] going to be kind of penalties set up? You know what I mean? Like it seems like

[52:47] in this township people get away with doing something and then it's like smack

[52:52] their hands and they move on. So let's just say they're way out of compliance

[52:57] or do we have the right to shut them down? Do we have the right to do

[53:00] anything? A >> certain amount of time to come into

[53:03] compliance before we >> Right. I mean, it's still going to be

[53:05] written to say like you got to Yeah. say like, "Hey, listen. We showed up today.

[53:08] Your decibels are real high and contaminants for this, whatever,

[53:11] everything you listed to say there's going to be, you know, a chart to follow

[53:15] to say, hey, a timeline of events, you know, a date to be in compliance, and if

[53:20] not, here's your penalties, right?" and and you sort of reinforce some of my

[53:26] argument here because when I read the original version of

[53:31] draft 260, there were a lot of things that weren't

[53:36] measurable. It was like, you know, like the smell test, you know, somebody

[53:40] smells diesel fuel, >> somebody's

[53:44] cat dies or whatever, >> right?

[53:46] » You know, I I tried to land line this up so that it's very definitive with

[53:52] specific measurable goals. So, somebody could go out there with a, you know,

[53:57] meter and say, "You're too loud." >> Right?

[54:00] » You sound kind of loud today. >> We had an old saying, what gets measured

[54:03] gets done. So, you got to get you got to measure, right? So

[54:06] » add that to my next round. >> Right. Just [laughter]

[54:08] just a thought, right? Uh you know, and then going back to what you you

[54:13] mentioned, your name is Andy. >> Andy.

[54:14] » Andy. I'm Joe. Nice to see you again. >> And the whole thing with the 25 and 35

[54:19] acres. What really worries me with that is, you know, one, it opens up the door

[54:23] that there are four lots that are currently possible. Okay. Two, what I've

[54:29] heard is when the lot lines get moved, it seems pretty simple. So, I know that

[54:33] other parcel I think you're talking about, I started looking at it saying,

[54:36] "Wait, if they combine the two, you know, and if we did 35, I think it ends

[54:41] up being 38, they still make it, >> right?" You know what I mean? But like,

[54:45] how easy is it going to be to like move the lot lines and do whatever? So, uh, I

[54:49] still think it should say at least 35, especially when we learned other areas

[54:54] had 50. So, that's just a thought. Um what and what about the the the frontage

[55:01] and the side requirements and that goes back into I think we're talking about

[55:04] the building size and I and I like your thought about that when you say hey if

[55:08] you went to 35 that means they could probably build a bigger building. So, do

[55:12] we know right now if it's a 25 acre lot, not knowing what the wetlands are and

[55:16] anything else, how big of a square a footprint can they build? You know, I

[55:21] mean, how big is that building? You know, what does that generate? I don't

[55:24] know. I don't have the answer, but throwing it out there, we should

[55:27] probably know that. >> Like, basically 25 acre lot, assuming no

[55:30] wetlands, the largest building you could build. We already had the height, but

[55:34] what's the dimensions? >> Yeah. I mean, it all depends on the on

[55:39] the parcel, >> right?

[55:40] Exactly. But I mean looking at you're right because if the lines aren't square

[55:45] right you're coming in on somewhat you know and I didn't hear you mention that

[55:49] but at the one meeting I for which one it was there so many of them. Uh the

[55:54] question came up about the requirements on the side and the frontage and ours

[55:58] was really limited and that's where we really really concerned. I think it was

[56:01] like 150 ft or 100 feet or something on the side. And that's like the the

[56:06] neighbors were worried at that time saying, "You got to be kidding me." Like

[56:09] basically, you're going to build this massive building and be, you know, 100

[56:14] feet from me or 50 feet, whatever the number was. It was small. Okay. But I

[56:18] didn't hear that get addressed tonight. Right.

[56:22] » That's it. >> That's me.

[56:23] » Yeah. I was going to say what I read tonight was my four-page summary of my

[56:26] 32page. >> No, no, I'm with you. But this I'm just

[56:28] throwing it out there just to trigger your brains to say, "Hey, maybe it's in

[56:31] your thoughts later or maybe I missed it." Okay.

[56:34] » Pretty sure there was a 150 foot >> I think it was set back.

[56:38] » For most cases, the the version three has 200 foot setback unless it's against

[56:43] a residential property. Then it requires 400 feet 400 feet from residential, 200

[56:49] feet from anything else. >> That sounds better, right? I mean, it's

[56:52] better than the 150, but at least my memory was right about the 150.

[56:56] It stuck into me a little bit there. Okay. Uh

[57:04] » yeah, that was it. That was the things. So, but I appreciate your time.

[57:09] » Thank you. >> Everything you put into it. All right.

[57:12] » Anyone else? Come on up.

[57:21] » Hey y'all. Uh my name's Ethan Seuss. I live on 480 Broadway Avenue, uh, which

[57:26] is Sersville. Um, but I imagine like you and I'm also very

[57:33] worried about, uh, data center. I've only recently moved here. Um, as of uh,

[57:38] less than two months ago. Um, so I haven't been to the previous meetings or

[57:42] exactly where you guys are at on all this. You know, what's been discussed

[57:46] previously. Um, what you put together is is really amazing and everybody being

[57:51] here. We appreciate it. Um, as I said, I don't know exactly what's been said

[57:57] previously. I'm wondering >> uh there's been a proposal. There's been

[58:01] an informal sketch of a building. That's correct. Uh, where is that now? And what

[58:07] would that look like? What would the course of that look like?

[58:10] » As in >> like there's been here moving forward.

[58:14] » Yeah. Are they going to do they apply to >> We're still figuring out the like

[58:19] » So they have to they have to apply for special exceptions for zoning hearing

[58:24] [clears throat] >> which they keep pushing. I don't even

[58:27] Where are we at with this by now? >> They made an application and they

[58:31] granted an extension to the hearing date. So at this point there's no firm

[58:36] date for a hearing. >> Okay. But they were scheduled for this

[58:40] month. And part of part of the really is the problem is now the card has gotten

[58:45] before the horse. Meaning that >> since they filed an application already.

[58:50] » Yeah. >> They're kind of locked into the

[58:51] ordinance that was in place at the time. >> Okay.

[58:54] » We're still trying to make the ordinance more better than it was before.

[58:58] » Yeah. >> So we kind of got two parallel paths

[59:00] » I see. >> Running here that

[59:02] » hopefully some point in time will converge in the future.

[59:04] » Okay. And I I seen that um there was an executive order that data center

[59:11] constructions uh need to comply with local ordinances. Is that uh does that

[59:18] affect what you are doing now at all or? >> Yeah. And this the state right now has

[59:25] got their own path going along. Data centers are popping up all over the

[59:30] state. Innesota there's a lot of pressure on Harrisburg to take a

[59:35] stronger stand. Um, as I mentioned in the beginning of my dribble that the u

[59:41] the board of supervisors approved an ordinance supporting a bill from the

[59:46] Pennsylvania house put a moratorum on data centers. The timeout, you know.

[59:51] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Take a timeout. everybody everybody

[59:53] regroup figure out what they want to do and what they need to do and then

[59:57] proceed from there because right now said the the data center development is

[1:00:02] moving faster than a lot of municipalities are able to to put

[1:00:06] ordinances in place. >> Right. Okay. Um so

[1:00:12] does that mean the like executive order has fur needs to develop further in

[1:00:16] terms of the conversation about moratoriums or

[1:00:20] sorry uh you had said that they already put in an application if a moratorium

[1:00:26] were to come in would the application already being submitted bypass that at

[1:00:31] all or >> that's a good question

[1:00:32] » that's up to Harrisburg. >> Okay.

[1:00:34] » Yeah. how whether they make the moratorium retroactive to some point in

[1:00:38] time in the past >> or you know put a stake in the ground

[1:00:42] for anything going forward from here. >> I don't really know the details on that.

[1:00:47] » Okay. Oh, I I've heard rumor that since we had started our process of creating

[1:00:53] the uh uh ordinance for data center before they put their application in

[1:01:00] that they're going to have to use whatever regulations we end up with

[1:01:05] in place. >> Okay.

[1:01:07] » Is there any validity to that? Do you know?

[1:01:10] » There is a pending ordinance doctrine. I don't know, but I can't speak to when it

[1:01:15] actually gets applied and not applied in what circumstances it works and which

[1:01:19] circumstances it doesn't. >> And and where would that be coming from

[1:01:24] that uh that restriction? >> That's a case law kind of restriction.

[1:01:30] It's it's not a a written regulation somewhere.

[1:01:33] » Okay. >> The regulation is the ordinance has to

[1:01:35] be in place before the application is >> to be applicable. You can't adopt an

[1:01:41] ordinance after an application comes in >> and apply it retroactively.

[1:01:47] » Okay. >> But there's some case law that says if

[1:01:50] you're in the middle of preparing an ordinance, there's some point where you

[1:01:54] can use it. >> I don't know when that kicks in or

[1:01:57] doesn't. >> Okay. Okay. Um and would there how would

[1:02:02] I know about uh when their hearing might happen or

[1:02:07] » the township website? >> Township website. And also on the

[1:02:09] township website, you can see all the previous meetings.

[1:02:12] » They're all all YouTube meetings. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[1:02:14] » So, if you want to catch up on that, you can watch those.

[1:02:17] » All right. That's perfect. >> You can even watch yourself tomorrow.

[1:02:19] » Yeah. Great. [laughter]

[1:02:23] » Good stuff. All right. >> I do that. So,

[1:02:27] » I sound as stupid as I sound. >> Yeah.

[1:02:29] » Worry about wearing the same shirt. [laughter]

[1:02:33] » Um, I think that >> Where did you say you live? Uh 480

[1:02:38] Broadway Avenue, right next to Sersville Elementary.

[1:02:41] » Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um yeah, it's it's funny.

[1:02:44] I've only just realized the the boundaries. You know, Sellersville

[1:02:48] Elementary is West Rock Hill, >> but then down the street, Sersville.

[1:02:52] » Yeah. >> But thank you all for your time. Nice to

[1:02:55] meet you. >> Anyone else?

[1:03:00] » All right. So, what kind of action would you want to take?

[1:03:03] » Table this with >> I guess I'll go back to one of the

[1:03:06] things that I I would like the the long the short version won't

[1:03:11] make it into the minutes because I read it out, but I'd like the full review

[1:03:18] and my full revised ordinance to go into the minutes of the meeting.

[1:03:24] » Okay. Since that's what referred to. So, I'll give these to

[1:03:28] » Yeah, I'm not reading them. Well, somebody might

[1:03:32] » not for the report. >> I sent electronic copies. The only

[1:03:38] difference is I put page numbers on. So you can use either one.

[1:03:47] » All right. So again, my my suggestion would be to to table this suggest a a

[1:03:52] professional review of of your comments and your your drafts.

[1:03:59] I would include the uh planner's comments.

[1:04:02] » Yes, >> in there as well.

[1:04:05] » Thank you. Yeah, but [clears throat] county didn't really have much to say.

[1:04:08] So, >> no,

[1:04:10] » they didn't find any spelling errors or punctuation mistakes. [laughter]

[1:04:14] » Um, is that what the supervisor were expecting?

[1:04:17] » What's that again? >> What were the supervisor expecting us to

[1:04:20] do by having this review tonight? >> Um, well, they're looking for a

[1:04:24] recommendation. I I don't think this third round is was important to get on

[1:04:30] the books as the first two. Um I think they they expect us to take a little

[1:04:36] time on this. >> Okay.

[1:04:37] » Um so by suggesting this review I think falls falls into place

[1:04:41] » because I I was a little confused that at the meeting they didn't formally

[1:04:48] announce a hearing date for this review. They just said it was going to be sent

[1:04:53] out. >> Right. That's because they wanted to

[1:04:55] have the time to amend it again before there's a public hearing. Once there's a

[1:05:00] public hearing, it's very hard to change language other than correct some typos.

[1:05:05] » That's what I was hoping for, but I wasn't sure. Um, so I was assuming that,

[1:05:10] you know, we we had to get our best effort in tonight, but I I agree. You I

[1:05:16] said, don't don't take my word for it. Lock, stock, and barrel. Have somebody

[1:05:20] have independent verification. Right. Engineering 101 1972

[1:05:25] first page of the first textbook to human to check his engineering. So do

[1:05:31] the engineering. Make sure I'm >> There you go. Somewhat legitimate.

[1:05:37] » Is it too late for me to ask a question? >> No. Come on. Too late.

[1:05:41] Name and address, please.

[1:05:46] » Joanne the Tally, 113 Ridge Valley Road. I'm just curious. You're talking about a

[1:05:51] a review, an an attorney review, I assume, right? Is that our attorney that

[1:05:56] would be doing it or have you engaged a specialized attorney? No, no offense to

[1:06:01] ours. Just >> that's exactly my point. I I I

[1:06:06] the way I think it works is our attorney is like a GP,

[1:06:11] » general practitioner, and then there are specialists.

[1:06:13] » Yeah. >> My recommendation that this goes to the

[1:06:15] specialist. >> Good. Okay. Good. and somebody that's

[1:06:19] independent of the township that can look at it.

[1:06:21] » Well, I've heard that there are some that specialize specifically in this

[1:06:25] because it is such a hot topic and so many nuances. It would be important to

[1:06:30] not miss anything. >> Yeah. I mean, we hired this planner and

[1:06:34] not quite sure why we didn't hire a specialized attorney.

[1:06:40] » Can you answer that question? >> Thank you.

[1:06:43] » Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. So, we just want to make a

[1:06:48] motion here. Um, we're going to include that your [clears throat]

[1:06:53] review on the minutes. Um, that doesn't need need motion. Uh, table is um

[1:07:00] suggesting a review by specialized attorney and the planner.

[1:07:06] » And Chris, will the public comments or some of them be put into what you

[1:07:10] learned tonight or not? >> Anything that's in the microphone?

[1:07:14] [laughter] couple days more.

[1:07:20] » That won't be recorded. [laughter]

[1:07:25] » Um, does somebody want to make a motion to that effect?

[1:07:28] So, a motion that we um recommend that the

[1:07:36] comments from John and the planner be put before a specialized

[1:07:41] attorney to review for applicability and defensibility

[1:07:47] for the township tableling any further action until we get those results.

[1:07:54] » I was thinking that. >> All right. All in favor? I

[1:07:58] » opposed. Motion carries. All right, John. Thank you again.

[1:08:02] » Thanks. >> Um,

[1:08:05] so that's it. Uh, you do you have any other new business?

[1:08:09] » No. >> Anyone else?

[1:08:11] » No. >> All right. All the floor public comment

[1:08:14] again. Anyone? All right. Seeing none for a

[1:08:19] motion to what we call this. >> Ajourn. Thank you.

[1:08:24] I'll make >> all in favor.

[1:08:28] » Thank you.

[1:08:37] » Alex, >> when is your trip to South Africa?

[1:08:41] » Well, theoretically it would be in November.

[1:08:45] Um cuz that's their

Planning Commission Meeting 9-8-2026

Transcript