As MoreThanTheCurve.com reported on May 1st, developer Brian O’Neill has submitted a new zoning application for a data center at 900 Conshohocken Road in Conshohocken (Plymouth Township). The application seeks a special exception for the former steel mill property. You can find the application here.

First, we want to state that we actually don’t like artificial intelligence or AI, which is closely tied to the latest data centers. We would love to go back to 1999. However, we recognize we can’t allow China and Russia to dominate it. It is a quandary. We aren’t sure what to do about it.

Second, even if the special exception is granted by the Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board, there is a chance the data center will not be built. Multiple people familiar with the effort to develop data centers have told us there is a rush to secure land approvals; however, there are more efforts to secure approvals than actual data centers to be built. Even with approval, data center operators will wait until the appeal process is complete before deciding on a property. The longer it takes, the less likely a data center becomes a reality.

Third, there has been mention of an alternative plan being floated for the property that isn’t actually relevant to whether the application should be approved or denied. It calls for a mixed-use center at the former steel plant. We haven’t seen it (if there is an actual plan on paper). This is a result of a study the township conducted a few years ago, and it is included in the township’s comprehensive plan. The township’s council did not act on it. The zoning code was never amended to incorporate it. Since data centers have become a major topic of discussion, this concept has been getting attention online. However, O’Neill has the property under agreement, and the code remains as it has since 1989 (which actually prohibits retail uses and even breweries).

A mixed-use center would actually be great for our business. When we say it is irrelevant, it is because the research we have done and the land use attorneys we have spoken with tell us alternative proposals are irrelevant when it comes to a special exception application.

We also want to point out that a mixed-use center would also very likely, almost definitely, generate major opposition within the community. The property is 66 acres, which is much larger than the 18-acre King of Prussia Town Center, and approximately half the size of The Village at Valley Forge (the all-encompassing area of Upper Merion that includes the town center, the apartments, Wegman’s, hospital, and office buildings). Imagine the concerns about traffic!

Fourth, we see people posting about data centers being denied approvals in other communities. It is important to understand what the approval process was and what type of approval was being sought. If the applicant sought a zoning amendment from the elected officials, that is very different than a special exception from the zoning hearing board. If variances were sought from the zoning hearing board, that would also be very different from a special exception. We can’t find another example of a data center seeking a special exception in Pennsylvania (if you know of one, send it our way).

Back to the actual application. What is the actual process?

During a special exception hearing, the Pennsylvania Governor’s Center for Local Government Services document for special exceptions (view) states that the applicant “bears the burden of proof and must show that the proposed use meets the categorical definition as a use permitted by conditional use or special exception and that the specific standards and criteria contained in the zoning ordinance will be met.”

The property is within the Heavy Industrial zoning district and allows, by right, such uses as manufacturing, research, and warehousing, among others. In the application, O’Neill argues that data centers are similar to those three uses. For example, according to O’Neill, data centers “manufacture raw data into finished informational products like analytics, insights, and processed data.” The application also details how data centers require environmental controls, security systems, and other infrastructure, similar to the three uses.

The second facet is that O’Neill must show that the project won’t be “detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare.”

Those opposed have expressed concerns about the impact on the Schuylkill River and groundwater. O’Neill is proposing a closed-loop system and states in the application that the data center “will not draw water from the adjacent Schuylkill River nor from on-site wells.”

Those opposed have expressed concerns that the data center will drive up electricity bills. O’Neill is proposing to generate power for the data center on-site using natural gas turbines. That means it wouldn’t draw from the grid and would have backup generators in place to fill any gap when the system goes down.

Those opposed have expressed concerns about air quality. Natural gas turbines are regulated federally by the Environmental Protection Agency and, at the state level, by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for air quality and environmental permits, and by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission for safety, reliability, and service standards. There are emission limits for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide under the Clean Air Act. The backup generators are regulated and subject to emission standards.

The zoning hearing board can impose conditions when granting a special exception to further strengthen adherence to these regulations and to avoid impacts on the river.

If O’Neill is successful with his presentation and satisfies the requirement for a special exception, a presumption arises that the use is consistent with the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. At that point, the burden falls to the objectors to the data center to present evidence and convince the zoning hearing board that the data center will have a detrimental effect.

The objectors will have to show that the turbines’ impact will be negative on the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. That same for any sound emitted. That requires data and evidence, presented by experts, not Facebook posts.

The point of this article is to cut through the irrelevant posts online and, hopefully, for those genuinely concerned, clarify the process and what is actually important and necessary.