After more than a two-month hiatus, the zoning hearing involving a proposed data center at 900 Conshohocken Road in Conshohocken (Plymouth Township) is set to resume on Thursday, October 15th at 7:00 p.m. The last hearing held was on August 6th. A scheduled hearing for September 17th was canceled after Plymouth Township did not post the agenda on its website as required by the Sunshine Act.
While no hearings were held during that period, a lot has been happening with the data center overall. On August 18th, Governor Josh Shapiro signed an executive order “directing the Department of Environmental Protection to only review permit applications if developers have made a legally binding commitment to meet the Governor’s Responsible Infrastructure Development (GRID) Requirements and have received local approval.” The GRID requirements “demand developers meet strict standards on energy affordability, environmental protection, workforce and economic development, transparency, and community engagement.” The order also removes all proposals for AI data centers from the state’s “Fast Track” permitting process and prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements for data center projects.
On September 14th, Montgomery County announced it had requested party status because it owns the former Ivy Rock Quarry, across Conshohocken Road from the proposed data center site. Whether it is granted party status will be determined during the October 15th hearing.
An August 17th meeting of the zoning hearing board focused on other zoning applications but, as previously announced, would also include an announcement of a future hearing date involving the data center. The zoning hearing board also determined that, until it is time for public comment, future hearings would move to the meeting room at the township building. The previous hearings were held in an auditorium at Colonial Middle School and drew large, sometimes noisy, crowds. The zoning hearing board, in a notice from the township, cited the move as “essential to ensure the continued evidentiary portion of the proceedings can be properly conducted.” If the decision the zoning hearing board makes is appealed, the court will use the record from the hearing to make its determination.
The most vocal opponents, some of whom have party status and others who do not, disliked this decision because it effectively prevents hundreds of people from attending in person.
Following the cancellation of the September 17th hearing, it was announced that the zoning hearing board would set the date for the next hearing during a September 21st hearing when the data center was not on the agenda. At the conclusion of that meeting, the zoning hearing board announced October 15th as the date and the township’s meeting room as the venue.
A few people attending the meeting attempted to offer public comment, but were essentially ignored. Setting a time and venue for a continued hearing is considered an administrative matter of the specific hearing. While the agenda for the August 17th meeting stated, “Any citizen of Plymouth Township or interested party may attend the public hearing and have an opportunity to be heard,” that really isn’t the case. You can see this interaction in the video above (it is cued to the appropriate spot).
If both hearings on the August 17th agenda had been started and continued, the public comment would likely have been held at a future meeting, not at that one. During the first hearing on the data center, it was announced that public comment would be held after all testimony was completed, which will likely take several meetings. In that way, the township/zoning hearing board is consistent. However, the wording on its agenda is misleading to those who do not regularly follow zoning hearings.
As we watched this interaction, what was interesting was that no one who was attempting to be heard identified themselves as a party to the case or as an attorney representing a party. Two land use attorneys we spoke with said that a party could at least have made an objection, such as to the change of venue, for the record. That didn’t happen.
Then, on September 21st, during a zoning hearing that didn’t involve the data center, an attorney who is a party to the case, Nick Liermann, spoke during the public comment period (the video above is cued to the appropriate spot). Liermann, who is not an attorney who works regularly in land use law, sought to point out that public comment wasn’t permitted at the previous meeting. That led to members of the zoning hearing board (only audio is available, so we can’t specify which members or whether it was the solicitor) explaining to Liermann that his comments were not appropriate, as they didn’t address the zoning matter that was currently before the board. It was also stated to Liermann that the chairman of the zoning hearing board had read a statement about when the public comment period would be held in relation to the proposed data center (essentially after all the testimony). The back-and-forth got pretty contentious. It was finally stated by the zoning hearing board that public comment isn’t offered during a procedural matter (such as setting a date and venue).
A little opinion…
This really wasn’t a good look for either side. As we stated above, it is confusing how the agendas are worded. The township council is now considering adopting a public comment policy that hopefully addresses these issues (more on that later). However, Liermann and the other opponents could have easily contacted an experienced land use lawyer and cleared up their confusion.
It was mentioned that 25 parties are now participating in the data center hearing. Notably, the experienced land use attorneys representing some of the other parties didn’t express confusion or feel the need to question the change of venue.