The petition seeks an exemption from the township's noise limits
On July 21, the developer behind the proposed data center filed a substantive validity challenge asking the board to find Plymouth's zoning ordinance invalid on the grounds that it excludes data centers, and to grant "site-specific relief" tied to the plan attached to the filing. The petition says it's "filed in the alternative" to the special exception application.
The part residents should read is the last item in the Relief Requested section. It seeks "any and all other zoning relief necessary," including, "without limitation," relief from building height, building coverage, parking, steep slope and natural resource standards, and "an exemption from the maximum sound requirements during load reduction events, testing and emergency use of Data Center Equipment." Load reduction events are the hours when a facility runs on its own generators instead of the grid, which tend to be the hottest and coldest days of the year, when windows are open or heat pumps are straining. The petition defines "Data Center Equipment" to include the backup generators. None of this has been granted. It's what the developer is asking for.
The filing's definitions are broad too. Paragraph 5 defines "Data Center Uses" to include "primary, back-up and redundant power generators," substations, fuel storage tanks and natural gas "transmission, distribution, storage (including liquified natural gas storage) and compression." That doesn't mean every one of those facilities is in the current design or would be approved. It does mean the board should identify exactly which facilities and operating modes are being requested, and what approvals each would need, before anything is granted under a single label.
One number from the plan sheets helps show what "natural resource" relief could cover. The filed impervious cover table lists 1,789,009 square feet existing and 2,545,597 square feet proposed, an increase of 756,588 square feet, or about 17 acres, on a riverfront parcel. The figures show the area change on the plan. Any claim about runoff or flooding would need its own evidence.
What the board can decide, and what a win would and wouldn't mean
Pennsylvania zoning ordinances start out presumed valid. The developer has to prove that Plymouth's ordinance unlawfully excludes data centers, either on its face or in practice, and the board decides that question first. Township Council's position, set out in its July 27 statement, is that the ordinance already provides a lawful route for data centers through the special exception for uses "of the same general character" as permitted Heavy Industrial uses. The petition takes that route up directly in paragraphs 17 to 21 and argues it can't work in practice. The dispute is whether Plymouth's existing approval route actually works, and the township will need evidence beyond Council's statement to show that it does.
If a challenge like this succeeds, the Municipalities Planning Code lets a court order the development described in the landowner's plans "approved as to all elements," or approve some elements and send the rest back for further proceedings. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said that approval "is not automatic" and depends on the suitability of the site and health and safety considerations (Fernley v. Board of Supervisors of Schuylkill Township, 1985). So the site's suitability and the evidence about its effects matter throughout this case, and other approvals, including land development, would still be required. A strong local record helps at every later stage.
Because both cases involve the same property, the same applicant and the same board, arguments about how the use is classified, what the evidence shows and what relief is sought can overlap between them. Residents with party status should document specific effects on them and coordinate the full range of objections with counsel rather than holding anything back.
How to take part in the challenge
Party status in the special exception doesn't carry over. If you want to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses or object in the validity challenge, you need to request party status in Appeal 2026-9-ZHB, even if the board already granted it to you in Appeal 2026-3-ZHB. The law recognizes an appearance of record, which can be made in person or through your attorney, and the township may have a form or a filing deadline. Confirm the procedure with the township or your attorney before November 16, be ready to explain how the proposal would affect you, and ask the board to rule on your request. Standing to appeal a decision to court is a separate test, so talk with counsel about that too.
Neither agenda mentions a livestream, an overflow room or how party status requests will be handled, and the earlier arrangements for the special exception shouldn't be assumed to carry over. We're asking the township to post that information. Until it does, the township's data center page is the place to check.
Records the township should publish
State law normally requires hearings on a validity challenge to begin within 60 days of filing unless the landowner requests or consents to more time. Counting from the July 21 filing and applying the weekend rule, that period would have ended Monday, September 21. The first hearing is November 16, 118 days after filing. The likeliest explanation is that the developer agreed to more time, which the law allows and which doesn't have to take the form of a signed document. When we checked the township's data center page on November 5, no extension, scheduling agreement or recorded consent was posted. We're asking the township to publish whatever exists and explain the November date.
Two other records belong in public view. The purchase agreement excerpt attached to the petition refers to an "Industrial Land Use Restriction" that will run with the land and limit use to what Exhibit C allows, but Exhibit C isn't in the filing. Its terms are unknown, and deed restrictions are generally enforced outside the zoning process, so we're asking for it to be published and its effect explained, nothing more. The agreement of sale itself is the other one. The first application was withdrawn in November 2025 after questions about whether it gave the applicant standing, so it's fair to ask that the current agreement be shown to be in effect.
A change in our advice on the curative amendment
Since the summer we've asked Council to use the state's 180-day curative amendment process. We've revised that. Pennsylvania courts held long ago that the process can't be used against a challenge that's already been filed (Galbreath v. Northampton Township, 1980), and a later amendment generally doesn't defeat a pending challenge or erase a successful challenger's rights. We continue to support a prompt, lawful data center ordinance for the rest of Plymouth's industrial land, and the legal work needed to oppose the applications for 900 Conshohocken Road.
Sources
Official documents
- Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board, agenda, regular meeting, November 16, 2026. link
- Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board, agenda, special meeting, November 19, 2026. link
- 900 Conshohocken LLC, application and Petition for Substantive Validity Challenge, with plan sheets and purchase agreement excerpt, July 21, 2026. link
- Plymouth Township Council, statement on the proposed data center, July 27, 2026. link
- Plymouth Township, "Plymouth Township Receives Zoning Hearing Board Validity Challenge for Proposed Data Center," July 28, 2026. link
- Plymouth Township, "900 Conshohocken Road Data Center Information," checked November 5, 2026. link
- Plymouth Township Zoning Ordinance, § 2101(D), Standards of Proof. link
Law
- Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Article IX (§§ 908, 909.1, 916.1). link
- Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Article X-A (§§ 1005-A, 1006-A). link
- 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908, computation of time. link
- Fernley v. Board of Supervisors of Schuylkill Township, 502 A.2d 585 (Pa. 1985). link
- Galbreath v. Board of Supervisors of Northampton Township, 55 Pa. Cmwlth. 165 (1980). link
- South Bethlehem Associates, LP v. Zoning Hearing Board of Bethlehem Township, No. 41 MAP 2022 (Pa. May 16, 2023), on party status and standing to appeal. link
Reporting
- 6abc Philadelphia (WPVI), Cheyenne Corin, "Developer withdraws data center plan after legal issue halts zoning meeting," November 18, 2025. link
Quotes from the petition are verbatim from the township's posted copy; the impervious cover table was read from the scanned plan sheets. This post is our reading for residents and isn't legal advice.