Why I oppose the proposed data center project at 900 Conshohocken Road?
I am OPPOSED to the proposed hyperscale data center at 900 Conshohocken Road in Plymouth Township.
Let me be clear: I support responsible economic development. I welcome investment that creates jobs, strengthens our local economy, and respects the communities it joins. But I cannot support a project of this magnitude when the developer has failed to answer basic questions about its environmental impacts, infrastructure demands, and long-term operation.
As a matter of practice, my office has traditionally followed the lead of our local municipalities on land use and development matters. This project is no different. The elected officials closest to these projects know their communities best. The Plymouth Township Council has publicly opposed this proposal, and I respect their position. You can read their statement here: Statement by Plymouth Township Council.
Likewise, State Senator Maria Collett has also announced her opposition to the project. You can read her statement here: Statement by State Senator Maria Collett.
The more I have learned about this proposal, the more concerned I have become.
What do we know about this proposal so far? Very little!
According to the developer's ZHB Application, the project would occupy approximately 66 acres and reuse 10 existing buildings totaling nearly one million square feet. The developer has also stated that several of those buildings would have additional floors constructed, effectively doubling the amount of occupied space.
To support the operation of this hyperscale data center, the site would include:
These are not minor details. They are central to understanding how this facility will affect the surrounding community.
Read the Developer’s Application to the Township here.
Yet despite the size and complexity of this project, the developer has failed to provide residents with the information they deserve.
For example: Where will the cooling water come from?
The developer has said the water will not come from the adjacent Schuylkill River and not come from the existing on-site wells.
If that's true, then where will it come from?
How much water will the facility consume each day? How will that demand affect our regional water supply? What happens during drought conditions?
These are fundamental questions, yet our community still does not have answers.
The same is true when it comes to air quality and energy consumption.
The developer has acknowledged that the project will include multiple gas turbines and standby generators. Residents deserve to know what emissions these systems will produce, how often they will operate, and what impact they could have on the surrounding neighborhoods.
If this project is truly as safe as the developer claims, then there should be no hesitation to publicly disclose its expected environmental impacts.
Transparency should not be optional.
There are also significant unanswered questions about who will ultimately occupy this facility. We still do not know who the end user will be, what operations will occur inside these buildings, or what the long-term energy demands of the facility will be.
A project this large should never ask a community to make a decision first and receive the facts later.
I have attempted to ask Brian O'Neill these questions - you can read my letter here. So far, no response.
Who is the developer?
My concerns extend beyond the project itself.
News reports have raised questions about the developer's business practices, including allegations involving unpaid contractors and unpaid taxes. Whether those matters are ultimately resolved or not, they raise legitimate concerns about credibility and accountability.
A billion-dollar infrastructure project requires a developer the public can trust.
Finally, taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize the true costs of hyperscale data centers.
The companies that profit from these facilities—not local residents—should bear the costs associated with the massive infrastructure improvements they require. They should pay for the necessary upgrades to our electric grid, cover the costs of environmental monitoring, and ensure that local governments are not left responsible for protecting public health and safety at taxpayer expense.
At this point, I have more questions than answers.
Until the developer provides complete, transparent, and verifiable information about the project's environmental impacts, water usage, air emissions, energy demands, infrastructure costs, and long-term operations, I cannot support this proposal.
Our community deserves facts—not promises.
It deserves transparency—not secrecy.
And it deserves development that puts the health and well-being of our residents first.
Learn More
If you'd like to review additional reporting on this proposal and the developer, I encourage you to read the following:
What authority do I have as your state representative?
One of the questions I hear most often is:
"If you oppose this project, why can't you stop it?"
The answer is simple: under Pennsylvania law, I do not have the legal authority to approve or deny this proposal.
That decision belongs to the Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board, which is responsible for determining whether this application complies with local zoning laws. Members of the Zoning Board are our neighbors, and they are appointed by the Plymouth Township Council.
As your State Representative, I cannot direct the Zoning Hearing Board to vote, nor can I block this application myself.
While I don't have the authority to decide this case, I do have a responsibility to advocate for our community—and that's exactly what I am doing.
How you can participate?
This is probably the most important decision facing our community, and your voice matters.
You should attend all the Zoning Hearing Board Meetings concerning this project. Here is the link to their website. The next hearing before the Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board is scheduled for:
Thursday, August 6
7:00 PM
Colonial Middle School
716 Belvoir Road
Plymouth Meeting, PA
An additional hearing is planned for July 30, although that meeting has not yet been confirmed.
Prior to attending you should do the following:
You can also help at the state level by contacting your state Senators and telling them to vote Yes on legislation you support. You’ll find links to their contact information and relevant bills in the cart below.
What have I done?
Locally:
In Harrisburg:
While I cannot decide on this zoning case, I can change Pennsylvania law, so communities have more tools to deal with projects like this. This is a multi-step process that I explain more in this video. Scott Explains How a Bill Becomes Law
Legislation I support
Give Communities More Control
Protect Taxpayers
Protect Water and Air
Increase Transparency
Give Municipalities Better Tools
Here is the status of each of these bills. You can help by contacting the listed state Senator and demand they vote Yes to make these bills become law.
What I’ve recommended to local governments
I have met with local municipal officials from our area including but not limited to members of our local Councils, Sewer Authorities, and School Boards about these issues.
I have shared resources with each of my municipalities, including draft language to assist them in drafting a zoning ordinance for data centers.
I have shared my recommendations that these ordinances should consider important factors like:
In addition to the above factors, municipalities can adopt zoning code language that will result in the following information from applicants:
Here are some of the resources that I have shared with municipal officials:
What are Municipal Curative Amendments?
Communities across Pennsylvania are working hard to understand what tools they have to protect themselves as large-scale data center proposals continue to emerge. PennFuture's short video on Municipal Curative Amendments explains when and how this procedural tool can be used to respond to development pressures – and also looks at scenarios where existing tools fall short in their ability to protect municipalities.
The PA House has taken action to help municipalities across the commonwealth in situations where the Municipal Curative Amendment may not be a workable option. I am a co-sponsor of HB 2496, introduced by Rep. Paul Friel, that addresses the limitations of the curative amendment procedure, giving every municipality the option to place a 180-day pause on new data center applications while they develop the ordinances and protections their community needs. This is a practical, commonsense step that gives local leaders the time and space to make informed decisions.
This bill passed the House June 24, 2026, with overwhelming bipartisan support, by a vote of 201–1, and it was reported unanimously out of the Senate Local Government Committee on June 30, 2026. Senate leadership will now determine whether to run it on the Senate floor and give municipalities a solid and straightforward means of protecting their communities.
Can you change State Law to allow residents that don’t live in Plymouth Township to have party status in the Zoning Hearing case? For example, I live in Conshohocken and I’m close to the property and I would like to be a party to this case.
It is important to note that you do not need “party status” to provide public comment or share your thoughts at the Zoning Hearing Board meeting or the Plymouth Township Council meeting. You can do so in person at the actual meetings or provide written comments to them.
Under current law, party status cannot be limited to residents of the municipality in which the zoning hearing board meeting is occurring. Act 247 of 1968 (Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code), Section 908 (Hearings), describes how a zoning hearing board is to conduct its meetings and make decisions. More specifically, subsection (3) under this section states:
The parties to the hearing shall be the municipality, any person affected by the application who has made timely appearance of record before the board, and any other person including civic or community organizations permitted to appear by the board. The board shall have power to require that all persons who wish to be considered parties enter appearances in writing on forms provided by the board for that purpose.
Non-municipal residents may participate if they seek party status and if they are affected by the zoning application. There is a Commonwealth Court ruling that established precedent on this matter:
In the case of Baker v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of West Goshen Tp., Chester County, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled that “Under Section 908, ‘any person affected by the application’ has a right to appear as a party…. Thus, those most deserving of appearing as parties before zoning hearing boards are assured of their ability to do so while others may so appear in the discretion of the boards.”
An individual or group that meet the requirements of having a direct, immediate, pecuniary, and substantial interest in the subject matter of the zoning hearing board would be considered an “affected party.”
Therefore, based on current statutory language and existing Commonwealth Court precedent, legislation on this issue does not appear to be necessary.
Where do I stand on HB 502, I was told that it would “fast track” the data center project proposed in Plymouth and bypass the local Zoning Hearing Board?
Many of you have also contacted me regarding House Bill 502. After working to strengthen the bill by advocating for additional local protections and amendments, I ultimately concluded that it still does not provide the level of local control our communities deserve. For that reason, I have withdrawn my support for House Bill 502 and, if it comes before the House in its current form, I will vote against it. Anything that transfers decision-making on projects of this magnitude from locally elected officials to an appointed board is not something I can support. I believe the people closest to these decisions—the communities that will live with their impacts—must continue to have a meaningful voice in the process.
Do you support Senator Katie Muth’s Senate Bill 1359 which would impose a statewide three-year moratorium on data centers?
I share the concerns that have led many people to support a statewide moratorium on new data centers. Communities deserve time to understand these projects before they're approved, and local governments need stronger tools to protect their residents.
Where I differ is on the best path to achieving that goal. Rather than supporting a proposal that is unlikely to advance in the Senate and could face significant legal challenges, I have focused on passing legislation that has already earned bipartisan support in the House and gives municipalities practical, legally durable tools to act. That includes House Bill 2496, which authorizes local governments to pause data center applications for up to 180 days while they update zoning ordinances, along with legislation to require water and energy reporting, increase transparency, strengthen environmental oversight, and ensure data centers—not taxpayers—pay their fair share of infrastructure costs.
My priority has never been to make a political statement. It has been passing laws that will actually protect our communities. I will continue supporting legislation that is both effective and capable of becoming law so that municipalities have the authority and resources they need to make informed decisions about projects of this scale. My colleagues and I in the House have gathered well over 102 votes on multiple pieces of legislation that would help protect our communities on data centers. If Senator Muth does the same in the co-equal chamber where she serves, convincing at least 26 of her colleagues to vote in favor of her bill, I will be happy to vote for it when it comes over to the House for consideration.