A technical review of Penn Forest’s proposed data center zoning ordinance amendment sparked a heated discussion during the Carbon County Planning Commission meeting.

Penn Forest Township’s Chapter 240 amendment addresses data centers and data center accessory uses.

Ivan O. Meixell Jr., county planner, provided a review of the proposed amendment.

He noted that it covered zoning overlay districts, which are a special regulatory tool used in urban planning and land use management.

“Its purpose is to apply additional requirements or modify existing zoning regulations for specific geographic areas,” he said. “This allows municipalities to address unique concerns, guide development, or protect certain resources without changing the underlying zoning classification.”

Meixell provided examples, including using an overlay for historic neighborhoods, environmentally sensitive lands and waterfronts as a way to provide rules and preservation guidelines.

The planning commission reviewed the updates in according to Pennsylvania Municipalities planning codes.

Meixell said that the updates provide “a formal definition for data centers and their uses, distinguishing them from other commercial and industrial uses.”

It also clarifies zoning interpretation, enforcement and standards for data centers and includes criteria for permitting zoning, operational requirements and accessory uses on such a site.

Meixell noted that based on the code, the amendment is appropriate. “The Carbon County Planning Commission believes the proposed data center ordinance amendment in Chapter 240 and the zoning map represent a proactive approach to managing data center development in Penn Forest Township by clarifying definitions, setting performance standards and strategic zonings for data centers.

“The township can balance economic growth with environmental stewardship and community interest,” he added.

Meixell then recommended approval for the amendment. This recommendation is not a final approval, but rather just a recommendation to be included with further discussion by the township.

Bill Fontaine, a Penn Forest Township resident, questioned the review, noting that he felt that data centers are in conflict with zoning in the area.

“You’re putting a use that’s not in harmony with residential and commercial uses,” he said, adding that he plans to litigate this matter.

Fontaine then scolded the commission, saying that he expected something more from the review to help the residents.

The commission told him that they are just an advisory board, and their recommendations are not final.

“I understand you’re advisory only ... but this has gone too far,” Fontaine responded. “I want to see some real hard comments. I want you to do your job. I want you to dig in deep. I’m counting on you.”

Meixell stressed that the commission did what was asked of them, which was to review the amendment against the state code.

Fontaine argued that the amendment is inconsistent with the county comprehensive plan and noted that overlay districts are not supposed to be done in Pennsylvania.

“This is not a harmonious act,” he told the commission. “I want good advice. That’s what I expect.”

He urged the commission not to approve it before going back and taking a harder look at all of it.

The commission defended Meixell’s review, and noted that they are all county residents as well.

“You can relax because we’re all interested in the same thing,” Chairman Fred Bresswin said. “Ivan does an excellent job so you can calm down because we want the same thing.”

Fontaine continued, speaking about his past conquests against power plants and state officials, before the commission shut down the conversation for a vote.

A motion was made to approve the review of the ordinance, and passed with most of the members who were in attendance.

One member, Martin Kane, voted no initially, saying that he feels there seems to be a disconnect between the actual approval of a data center and the amended ordinance.

“I’m not not in favor of amending the ordinance,” he said. “I think it needs to be amended. But I think people are starting to think that the approval of the amended zoning ordinance, and that’s really what this is, is the approval of a data center, and they’re not the same. ...

“I wanted to make sure that our approval is not the approval of a data center.”

The board then amended the motion to convey that their recommendation was strictly for the zoning ordinance amendment and not the approval of any data center.