The Penn Forest Zoning Board Tuesday night denied a data center ordinance challenge because of lack of jurisdiction.

Testimony continued Tuesday night from the hearing in July in front of the Penn Forest Zoning Board, with attorney Greg L. Mousseau. The hearing was held at Penn’s Peak.

William J. Fontaine made a Substantive Validity Challenge to Penn Forest’s zoning ordinance in reference to data centers. Fontaine alleged “that the board abused its discretion and its decision to approve the requested change to the zoning map which violated provisions of the Second Class Township Code, the MPC and acted contrary to the purpose and intent of the Penn Forest Zoning Ordinance. and its decision is contrary to Pennsylvania law.”

Representing Fontaine was Attorney William Cluck.

Seven people were recognized as having party status including Robert Kulp, owner of property near the proposed data center, who asked to “stay all proceedings” which was denied.

As the hearing began attorney Tom Nanovic objected to jurisdiction and the plaintiff being an aggrieved party. This hearing was to determine if Fontaine is an aggrieved party and if there could be possible effects to his well.

Cluck began by discussing the adopted zoning ordinance addressing water, sewer and a water feasibility study.

Cluck noted that “Mr. Fontaine is in an area of influence and his water source may be affected by a data center.”

Mousseau asked Fontaine what makes him an aggrieved party, to which he responded, “It affects my well and makes my home inhabitable.”

Nanovic objected to this and Mousseau followed up by asking what evidence (Fontaine) has that he will suffer?”

Cluck responded that the map is spot zoning and stated that Fontaine’s home is in close proximity to the Mele Brothers overlay.

The Mele Brothers own the property where a potential data center could be located.)

The discussion between Nanovic and Cluck got heated and led to name calling until the heating was brought back to order.

Nanovic reiterated that there is no application for a data center.

It was pointed out that Fontaine entered into a lease on May 12, 2026, which is after the substantive validity challenge was filed.

At this time the property Fontaine owns is vacant, with no well nor septic.

Fontaine explained that he wants legal standing to file and protect Sawmill Run and the trout as it is a Class A body of water. His five-year lease on the property would be used for hunting and fishing.

A big round of applause came as Fontaine stated, “I want legal standing as a land owner to protect Sawmill Run.”

Following questions about the aquifer and the lease on the property.

Fontaine was asked by attorney. Mousseau what specific identifiable harm he will suffer.

“If I lose the well, I lose habitability of the property. A data center will radically and fundamentally change the character of this community,” Fontaine responded, leading to a round of applause from the audience.

As the zoning board members stated they were going into executive session, Cluck added, “I am extremely disappointed in how the law has been presented tonight.”

Cluck made reference to collusion, which led to another heated argument between the attorneys and the need to go off the record.

Mousseau reiterated about proving to be an aggrieved party, “We don’t have a developer for a data center, you have to prove injury within proximity.”

The zoning board went into an executive session. When they returned, they asked for three documents to be added to the record.

Fontaine’s lease was admitted “subject to relevancy” per Nanovic. The zoning ordinance and a complete copy of the Mele Brothers substantive validity challenge were admitted to the record.

An opportunity was given for those with party status to speak before the decision was announced.

Linda Christman from Save Carbon County, noted that the zoning ordinance calls for naming the Mele Brothers property as a place for a data center and the Mele Brothers haven’t withdrawn their substance of validity challenge, which could proceed with no restriction.

The zoning board ruled that Fontaine is not an aggrieved party. “Based on that, there is no plan submitted (for a data center). Therefore, we deny as he (Fontaine) does not have jurisdiction.”