A Ransom Twp. zoning hearing played out like a high-intensity courtroom proceeding Tuesday night, with supervisors voting 2-1 to reject a property owner's request to change the municipality’s zoning ordinance to allow development of a data center campus.
The vote came after attorney Laura McGarry pointed out flaws in the hearing process and Scranton Materials LLC’s case seeking the change.
McGarry, who represented her mother, Scranton resident Susan Magnotta, argued that lawyers for the Meshoppen-based LLC could not authenticate exhibits, presented no witnesses and provided no information to people with party status ahead of the meeting.
"This is a hearing, nothing's been heard. They haven't presented any evidence," she said. "I think that there's sufficient basis for the board to deny the application without the need for any other testimony or evidence. I don't even know what the testimony and evidence would be in opposition to because nothing's been presented at this point other than some paper, which I continue to argue can't be authenticated.”
Over 100 people filled the township's garage, which was selected as a venue after the municipal building proved too small for the crowd last week.
Background on the request
Stone quarry owner Scranton Materials LLC is the latest developer to propose constructing a data center campus in Northeast Pennsylvania, specifically Lackawanna County.
In November, through its attorneys, Michael Mey and Justin Sulla, the company applied for and provided a data center overlay ordinance on its property at 819 Newton Road. The property in Ransom Twp. borders West Scranton. It is currently zoned as S1, which is an open space/conservation district
An overlay is an additional layer to existing zoning districts, essentially adding another use for the land.
An hour into the hearing, McGarry called for a “nonsuit,” which stops legal proceedings because the plaintiff — which in the Ransom case was Scranton Materials — failed to make a legal case or bring forth sufficient evidence.
Because of that, she requested the board vote immediately to deny the zoning application.
“There's nothing presented to the board to consider at this point,” she said.
The crowd, many wearing yellow “NO DATA CENTERS” pins, erupted into cheers. Ransom Twp. Solicitor Kevin Conaboy called for order.
'Those documents speak for themselves'
Sulla, along with attorney Todd Johns, argued that they followed the township’s procedures.
“We’ve submitted the application, the map and all the supporting documents, that’s what they’re voting on,” Johns said. “The application speaks for its own.”
“And the documents that supported the zoning overlay map, the zoning overlay, all those documents speak for themselves,” Sulla added. “That's the decision that's being made, you know, on those documents.”
Conaboy paused the hearing to research the Pennsylvania Municipal Code.
After about 10 minutes, he returned and said the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code states that formal rules of evidence — which are legal principles that determine what information courts can use to decide a case — do not apply to zoning hearings.
He asked the board to vote to deny McGarry’s nonsuit request and continue the hearing.
But township Supervisor Robert Wells agreed with McGarry and made a motion to deny the zoning overlay application based on McGarry's nonsuit objection.
“When the solar people came to present their case, they had the environmental study done, they had the hearing study done, they had the glare study done,” he said. “All the ducks were in a row, and they had professional people in that area to talk about it. I think [if] they're going to present their application, they should present it with all the things that are required to come with it.”
Supervisor Gerald Scott Jr. seconded Wells' motion, which passed 2-1 with Supervisor David Bird objecting.
“The motion for a nonsuit is granted. And I believe that that essentially dismisses the application because they failed to submit the appropriate record,” Conaboy said.
Sulla and Johns had no comment after the hearing.
Conaboy said he was not sure what comes next, including whether Scranton Materials can re-apply for the overlay.
Planning commission reviewed data center plans
Whether or not the documentation was considered sufficient, Tuesday's hearing did include testimony which shed light on the proposed data center, including concerns raised by another municipal board about the ordinance.
The township's planning commission held meetings on Dec. 15 and Jan. 12 at which the lawyers for Scranton Materials presented their data center zoning overlay ordinance request.
Conaboy called Ransom Twp. Planning Commission Chair James Murphy to testify during Tuesday's hearing. The seven-member commission is a recommending body.
"The ultimate recommendation with the planning commission was that they (supervisors) do not accept this ordinance as written,” Murphy said.
Murphy’s testimony gave insight into Scranton Materials’ plans for the data center campus.
The planning commission was presented a concept plan from Dec. 12 that Murphy said included:
- Six proposed data center buildings each 214 feet by 732 feet — around 3.5 acres or just over 2.5 football fields each — and 120 feet tall.
- There would be 250 feet in elevation between the lower two buildings and the upper three buildings, which is equivalent to a 20 to 25 story building; another sixth building would be the highest and uphill by another 100 feet.
- Two storm water management ponds, one at 446,500 square feet, or about 10 acres, and a second larger pond at 737,697 square feet, or almost 17 acres; the ponds would hold 8 million gallons of water, Murphy said; retaining walls would be 50 feet high and within 70 feet of the property lines.
- The plans reference cooling towers and wetlands but Murphy said they were not on the drawings.
- An access road on the property extends into Newton Twp. Murphy questioned if that township should also be involved.
- The minimum setbacks, maximum building coverage and maximum impervious coverage did not appear to be in line with any commercial or industrial zoning rules, Murphy said.
- The ordinance also did not include an environmental and community analysis to show how the campus would impact water, sewage, solid waste, emergency responders and more, Murphy said.
Sulla cross-examined Murphy and asked if he agreed that the township’s current zoning laws do not provide for data centers as a use.
“I'm sure it doesn't, because when this was done in 2018 data centers were [just] a thought,” Murphy replied.
Sulla submits documents and McGarry objects
Sulla asked to submit eight exhibits into the record. They included:
- The proposed zoning overlay ordinance
- The lawyer’s application for the overlay
- An email dated Dec. 12
- The zoning overlay map
- A letter from Conaboy’s office to Attorney Michael Mey of Mey and Sulla regarding the hearing on Jan. 15
- A survey map
- An aerial map
- The Ransom Twp. zoning ordinance.
Further information about the submissions was not provided publicly, and McGarry objected.
"First on the basis that none of the parties in this room have had the opportunity to review these exhibits,” she said.
Many residents from the Abingtons and Scranton not only showed up for the hearing but signed up to be parties to the proceedings, meaning they could cross-examine witnesses and would be given any exhibits.
Most signed up on Thursday, the hearing’s originally scheduled date. It had to be moved to Tuesday and into the township’s garage, surrounded by tires and road signs, to accommodate the amount of people who wanted to participate.
McGarry, who herself had not seen the exhibits, argued that without being able to review them, the documents lacked authenticity.
"There's been no one here to say what they are and who prepared them and that, and again, that they say what they're purported to say,” she said. “And we have not had an opportunity as party objectors to review these documents.”
Conaboy overruled the objection because, again, he said courtroom rules of evidence did not apply under the municipal planning code.
Sulla asked how McGarry wanted them to authenticate the documents.
"We've submitted an application. It's submitted by us, we're submitting it … and also the documents have been accepted into the record,” Sulla said.
McGarry called for a fact witness.
"We've already testified there are no fact witnesses,” Sulla said.
McGarry said she understood that the rules of evidence did not apply.
"But this is a proceeding. As a quasi-judicial body, the burden of proof is on an applicant to do whatever it is that needs to happen at this hearing for the board to vote,” she said. “I move then for what is essentially a nonsuit on the basis that they provided no testimony or evidence or no information under oath to substantiate the basis of the application.”
Johns asked that they be permitted to return with appropriate witnesses. He argued that they could not have predicted McGarry’s objection.
“They had an opportunity to bring whatever witnesses they needed to put their case on. They didn't bring anybody today. You don't get a second bite at the apple because the quasi-judicial body says you didn't do enough,” McGarry said.
She again called for the board to make a decision, saying that the lawyers did not meet their burden of proof.
That’s when Conaboy went into a separate room to research the municipal code.
Conaboy called the hearing to a close after the supervisors’ vote.
The residents, many of whom had been prepared to speak, hugged each other and McGarry in celebration.
