South Cape

Oh baby! That rocks!

Tag: umbt

  • UMBT Datacenter – Revised Draft Ordinance

    UMBT-ZoningAmend-DataCntrs-DRAFT2Download

    Upper Mt. Bethel Township today posted a revised draft ordinance providing zoning requirements for datacenters.

    This draft ordinance takes a couple steps toward protecting the residents of the Township.

    At a glance, there are more stringent height limits and the incorporation of the PA Environmental Rights Amendment. Incorporating that Amendment binds the Township to ensuring an actual environmental assessment; residents then have legal standing to challenge an approval that may not be backed by as assessment.

    That said, most of the wide loopholes are still in place, and some technical deficiencies in the draft remain.

    Key loopholes remaining in this draft are:

    • Exemptions to noise requirements: while reduced noise limits are noted, there are exemptions specific to on-site power generation, which is often the single biggest source of noise.
    • On-site, non-emergency power generation: on-site “power generation plants” are defined but their use is never restricted or regulated.
    • Generator emissions: adherence to EPA Tier IV generator equipment is recommended but not required; there is a daily limit of non-emergency backup generator testing hours, but no annual limit. There is no limit on power generation plant runtime hours.
    • Project size: there is no cap on the size of a single project on any of the following metrics: megawatt capacity, campus size, lot coverage, or impervious surface area.
    • Ongoing enforcement: language in the draft ordinance states the Township “may” require monitoring and enforcement, never “must” or “shall.”
    • Electrical interconnect capacity: a utility capacity letter is required for projects, but conflicting language allows a developer to request it later in the project than may be intended by the Township.

    In addition to the loopholes above, there are some technical issues with the draft that will need resolution prior to consideration by the Township Supervisors:

    • Lighting: Section O limits luminairies to 20 feet above their finished grade, while Section DD allows fixtures up to 25 to 30 feet.
    • Noise: the definition of generators states they are subject to the 55 dBA noise limit, though the noise section of the draft ordinance exempts “required periodic testing.” Finally, a blanket statement of noise not being perceptible at the property line overlaps with the measurable limit.
    • Minor typographical errors: “fuel cells UPC”, “no close than”, etc.
    • Language targeting a specific site: the draft directs construction traffic to use River Road; the specific road must be removed and replaced with broadened language.

    The technical issues, especially concerning lighting, noise, and road usage, are more significant than they first appear. In cases of conflicting rules in ordinances, the Municipalities Planning Code provides for the least restrictive rule to apply to the landowner. In matters of ordinances targeting specific “persons” (to include companies), the zoning commission may invalidate at least the section of the ordinance which attempts to restrict road usage.

  • UMBT Datacenter – Revised MOU

    UMBT Talen MOU Revised-4908-3404-7178-v1Download
    UMBT Talen MOU OriginalDownload

    During a Township Supervisors meeting on August 24, the solicitor mentioned near the end of the meeting that a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was received from the developer of the project.

    This previously unannounced MOU is subject to public review and comment prior to consideration for execution.

    The TLDR of this revised version is that there are a couple of minimally-invasive changes from “may/should” to “must/shall”. Furthermore, a LERTA tax abatement commitment is removed. Finally, a binding decommissioning plan with pre-funding is required.

    That said, revisions continue to exhibit toothless language. For example: the water usage addition, which is a highly contentious topic in the community, is functionally unenforceable due to the language “to the maximum extent feasible” which essentially hands the applicant full discretion to such limits.

    To foster productive consideration and discussion within the community, below are the substantive changes identified between the original and revised MsOU.

    1. A party was dropped

    The original is a three-party agreement among Slate Belt Holdings, the Township, and the Upper Mount Bethel Township Municipal Authority. The revised version removes the Authority entirely – it’s now a two-party agreement between just Slate Belt and the Township (recitals, signature block, and all references updated accordingly).

    2. Section 2.1 – Text Amendment (stronger obligation)

    • Original: the amendment “may contain” environmental protections (noise, parking, utilities, etc.)
    • Revised: it “shall contain” those protections – makes the environmental protections mandatory rather than optional.

    3. Section 2.2 – Community Benefits Agreement (different beneficiary)

    • Original: Slate Belt donates to “non-profit causes or entities designated by the Township”
    • Revised: Slate Belt donates “to the Township for future infrastructure and/or community-based projects or entities designated by the Township” – broadens the donation to include direct Township infrastructure funding, not just third-party non-profits. The $50M trigger at 2 gigawatts is unchanged.

    4. Section 2.4 – Outstanding Litigation (narrowed, and a term dropped)

    • Original: names the Township, Authority, and River Pointe as litigants, and adds a sentence requiring the parties to also terminate a Facilities Agreement dated April 16, 2024 between the Township and River Pointe once the litigation is discontinued.
    • Revised: drops the Authority as a litigant (consistent with its removal as a party) and deletes the Facilities Agreement termination requirement entirely.

    5. Section 2.5 – LERTA tax abatement extension (deleted entirely)

    The original had a section where the Township agreed to extend the existing 10-year LERTA tax abatement on the Property and to encourage other taxing bodies to do the same. This entire section is removed in the revised MOU – there’s no more LERTA commitment.

    6. Marshfield Drive vacation (weakened and re-triggered)

    • Original (§2.6): “Upon execution of the Community Benefits Agreement, the Township shall commence, and then complete,” the vacation procedures – a firm, unilateral Township obligation.
    • Revised (§2.5): “After execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall confer on the status and resolution of the conditions to vacate” – a softer, joint “confer” obligation triggered earlier (at MOU signing rather than CBA signing), with no firm completion commitment.

    7. Two new sections added in the revised version

    • §2.6 Water Usage (new): Slate Belt commits each data center building will use, to the maximum extent feasible, either a closed-loop cooling system or recycled/non-potable water for cooling, and must disclose its cooling system/water source and coordination with the water provider in future applications.
    • §2.7 Decommissioning Plan (new): each building’s land development approval must include an approved decommissioning plan and posted financial security for decommissioning.

    8. Section 3.8 – Assignment language tightened

    • Original: Slate Belt “may freely assign” the MOU to an affiliate, tenant, or purchaser (also contains a stray typo, “Parties Slate.”).
    • Revised: Slate Belt “will assign” the MOU – changes from permissive/optional language to what reads as a stated intention/commitment (and fixes the typo).