URGENT UPDATE: Scranton Materials LLC has just filed a second legal challenge against Ransom Township, escalating the fight over plans to develop data centers on its property. This lawsuit, submitted on Monday in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, seeks a declaratory judgment to construct six data centers, each with a massive footprint of 156,648 square feet, on Newton Road.
The quarry owner is demanding that the court recognize the township’s zoning ordinance as exclusionary to data centers. The legal action requests permission to build on 251 acres of land, aiming to overturn the township supervisors’ decision made on January 20, 2023, which effectively blocked an earlier curative amendment for zoning relief. Attorney Michael Mey, representing Scranton Materials, argues that township officials abused their discretion in denying the amendment.
This legal battle marks at least the 11th proposed data center campus in Lackawanna County, with other projects emerging in Archbald, Clifton, and Covington townships, as well as Dickson City and Jessup. The stakes are high, as local municipalities in Pennsylvania are required to accommodate all types of land use, including data centers, to avoid legal ramifications for exclusionary zoning.
The crux of the conflict lies in the township’s 2018 zoning ordinance, which, according to Mey, fails to define or classify data center uses. This void has prompted Scranton Materials to argue that the township’s refusal to allow data centers constitutes a significant legal oversight under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC).
In Scranton Materials’ previous appeal, filed on February 18, the same arguments were presented, highlighting the township’s failure to comply with legal zoning requirements. The quarry has been operational for over 50 years, and the potential development of data centers could reshape the local economy and job market.
At a public hearing on January 15, Ransom Township supervisors voted against the quarry’s proposal, despite a unanimous recommendation from the planning commission to reject it. The controversy intensified when a motion for nonsuit was introduced, leading to a 2-1 vote against allowing the quarry’s application to proceed. Township Solicitor Kevin Conaboy recommended continuing the hearing but faced opposition from the supervisors.
Mey asserts that the board’s decision to dismiss the application without a valid basis was a misapplication of the MPC. He contends that the township’s actions not only ignored legal standards but also failed to recognize the significant implications of their zoning restrictions on local economic development.
Scranton Materials’ latest lawsuit emphasizes the need for site-specific relief to develop data centers and argues that the board’s decision constitutes a legal error. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future zoning challenges throughout Pennsylvania, especially as similar legal arguments have successfully advanced other major infrastructure projects in the past.
As community members voice their concerns about potential impacts on local utilities, schools, and environmental resources, the urgency of this case cannot be overstated. Thousands of residents have participated in discussions about the implications of data centers in their neighborhoods, highlighting fears over noise, traffic, and resource strain.
This legal dispute is rapidly unfolding, and all eyes will be on the court as it prepares to address the pressing questions surrounding Ransom Township’s zoning practices. Expect further developments in this case as it progresses through the legal system.
