Data centers, old comprehensive plan highlight Bethel Twp. planning session

This article was funded by LebTown donors as part of our Civic Impact Reporting Project.

Regulations concerning data centers and Bethel Township’s 2002 comprehensive plan dominated discussions at Tuesday’s meeting of the municipality’s planning commission. 

Data centers

Following lengthy discussion, the commission decided to explore the creation of a draft data center ordinance. The draft would be presented to township supervisors for consideration to regulate data centers within the municipality. 

Commission chairman Dale Snader kicked off the discussion by saying he had recently attended a webinar for township officials with over 1,000 participants who came to learn more about the topic. 

“It’s coming, and I suppose we have to look at it. So I made a couple notes here about the closed loop cooling that recycles the water, uses so much water,” Snader said. “Make your own power, which is just not practical, because of the amount of power that they use, there’s no way these places can pull enough solar power from the panels. They need nuclear power plants. … The amount of power (needed) is crazy.”

Zoning officer Jackie Hollenbach, who attended the meeting on behalf of township engineer Matthew Mack, said she was also on the same webinar.

“They were saying that they’re having some that are going into smaller footprints that are even in an ag district and are made of wood to look like a barn and are fitting into the surrounding community,” Hollenbach said. “Some of them are going in two stories or three-story buildings in town. So we all think about the big data centers being with huge warehouses, but they’re finding ways to get in town with any community, even on smaller scales. But they still need big power.” 

Snader questioned whether the township had the fiber network capacity required for data centers. While Hollenbach was unsure what might exist elsewhere in the community with fiber optic networks, she said supervisor Michael Saphore told her he wanted some kind of policy within the township’s zoning codes concerning data centers.

“He was at a seminar this week with PSATS (Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors) and he said he would really like something in our zoning ordinance sooner rather than later to try and get us some kind of protection from them,” she said, with Snader replying that he couldn’t argue with Saphore’s wishes.

Hollenbach also noted that township solicitor Andrew Morrow had mentioned a standalone zoning ordinance.

“One of the things they suggested was to make it a special exception,” Snader said.

A special exception is a zoning provision that allows specific land uses not automatically permitted in a district, provided they meet predefined, objective criteria outlined in the ordinance. Unlike a variance, it is not a waiver of rules, but a conditional use approved by a zoning board that must not harm the public health, safety, or welfare. 

Hollenbach noted the township treats solar farms as a special exception, and data centers could be treated the same way. 

Bruce Light noted they could be put into commercial zones, adding he’s not a proponent of creating a special exception policy. 

“Special exception is so easy for them to get,” said Light. 

“You can do conditional use but then it goes to the board and the supervisors to make their determinations,” Hollenbach replied. 

“With a special exception they have to comply with the list of rules that are put in your ordinance,” said Snader. “And making your own power is the one that would, I don’t know how to get around it. I don’t know that we can do that.” 

“Yeah, they said a lot about putting solar panels on the top but they’re not generating anywhere near enough electricity to actually operate them,” added Hollenbach.

Hollenbach said she will research other ordinances, and planners unanimously voted to add the topic of a draft data center ordinance to future meeting agendas. 

2002 Comprehensive Plan

Snader reminded the commission that its members voted unanimously in February 2021 to recommend that township supervisors look at updating the comprehensive plan, but said supervisors now have said they have “too many other things going on right now,” so nothing is happening.

Light, a former supervisor, disagreed. “That’s not true,” he said. “We looked at the comprehensive plan and decided nothing needs to change. We did look.”

Snader said he had a letter from April 2021 stating that supervisors had “many projects needing our immediate attention,” and adding “therefore we will not be taking action at the township supervisors meeting concerning these issues.” That was five years ago, he said, and the 24-year-old plan is overdue for an update.

“There were also two elections. And in both elections, I spoke personally to the candidates who are now filling those seats, and Dave (Brubaker), you are one of them, and Mike (Saphore), and both of you said, ‘Yes, I will support updating this comprehensive plan,’” said Snader. 

Brubaker, who represents the supervisors on the planning commission, did not comment on that statement. 

During additional discussion, Light questioned the need for a new plan, noting that supervisors had reviewed the plan annually and didn’t see a reason to update it. There was also discussion about the cost associated with the plan, although funds have been budgeted annually for an update.

Member Christine Spangler said she opposes reviewing the plan and suggested the township consider creating a traffic impact fee, based on the Pennsylvania Transportation Impact Fee Act (Act 209 of 1990), which allows municipalities to charge developers fees for roadway improvements necessitated by new projects. Light agreed, adding that traffic is the major issue that township officials should address.

However, Snader expressed concerns that planning might be dictated by others since the plan is more than two decades old.

“The other thing that’s happening is Lebanon County has updated their plan. We’re part of Lebanon County and it just seems to me, you should be telling Lebanon County what we want rather than the other way around. And I don’t know that they’re looking for a 24-year-old plan,” Snader said. 

There was also disagreement about the volume of available commercial land still available within the municipality. Snader said he was worried that a company could demand to build elsewhere due to a lack of available commercially zoned land. 

“The one thing that will probably cause some consternation is the available land for commercial and residential is pretty much used up … especially with the residential because of the farmland preservation,” said Snader. “So I think the township is at risk of not having space available for somebody to do something.”

He also noted that poultry producer Bell & Evans used most of the available commercial land and also added to it substantially through rezoning.

“Where else could somebody put a warehouse if they came in here and would want to put a warehouse? We don’t have space,” added Snader. 

Spangler and Light, however, both disagreed with that statement.

Light listed several areas he said could be developed and Spangler expressed support for Act 209.

“I think before even the comprehensive plan, that if we did that study, it would allow the township to assess and charge developers for offsite improvements. So that would actually generate money for the township to make traffic improvements offsite if their development causes it,” Spangler said. “To me, that would be a higher priority than updating the comprehensive plan.”

“That was my only concern, we’re spending money on a comprehensive plan and nobody, including your expert guy, could tell me what’s going to change,” Light said.

“If I could put my two cents in here, not that it’s worth much, but if you were looking to map a new path for the future, for sure I’d update the comprehensive,” said Hollenbach. “If you’re looking back to the residents and the board feels like they want to keep things status quo, the comprehensive is still technically effective.”

Snader called for a motion, but it died due to inaction. The commission did, however, pass a motion requesting supervisors to explore the implementation of a traffic impact fee on future development based on Act 209.

Other business

In other business, the commission voted unanimously, unless otherwise noted, to: 

• Table a discussion concerning a letter from Northern Lebanon School District to pay the township to complete sidewalk work as part of a requirement related to the renovations at the middle and high schools.
• Accept a time extension to June 14 for the Bell & Evans transportation center’s preliminary/final land development plan.
• Recommend that supervisors give a six-month window to Bell & Evans and Fredericksburg Fire Company officials to seek options for permissible use of the driveway at Fireman’s Park, which is owned by the fire company. The site of the annual Hinklefest celebration, Bell & Evans provide financing to renovate park buildings but questions concerning entrance to the park from Route 343 have not been addressed. Spangler abstained from a vote since she is a PennDOT employee and the highway is owned by her employer. 
• Approve a time extension request to Aug. 14 for the Jeff Brubaker minor subdivision and land development plan for a project at 2288 S. Pine Grove St.
• Grant a time extension to Aug. 13, to Bell & Evans for a preliminary/final land development plan for a project at Legionnaire Drive.
• Provide four waivers for the Chris Lantz subdivision/stormwater management plan. The waivers are for minimum pipe diameter, minimum street standards, right-of-way standards, and street improvements. Spangler abstained on votes pertaining to the roadway. 
• Approve the minutes of their March 17 meeting.

The Bethel Township Planning Commission meets the third Tuesday of each month at 7 p.m. at the township building at 3015 S. Pine Grove St., Fredericksburg. The next meeting is scheduled for May 19.