Analysis of the Proposed Data Center Campus in Clifton and Covington Townships

I. Introduction

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of a proposed large-scale data center campus, identified in planning documents as "Gouldsboro," which is slated for development across a significant land area spanning both Clifton and Covington Townships in Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. A development team, operating through a series of limited liability companies including 1778 Rich Pike, LLC and Quantm Group, LLC, has initiated a sophisticated, dual-front campaign to secure the necessary land use approvals for the project.

The developer's strategy is multifaceted, employing distinct legal and legislative tactics tailored to each municipality. In Clifton Township, the developer has launched an aggressive legal offensive by filing a substantive validity challenge against the township's zoning ordinance. This challenge claims the ordinance is unconstitutional because it allegedly fails to provide for data center uses, and it seeks not just to invalidate the law but to obtain court-ordered, site-specific relief to build the project with significant waivers for height and noise.

Simultaneously, in Covington Township, the developer is pursuing a more cooperative, legislative path. It has submitted applications to the Board of Supervisors to create an entirely new zoning district, the "DCET (Data Center, Energy, and Technology)" district, and has also filed a preliminary land development application for the campus. This approach aims to rewrite the local laws to explicitly permit the proposed development in areas currently zoned as Rural Residential.

For local residents, particularly those on or near Sandy Beach Road, the project poses significant concerns. These include the introduction of heavy industrial-scale development into areas zoned for residential and open space uses, the potential for continuous, high-decibel noise from cooling systems and backup generators, substantial water consumption for cooling operations, and increased traffic from new access points, including one explicitly shown on "Clifton Beach Road". This report consolidates and analyzes all available public information to provide a factual foundation for understanding the project, its proponents, the legal and regulatory battles ahead, and the critical points for public engagement.

II. The Project and Its Proponents

A complete understanding of the proposed development requires a detailed examination of the project itself, the corporate entities and individuals driving it, and the specific parcels of land they seek to control.

A. The "Gouldsboro Data Center" Campus

The proposed development is consistently referred to as the "Gouldsboro" project in engineering and application documents submitted in both townships. It is envisioned as a massive, multi-building data center campus designed to house computer servers and related telecommunications equipment on a scale that significantly exceeds typical commercial development.

Minutes from the Covington Township Board of Supervisors meeting on May 13, 2025, document a presentation by the developer's representative, Tony Maras, who stated the full project would consist of up to 35 data center buildings, along with ancillary administrative and control buildings, water towers for cooling, and a dedicated area reserved for a future power generation facility. The project's physical footprint is designed to straddle the municipal boundary line, with components located in both Clifton and Covington Townships, as depicted on the comprehensive site plans prepared by Langan Engineering.

B. The Development Team

The project is being advanced by a team of specialized corporate entities, legal counsel, and engineering consultants.

• Applicant and Equitable Owner: 1778 Rich Pike, LLC is the primary entity making the applications. It is registered to an address in Doylestown, PA, and is identified as the "equitable owner" of the properties in question. This legal term signifies that 1778 Rich Pike, LLC holds legally binding agreements of sale for the properties, giving it the standing to apply for development approvals, even though it may not yet be the owner of record on the deeds. Key individuals signing documents on behalf of this LLC are Matthew Corrigan and Patrick Judge.
• Developer: Quantm Group, LLC, based in Ardmore, PA, is explicitly named as the developer in the Covington Township land development application. David Grasso is listed as a representative of Quantm Group. While public information on "Quantm Group, LLC" is limited, research on similarly named entities suggests a focus on data center infrastructure, technology services, and asset management.
• Legal Counsel: Attorney Matthew J. McHugh of the Philadelphia-based law firm Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP is the legal representative for 1778 Rich Pike, LLC. He is the signatory on the substantive validity challenge filed in Clifton Township. Attorney McHugh specializes in land use, zoning, and real estate development law, particularly in the suburban and eastern regions of Pennsylvania, and has experience representing developers before municipal boards.
• Engineering Firm: Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., a national firm with a Warrington, PA office, is the project's engineer. Langan prepared the detailed site plans, enlargements, and the PPL Project Feasibility Report that were submitted as part of the legal challenge in Clifton and the land development application in Covington.

C. The Property Assemblage

The development team is in the process of assembling a large portfolio of contiguous and nearby parcels in both townships through agreements of sale. The primary sellers identified in the provided documents are JCO, LLC, whose principal is Joseph C. Occhipinti, and Judge Family Estates LLC, whose principal is Patrick Judge.

An examination of the agreements reveals a noteworthy internal transaction. The agreement of sale for the Judge Family Estates LLC property is signed by Patrick Judge as the authorized member of the seller, while the buyer, 1778 Rich Pike, LLC, has its own documents signed by Patrick Judge as well. This indicates that the same individual is involved on both sides of the transaction. This is not an arm's-length sale between unrelated parties but rather a consolidation of assets under a single applicant entity. This structure likely serves to streamline the development application process by unifying control of the land under one LLC, with various partners contributing their land to the overall venture.

The following table consolidates information from deeds, agreements of sale, and municipal applications to provide a comprehensive overview of the properties currently targeted for the project.

Table 1: Project Property Portfolio

Parcel ID	Township	Acreage (approx.)	Current Zoning (as of filing)	Prior/Current Owner
23202020001	Clifton & Covington	389	R-1 (Clifton) / RR (Covington)	JCO, LLC
23802010001	Clifton	1.42	R-1	JCO, LLC
22604020001	Clifton & Covington	141.4	R-1 (Clifton) / RR (Covington)	Judge Family Estates LLC
2260401000201	Covington	142.9	RR - Rural Residential	1778 Rich Pike, LLC (Equitable Owner)
22604010002	Covington	10	RR - Rural Residential	Judge Family Estates LLC
2190302000601	Covington	92.1	RR - Rural Residential	1778 Rich Pike, LLC (Equitable Owner)
22601020001	Covington	104.4	RR - Rural Residential	1778 Rich Pike, LLC (Equitable Owner)
22601020002	Covington	104.4	RR - Rural Residential	1778 Rich Pike, LLC (Equitable Owner)

Note: The total acreage involved is substantial, spanning multiple zoning districts across two municipalities. The zoning information is based on the applications and available zoning maps.

III. Analysis of the Clifton Township Legal Offensive

In Clifton Township, the developer has chosen a direct and confrontational legal strategy designed to bypass the standard application process and secure project approval through a constitutional challenge to the township's zoning laws.

A. The Substantive Validity Challenge (Filed April 17, 2025)

On April 17, 2025, Attorney Matthew McHugh, on behalf of 1778 Rich Pike, LLC, filed a "Substantive Validity Challenge" with the Clifton Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB). This type of legal action does not ask for a permit under the existing law but instead argues that the law itself is fundamentally invalid and unconstitutional.

The core of the developer's legal argument is that the Clifton Township Zoning Ordinance is de jure exclusionary. This means they claim the ordinance, by its very text, completely fails to provide for a legitimate land use, which in this case they have broadly defined as "Data Center Uses". The definition of this use submitted by the developer is exceptionally broad, encompassing:

• Data Centers: Buildings for housing computers and telecommunications equipment.
• Data Center Equipment: Outdoor equipment including battery storage, backup generators (diesel or natural gas), and gas storage facilities.
• Data Center Accessory Uses: A comprehensive list including electrical substations, water treatment facilities, water towers, cooling towers, and natural gas infrastructure.
• Private Power Generation Facility: A facility to generate and sell energy, using natural gas or other sources.

As an alternative, the challenge asserts that the ordinance is de facto exclusionary, meaning that even if the use is technically permitted, other provisions within the ordinance effectively prohibit its development in the township.

Crucially, the developer is not merely asking the ZHB to declare the ordinance invalid. They are demanding site-specific relief, which is a legal remedy that would grant them the right to build the project exactly as depicted on the Langan Engineering site plans submitted with the challenge. This request includes specific and significant deviations from standard zoning, such as a maximum building height of 120 feet and a continuous maximum sound level of 70 dB(A) measured at the property line, with a complete exemption from this limit during the use of emergency equipment. This strategy represents an attempt to win approval for the entire project, including major waivers, in a single legal proceeding before the ZHB.

B. Clifton Township's Zoning Framework & Potential Defense

The developer's entire challenge hinges on the premise that the Clifton zoning ordinance is silent on data centers and offers no path for their consideration. However, the text of the ordinance itself appears to directly contradict this claim. The Clifton Township Code of Ordinances, Chapter 27, contains § 27-502, "Types of Uses". Within this section is a key provision, § 27-502.5, titled "Uses Not Provided". This clause establishes a clear and specific procedure for any proposed use that is "neither specifically permitted nor specifically denied in any zoning district." According to this provision, an application for such a use must be submitted to the Zoning Hearing Board, which has the authority to permit it as a special exception.

This "Uses Not Provided" clause is the foundation of the township's most powerful defense against the charge of de jure exclusion. The township's legal counsel can argue that the ordinance is not silent and is not exclusionary because it provides a clear, established legal pathway for the developer's proposal to be heard and evaluated. The developer simply chose to ignore this path. By framing the data center as a "use not provided for," the burden would shift to the developer to prove, under the special exception criteria, that their proposed industrial-scale campus is "similar to and compatible with" the existing uses in the districts they have targeted—which are predominantly zoned R-1 Residential and OS Open Space. This would be a very difficult standard for the developer to meet, which explains their strategic decision to pursue a validity challenge instead, as it offers a different and potentially more favorable legal battle.

Further strengthening the township's position is the recent passage of Ordinance No. 3-2025. This ordinance specifically amends the zoning code to regulate data centers. It permits them by conditional use, but only within the Industrial (I) Zoning District. It also establishes specific standards for setbacks, requires a water feasibility study to assess impacts on existing wells, and mandates a professional sound study to ensure noise is mitigated.

While this ordinance was likely enacted after the developer's challenge was filed and therefore may not be retroactively applied to this specific case under a legal principle known as the "pending ordinance doctrine," it is still extremely valuable as evidence. It demonstrates the township's legislative intent is not to exclude data centers, but to actively regulate them and direct them to the most appropriate location—the Industrial zone. This directly supports the community's goal and undermines the developer's claim that the township is hostile to the use.

C. Procedural Path in Clifton

The substantive validity challenge will be adjudicated by the Clifton Township Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB). The ZHB is a quasi-judicial body, meaning its hearings are conducted like a trial. Evidence is formally presented, witnesses are sworn in and subject to cross-examination, and a court reporter creates a transcript of the proceedings.

The ZHB will be advised by its solicitor. Township records and user-provided notes identify the ZHB Solicitor as Attorney Thomas S. Nanovic of Jim Thorpe, PA.

For residents to participate effectively in this legal proceeding, simply making public comments will be insufficient. To gain the right to cross-examine the developer's expert witnesses, present their own evidence (such as testimony from their own experts on noise or property values), and file legal briefs, residents must formally request and be granted "party status" at the beginning of the hearing. This is a critical and necessary step for any group intending to mount a serious opposition.

IV. Analysis of the Covington Township Legislative & Administrative Path

The developer's approach in Covington Township stands in stark contrast to its legal battle in Clifton. Here, the strategy is to work with the township's elected officials to change the law to fit the project, rather than challenging the existing law in a quasi-judicial setting.

A. The Dual Applications (Filed April 28, 2025)

On April 28, 2025, the developer, through 1778 Rich Pike, LLC, submitted two separate but related applications to Covington Township, signaling a two-track administrative and legislative process.

1. Rezoning Application: This is a formal request for a public hearing to amend the Covington Township Zoning Map and Ordinance. The application seeks to rezone a large collection of parcels from their current RR (Rural Residential) designation to a newly created zoning district to be named DCET (Data Center, Energy, and Technology). This is a request for a legislative act that requires a majority vote of the Covington Township Board of Supervisors.
2. Preliminary Land Development Application: Concurrently, the developer submitted a preliminary land development plan for the "Gouldsboro Data Centers" to be reviewed under the township's Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO). This application, submitted by Langan Engineering on behalf of Quantm Group, LLC, initiates the technical review of the site plans, including details of access, stormwater management, and layout.

B. Covington Township's Regulatory Framework

The parcels targeted by the developer in Covington Township are currently zoned RR - Rural Residential. A review of the Covington Township Zoning Ordinance shows that this district is intended for low-density residential and agricultural purposes. Permitted uses include single-family dwellings and farming, while conditional uses include churches, schools, and mining operations. A high-intensity, industrial-scale data center campus is not a permitted, conditional, or special exception use within the RR district.

Therefore, the developer cannot build its project under the current law. Instead of challenging the ordinance as they did in Clifton, they are petitioning the Board of Supervisors to fundamentally change the law by creating a new, bespoke zoning district tailored to their project's needs. This process is legislative and is governed by the public hearing and notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC).

C. Procedural Path and Public Record in Covington

The public record in Covington reveals that this process is moving forward at a rapid pace.

• May 13, 2025 - Board of Supervisors Meeting: The meeting minutes document a formal presentation by Tony Maras, identified as an attorney and developer for 1778 Rich Pike LLC. He explicitly stated that the project's viability depends on securing approvals in both Clifton and Covington, primarily because of the immense infrastructure required and PPL's commitment to provide 1.5 gigawatts of power only for a project of that scale. He presented a draft ordinance for consideration and asked the township to work with them to set a public hearing. The minutes show that several residents—Paula Perry, Celia Burnett, and Kelly Capple—asked pointed questions regarding the nature of the project, its location, potential impacts on noise and water, the timeline, and the developer's status in Clifton. The developer's stated goal was to have a proposed ordinance ready for a public hearing in July 2025, an exceptionally fast timeline for such a significant piece of legislation.
• May 27, 2025 - Board of Supervisors Work Session: Minutes from this meeting confirm that the process is advancing behind the scenes. The township's solicitor, Attorney Joel Wolff, reported that he was actively working on a draft ordinance for the new DCET (data center) zone with assistance from the supervisors. The minutes explicitly state, "The public hearing date will be set once the draft ordinance is proposed".

The progression of events in Covington is highly significant. The township's own legal counsel is drafting a new zoning law at the direct request of the developer. This is happening before any proposed text has been made available for public review or comment. This creates a situation where the developer has a foundational role in shaping the very regulations that will govern its project, including critical standards for setbacks, height, noise, and permitted accessory uses. The period before this draft ordinance is made public is a critical window for residents to demand public input into the drafting process itself, rather than waiting to react to a completed document at a final hearing.

V. Critical Infrastructure and Environmental Red Flags

The documents associated with the Gouldsboro project reveal a development of extraordinary scale, with profound implications for the region's infrastructure and environment. The data points contained within the developer's own submissions raise several red flags that are central to evaluating the project's true impact.

A. Power Demand and Grid Impact

The PPL Project Feasibility Report, dated April 2, 2025, is a cornerstone document included in both the Clifton and Covington filings. It quantifies the project's immense energy needs and the infrastructure required to meet them.

• Power Consumption: The report states that PPL is planning for a "proposed load requirement for transmission capacity of up to one thousand five hundred (1500) megawatts ('MW')". To place this figure in context, the entire peak load for Duquesne Light Company's service area, which includes Pittsburgh and surrounding areas in Allegheny and Beaver counties, is approximately 2,700 MW. The proposed Amazon Web Services (AWS) data center campus near Berwick, PA, which has drawn significant public and regulatory attention for its scale, is projected to consume up to 960 MW. The Gouldsboro project's demand exceeds that of the AWS campus by more than 50%, making it one of the largest single-customer power demands contemplated in the Commonwealth.
• Grid Upgrades and Cost: To service this load, PPL proposes massive upgrades to the regional grid. This includes constructing an entirely new 230 kV PPL-owned switchyard on land to be transferred from the developer, bifurcating and extending existing major transmission lines, and completely rebuilding the Pocono-Paupack and Acahela-Jenkins 230 kV lines. The estimated cost for these "Rate Base Expense" upgrades is $80 million.
• Financial Risk to Ratepayers: The PPL report contains language that poses a direct financial risk to the public. It states, "The Rate Base expenditures shall be included in PPL EU's rate base and recovered through applicable costs recovery mechanisms. However, the Customer will be required to pay back the Rate Base obligations if not sufficiently to meet the load commitment described in the ESA". This means that while the developer is responsible for the costs if the project doesn't materialize as planned, the default mechanism is for the $80 million to be socialized across all PPL customers. If the developer were to abandon the project after PPL has invested significant capital in the upgrades, PPL could seek to recover those "stranded costs" from its entire customer base. This represents a substantial public subsidization of risk for a private speculative venture. The scale of this financial commitment is further underscored by PPL's requirement that the developer provide a $10 million Letter of Credit simply to initiate project development and engineering.

B. Site, Water, and Environmental Impact

The site plans prepared by Langan Engineering provide a visual representation of the project's on-the-ground footprint and potential environmental impacts.

• Site Layout and Access: The plans show a sprawling campus with numerous large, multi-story data center buildings, extensive stormwater management basins, and a dedicated 14.33-acre, 750 MW electrical substation. Critically for residents of your area, the site plan enlargement on sheet EX-07 and EX-08 explicitly details a "CONTROLLED ACCESS TO CLIFTON BEACH ROAD". This confirms that the project, if built as proposed, will directly impact traffic and activity on this local road.
• Water Usage: Data centers are notoriously intensive water consumers, using millions of gallons per day for evaporative cooling systems. The developer's filings acknowledge this, listing "non-contact cooling water," "water holding facilities," "water towers," and "evaporators" as planned accessory uses. The user-provided note questioning the use of "Gray Water for cooling" highlights a critical issue. The source, quantity, and method of water use are significant environmental concerns. The new Clifton Township data center ordinance (No. 3-2025) now provides a regulatory tool to address this, as it mandates that applicants provide a water feasibility study to determine if there is an adequate supply and to estimate the impact on existing wells in the vicinity.

C. Noise and Other Nuisances

The developer is seeking preemptive approval for significant noise generation, a common byproduct of the large-scale HVAC systems and backup power generators required for data centers.

• Noise Limits: The substantive validity challenge in Clifton requests a blanket maximum sound level of 70 dB(A) as measured at the property line. For comparison, 70 dB(A) is often compared to the sound of a vacuum cleaner or freeway traffic. This would represent a substantial increase in ambient noise for any adjacent residential or open space properties.
• Emergency Generator Exemption: The developer also requests a complete exemption from maximum sound requirements during the emergency use of their equipment. This is a critical point, as "emergency use" often includes periodic, routine testing and maintenance of the backup generators, not just rare power outages. These generators, which are often diesel-powered, can be extremely loud and their testing could become a regular source of significant noise pollution.

As with water usage, the new Clifton ordinance provides a potential check on this by requiring a professional sound study to be conducted by an acoustical expert to demonstrate that sound-reducing materials will be effective.

VI. Comprehensive Timeline and Roster of Decision-Makers

A clear understanding of the project's progression and the individuals in positions of authority is essential for effective community engagement and strategic planning.

A. Chronological Timeline of Events

The following timeline organizes the key events of the Gouldsboro data center project based on the dates provided in the available documents. It illustrates the rapid and coordinated nature of the developer's actions across both townships.

Table 2: Timeline of Key Events

Date	Event	Townships Involved
January 28, 2022	JCO, LLC purchases 235.9-acre and 206.6-acre parcels from Clifton Acres, Inc.	Clifton/Covington
May 22, 2024	1778 Rich Pike LLC enters into an Agreement of Sale with JCO, LLC for four parcels totaling ~542.88 acres.	Clifton/Covington
February 13, 2025	1778 Rich Pike, LLC enters into an Agreement of Sale with Judge Family Estates LLC for two parcels totaling ~245.8 acres.	Clifton/Covington
April 2, 2025	PPL Electric Utilities issues its Project Feasibility Report for the "Quantm - Gouldsboro" project, detailing a 1500 MW demand.	Clifton/Covington
April 16, 2025	A money order for $1,200.00 is issued to Clifton Township for the "1778 Rich Pike File Fee."	Clifton
April 17, 2025	Attorney Matthew J. McHugh files a Substantive Validity Challenge with the Clifton Township ZHB on behalf of 1778 Rich Pike, LLC.	Clifton
April 28, 2025	1778 Rich Pike, LLC files an application for a public hearing to rezone properties from RR to DCET.	Covington
April 28, 2025	Langan Engineering, on behalf of Quantm Group, submits a Preliminary Land Development Application.	Covington
May 13, 2025	Covington Board of Supervisors holds a monthly meeting where developer Tony Maras presents the data center proposal.	Covington
May 27, 2025	Covington Board of Supervisors holds a work session; Solicitor Joel Wolff confirms he is drafting a new DCET ordinance.	Covington

B. Key Decision-Makers and Influencers

The following roster identifies the key municipal officials and consultants who will be making decisions, providing recommendations, and offering legal advice regarding this project.

Table 3: Roster of Key Decision-Makers

Entity	Board/Commission	Name	Title/Role
Covington Township	Board of Supervisors	Melissa A. Kearney	Chairwoman/Secretary
		F. Marshall Peirce	Vice Chairman
		William J. Willson	Supervisor
		Wanda R. Andreoli	Supervisor
		(One Vacancy)	Supervisor
		Attorney Joel Wolff	Solicitor
	Planning Commission	Robert Oltmann	Chairman
		David W. Hess	Vice-Chairman
		Jason Zielinski	Board Member
		Chet Havenstrite, Jr.	Board Member
		William R. Willson	Board Member
		James Hailstone, Esquire	Solicitor
	Zoning Hearing Board	Eric “Yeti” Decker	Member
		Gwen Walsh	Member
		Scott VanFleet	Member
		Attorney Robert P. Sheils, III	Solicitor
Clifton Township	Board of Supervisors	Jill Zindle	Chairman
		Ted Stout	Vice Chairman
		Richard Grab	Supervisor
		Durney, Worthington, & Madden LLC	Legal Firm (Solicitor)
	Planning Commission	Lou Casagrande	Secretary
		Tyler Horrigan	Board Member
		Carson Helfrich	Consultant
		Matt Gruenloh	Board Member
		Deborah Ann Petty	Board Member
		Attorney Geoff Worthington	Solicitor
	Zoning Hearing Board	Wayne Fiene	Chairman
		Michael Shatynski	Board Member
		Jennie Shatynski	Board Member
		Michael Stocoski	Board Member
		Erin Horrigan	Secretary
		Attorney Thomas S. Nanovic	Solicitor
	Zoning Officer	Ron Donati	Zoning Officer
Lackawanna County	Regional Planning Commission	Carol Scrimalli	Chairperson
		Mary Liz Donato	Planning Dept. Manager
		Jessica Edwards	Regional Planning Manager

VII. Unanswered Questions and Critical Next Steps for Homeowner Monitoring

The analysis of the available documents reveals a well-funded and strategically sophisticated development effort. However, several critical pieces of information are not yet in the public domain. Monitoring for this information and taking proactive steps will be essential for an effective community response.

A. Identified Information Gaps

• Official Hearing Dates: The most critical missing information is the officially advertised dates for the key public hearings: the Clifton Township ZHB hearing on the substantive validity challenge and the Covington Township Board of Supervisors hearing on the proposed DCET rezoning ordinance. These notices will trigger statutory deadlines and are the primary forums for public and party participation.
• County and Municipal Planning Commission Reviews: There is no public record yet of any review letters or recommendations from the Lackawanna County Planning Commission or the respective Clifton and Covington Planning Commissions regarding the various applications. Under the MPC, these bodies must be given an opportunity to review and comment on such proposals, and their analyses can be influential.
• State Agency Permit Status: It is unknown if the developer has filed applications with key state agencies, most notably the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for water withdrawal (if using surface or groundwater), stormwater (NPDES), or air quality permits (for generators), and PennDOT for a Highway Occupancy Permit for the proposed access onto Clifton Beach Road.
• Developer's Legal Strategy Regarding Clifton's New Ordinance: It remains to be seen how Attorney McHugh and the development team will address Clifton's new data center ordinance (No. 3-2025) in their legal arguments before the ZHB. They may argue it is irrelevant as it was passed after their challenge was filed, but they will likely be forced to acknowledge it.

B. A Homeowner's Monitoring Checklist

1. Monitor Official Notices: Regularly and frequently check the official websites for both Clifton Township and Covington Township for posted agendas, legal notices, and hearing dates. Identify the "newspaper of general circulation" that each township uses for its legal advertising and monitor it for public hearing notices, which are required by the MPC.
2. Formally Request Party Status in Clifton: It is imperative that concerned residents and homeowners' associations prepare to formally request "party status" at the very beginning of the Clifton ZHB hearing on the substantive validity challenge. This is a procedural right that must be requested on the record. Achieving party status is the only way to secure the legal rights to cross-examine the developer's witnesses, present your own witnesses and evidence, and preserve the right to appeal an adverse decision to the Court of Common Pleas.
3. Demand Public Input on the Draft Covington DCET Ordinance: The Covington Board of Supervisors and its solicitor should be formally requested, in writing and at public meetings, to release the draft DCET ordinance for public review and comment *before* it is finalized and scheduled for an adoption hearing. The current process, where the ordinance is being drafted behind the scenes with the developer's input, is a critical point of intervention.
4. Utilize the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL): Formally submit RTKL requests to both townships to obtain copies of all application materials, all review letters from township engineers and planners, and all correspondence between the townships and the developer or their representatives (attorneys, engineers). This will provide a complete and official record of the project filings.
5. Attend All Public Meetings: Consistent attendance at all Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, and Zoning Hearing Board meetings in *both* townships is essential. The Covington meeting minutes demonstrate that public presence and pointed questions can place the developer's representatives on the record and reveal crucial details about the project's scope and impacts. This creates a public record that can be used in future proceedings.
6. Coordinate a Regional Response: Since the project and its impacts (especially on the power grid and potentially on shared water resources) cross municipal boundaries, coordinating with residents and officials in both townships will be more effective than two separate, isolated efforts.