Multiple companies are considering operating a proposed eight-building data center campus in Limerick Township, but the project’s developer declined Tuesday to identify them, citing confidentiality.
The disclosure came during a four-hour continuation of MCD7, LLC’s conditional use hearing before the Limerick Township Board of Supervisors. Tuesday’s session marked the fourth installment of the proceedings, following hearings in April, May, and June.
The application calls for eight data center buildings on approximately 191 acres across seven parcels near the Limerick Generating Station and Philadelphia Premium Outlets.
Before testimony resumed, attorney Ed Campbell, representing the applicant, informed the board that MCD7 has submitted two additional conditional use applications involving the same property. According to a report from The Pottstown Mercury, those applications were submitted just before Limerick Township imposed more stringent regulations on data center development earlier this month.
Campbell said the supplemental applications are separate from the eight-building proposal currently under review and contemplate alternative approaches to phasing the site as a data center campus.
"They are separate, distinct, and apart from the proceedings that we're here for tonight," Campbell said. "We presume that those applications will be treated in due course under the ordinary procedures and policies of the township."
Township officials did not discuss when the additional applications might be scheduled for review.
During the proceedings, Campbell said multiple potential end users and development companies are evaluating the site. He said the applicant expects to partner with one of them after securing conditional use approval.
Supervisor Patrick Morroney asked whether the companies could be identified so township officials could examine their records in other communities.
“I’d like to determine if these people that are coming in were good neighbors where they’re currently at,” Morroney said.
Campbell said the applicant was not at liberty to disclose the companies’ identities.
The exchange highlighted a recurring issue in the proceedings: The township is being asked to consider a large data center campus without knowing which company would ultimately operate it or what type of data would be processed there.
Project manager A.J. Magnotta of LaBella Associates completed his testimony Tuesday after first taking the stand during the May hearing and returning for additional questioning in June.
Magnotta said he did not know what kind of data would be stored or processed at the campus. Questions about the facility’s operations, generators, cooling equipment, noise, heat, and other technical matters were frequently deferred to data center consultants and other experts expected to testify later.
Site Plans Continue to Evolve
Supervisors and residents also sought clarification about which version of the site plan is currently under consideration.
The applicant has presented different layouts, including alternatives showing the project with Possum Hollow Road remaining in place and without proposed internal road crossings between Buildings 7 and 8.
Campbell said one alternative demonstrates that the campus could be developed without relocating Possum Hollow Road and without the two vehicular crossings over waterways.
Morroney asked whether additional plans could be introduced as more questions arise.
Campbell acknowledged that the layout could continue to change depending on conditions imposed by the board, although he said the number, general size, and height of the buildings would not materially increase during the later land development process.
Board Chair Connie Lawson asked which elements would be fixed by conditional use approval and which could change.
Magnotta noted detailed engineering involving grading, utilities, stormwater management, and soil testing could result in adjustments to building placement and other site features.
Campbell said substantially more buildings, significantly larger buildings, or taller buildings would not be consistent with the conditional use approval.
Dispute Over Stream Crossings
Much of the early testimony focused on proposed internal roads and utility lines crossing streams and protected floodplain areas.
An attorney representing the township questioned whether the internal connections qualify as “required roads,” an exception under the zoning ordinance, or whether they are more accurately considered private driveways or access drives.
Magnotta said the roads are needed to maintain circulation throughout the campus, including for emergency responders. The applicant has also produced an alternative layout removing the vehicular crossings.
That alternative would still require underground electrical duct banks and other utilities to cross beneath the waterways. Magnotta said the duct banks would likely be installed through trench excavation. Construction could temporarily disturb portions of the stream before the original channel is restored.
He also acknowledged that the project’s water, sewer, stormwater, communications, and other utility systems have not yet been fully designed.
Asked whether the applicant could reduce the number of buildings to avoid some crossings, Magnotta said that was technically possible. He did not recall the project team developing a less-dense layout specifically to avoid the floodplain.
Utility Agreements Remain Preliminary
The hearing also produced additional details about the project’s electrical, water, wastewater, and gas infrastructure.
Magnotta said the proposed relocation of an Energy Transfer gas pipeline has not been finalized. The route remains under internal review by the company and could take several years to complete.
The applicant is also preparing a large-load user application for Pennsylvania American Water to determine what improvements would be needed to provide water and wastewater service.
Possible work could include new pipelines, pumping stations, storage, and expansion of wastewater treatment capacity. Magnotta testified that the developer would be responsible for improvements directly related to the project, but acknowledged that no final written agreement has established those costs.
The applicant also has not received an updated PECO service letter since 2024.
Anthony Maras, a project principal for MCD7, testified that a High Voltage Interconnection Feasibility Study completed in 2024 found that 750 megawatts could be supplied to the site. He emphasized that the finding was preliminary — not a guarantee — and that additional engineering and review by PECO and PJM Interconnection, the regional electric grid operator, would still be required.
Maras said the project would receive power from the regional transmission system rather than directly from the Limerick Generating Station. Electricity could come from multiple generating sources connected to the grid.
If PECO required the data center to reduce its electrical demand, Maras said the facility would have to curtail operations rather than switch to its proposed diesel generators. He said the generators would be used only for emergency backup during a qualifying transmission outage and not as a routine source of power.
Questions About Ownership and Character Limited
A significant portion of the hearing involved attempts by an attorney and residents granted party status to examine the people and business entities behind the application.
Attorney Lauren Otero, representing a group of residents who live near the proposed data center site, questioned Maras about the ownership structure of MCD7 and several related companies associated with the project’s parcels.
Maras said he is a project principal and a member of MCD7, but not its sole owner. He declined to identify all members of the ownership group.
Otero introduced state business records showing several entities connected to the site. She argued that residents should be able to determine whether the applicant is trustworthy, adequately funded, and capable of paying damages if an accident affects surrounding properties.
Campbell objected that the character, assets, and business structure of the developer are not criteria for conditional use approval. Township Solicitor Rebecca Geiser, who acted as the hearing officer, largely agreed, repeatedly limiting questions about the ownership entities and the personal or professional character of the applicant’s representatives.
Otero argued that the information was relevant to the applicant’s credibility and whether it would be a responsible neighbor.
Geiser emphasized that cross-examination needed to focus on the witnesses’ previous testimony and whether the proposal complies with the township’s ordinance.
Studies and Details Still Outstanding
Other testimony highlighted several studies and technical matters that remain incomplete or unresolved.
Magnotta said he was not aware of a completed hydrogeological study examining possible effects on nearby private wells.
Maras said he did not believe a fully updated sound study had been completed beyond the preliminary analysis already submitted. He was also not aware of a completed vibration-control study.
The applicant's team noted experts would testify later regarding sound, vibration, air emissions, generators, cooling systems, fire and explosion hazards, emergency planning, traffic, and other technical matters.
Hearing to Continue August 18
The board of supervisors voted to continue the conditional use hearing to August 18 at 6:30 p.m. at the Limerick Township Building, 646 West Ridge Pike.
Additional expert testimony and cross-examination are expected when the hearing resumes.
