Allentown City Council Public Hearing on Data Center Zoning Ordinance (Bill 20) - June 3, 2026

The Allentown City Council held a public hearing on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, at 6:00 PM in Council Chambers to consider Bill 20, a proposed ordinance amending the city's zoning code to define and regulate data centers. The hearing was conducted in accordance with the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Code. Following the hearing, the Council was scheduled to vote on the ordinance at its regular meeting at 6:30 PM. Note: The raw transcript incorrectly states the date as June 6, 2026; the agenda and minutes confirm June 3, 2026. This summary uses the correct date.

Introduction and Staff Presentation

• Council President Santo Napoli opened the hearing, clarifying that testimony would be limited to Bill 20 only, and not the proposed data center project at 2401 Emmaus Avenue (which was to be considered at a Planning Commission meeting on June 9).
• Planning Director Jennifer Gomez presented the ordinance, emphasizing it is a proactive measure to regulate data centers, which currently fall under general manufacturing. The ordinance would require data centers to be a special exception, subject to additional oversight, including setbacks of 200 feet from residential and sensitive uses, minimum lot sizes for facilities over 50,000 sq ft, pre- and post-noise studies, water and sewage reporting, emergency response planning, and design standards. She noted that renewable energy requirements were not included because legal counsel advised it could not be mandated. Staff acknowledged the ordinance is a starting point and open to strengthening.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kyle Ropsky (Chair, Environmental Advisory Council): Expressed strong support for Bill 20, stating the EAC provided over 40 review letters and a letter of support. He urged passage for environmental protections and noted record public engagement.
• Ginny Marcelle Kerslake (Senior Organizer, Food and Water Watch Pennsylvania): Opposed the ordinance, calling it one of the worst she has seen. She raised three key concerns: (1) allowing data centers in both IM and IG districts (should be restricted to IM); (2) insufficient 200-foot setback from homes (citing recent Chester and Montgomery County guidelines recommending 1,000 feet); (3) lack of decommissioning requirements and financial security. She recommended denying the ordinance and instead enacting a 180-day municipal curative amendment.
• Spencer Snig (Local businessman): Expressed opposition, citing environmental harm, lack of job creation, and the need for economic impact studies.
• Lewis Shupe (Facebook group administrator): Advocated for a complete ban for 180 days, citing concerns about mass surveillance.
• Nick Nicholoff (School Board member, individual capacity): Supported passage despite concerns, emphasizing that AI data centers should be classified as heavy industrial and that passing now is better than no regulation. He cited a Harvard study linking data centers to $100 million in health damages and 6.5 premature deaths per year in a comparable area.
• Ander Nixon (Veteran, DSA member): Urged rejection until a curative amendment is added, criticizing vague language like "encourage" in landscaping and heat mitigation sections.
• Female audience member (Cumberland Street resident): Opposed the ordinance, citing existing water, electricity, and air quality issues on the South Side, and requested a 180-day pause.
• Fred Marshall (PA Stands Up, speaking personally): Supported a 180-day pause, arguing that warehouses promised jobs but sit empty, and data centers may similarly leave stranded assets.
• Tinku Khanwalkar (Co-chair, EAC): Clarified that the ordinance does include an electronic waste plan and decommissioning requirements, subject to EAC approval.
• Adam Bond (West Park Civic Association): Criticized cumulative environmental impacts of development, especially on water resources, and urged stronger cumulative impact analysis.
• Alicia (9th and Gordon area): Opposed weak setback requirement and requested 180-day curative amendment; noted 503 people had emailed.
• William Gerecky (Teacher): Expressed concern about the rushed timeline and lack of public notice, supporting a 180-day pause.
• Erin McCarthy (Parent and special needs advocate): Asked for independent studies on noise, sensory, and health impacts before moving forward.
• Multiple additional speakers echoed concerns about insufficient setbacks, vague language, lack of enforcement, water and energy use, and requested a 180-day curative amendment.
• Chris Brown (Planning Commission Chair): Supported passing the ordinance now, arguing that no ordinance is perfect and that having some regulation is better than none, given the absence of current data center rules. He warned that defeating the ordinance could open the door for unrestricted proposals under existing code.
• Mary Cauler (Resident): Accused staff of lying about whether data centers fall under manufacturing, and urged council to enact a curative amendment, citing Section 660-113B of the zoning code and the Municipal Planning Code.
• Leona Citron (Lifelong resident): Asked council to show they are listening by enacting the 180-day pause.

Key Outcomes

• No action was taken at the public hearing; the hearing was adjourned at approximately 7:41 PM.
• The regular City Council meeting followed, where Council was expected to consider adoption of Bill 20. (The outcome of that vote is not included in the provided materials.)
• A recurring theme from numerous public comments was the request for a 180-day municipal curative amendment to provide time to strengthen the ordinance. The Council did not indicate a decision on that request during the hearing.