OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Allentown Planning Commission Special Meeting on 2401 Emaus Avenue Data Center - July 16, 2026

Meeting Portal — Thursday, July 16, 2026
BodyAllentown, Pennsylvania
SessionMeeting Portal
DateThursday, July 16, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:38:47

Transcript — Verbatim
0:02

Everyone, if I could have your attention, please.

0:04

We're going to call this uh meeting of the Allentown Planning Commission to order.

0:08

Tonight is a special meeting uh called in uh particular to 2401 Emma's Avenue, the proposed data center.

0:16

This meeting has been arranged for the convenience of the public to uh to attend.

0:22

Um we expect to hear from uh all of the staff tonight.

0:25

We expect to hear from the developer.

0:28

There'll be numerous presentations, and there will be an opportunity for public comment after all the presentations are made.

0:34

Um hopefully everybody's at an opportunity to fill out a comment card if you plan to be a public commenter tonight.

0:42

Um, we're gonna follow the same rules as the city council.

0:44

There'll be three minutes provided to each city resident or taxpayer to comment on the agenda item tonight.

0:53

Um, I guess I'll turn it over to staff.

1:00

So um thank you for that introduction.

1:02

My name is Jennifer Gomez.

1:03

I'm the planning director here in the city of Allentown.

1:06

So, as uh described today as uh a forum to discuss specifically 2401 West Domaius Avenue and the data center that's been proposed at this property.

1:15

So the point of this meeting is to provide uh a time for continued dialogue to better understand the project and to better understand the community feedback related to 2401.

1:25

So, since the forum is for discussion, there will be no decision this evening made on this project.

1:30

This is just to have the communication regarding the project and uh best inform future decision making.

1:36

So, before getting started, I will note that over the last several weeks, we have received an unprecedented level of public interest and concern on both this application and data centers in general.

1:48

So I do feel compelled to start with that the city and the staff has taken this feedback very seriously.

1:54

The city has worked tirelessly to both address the broader issue of data center legislation and to thoroughly review this project and its potential impacts.

2:02

And as many of us are aware, the C recently adopted a zoning amendment, Bill 20, which established regulations, safeguards, and review requirements for data center, a use that previously was not defined in our zoning code.

2:16

And so, with the understanding that that was the beginning of the legislation, the city council immediately introduced Bill 52 to address their highest priority revisions, including further limiting zoning districts where data centers can be located, increasing setbacks from sensitive uses, adding decommissioning requirements, adding additional noise protections, and additional public notification requirements.

2:42

So that bill was sent through the zoning amendment process and is scheduled for city council decision on August 5th.

2:49

Additionally, last night the city introduced changes to the noise ordinance to require all continuously operating noises to address both DBC and DBA based sound measurements, regardless of use if you're continuously operating.

3:07

Um, and to measure those uses and continuously operating uses that do not include uh to measure that they do not increase baseline ambient noise above existing conditions or create hums, tones, or low frequency sounds.

3:20

Uh the legislation also introduced third-party verification and enforcement tools that will ensure that the cost of monitoring noise impacts is not passed on to the city or taxpayers.

3:30

So this option will be for the future for all or will be for all noise sources, not just data centers.

3:36

So that bill will go before the community economic development committee, a subcommittee of council next week on July 22nd.

3:42

So we acknowledge that this is both an emerging and an evolving issue, and there's likely a need to continue working on it beyond these initial efforts.

3:52

So broader questions about data center legislation in general are best directed to the council as part of the legislative process.

4:00

But we are taking notes.

4:01

Um we're listening and we hear the concerns that are brought forward with recognition on how to manage that use.

4:07

So this isn't just a local issue, this is a state issue, it's a national issue.

4:12

Um we have um printouts of all of our um state senators and state representatives printed out here before you with all of their contact information.

4:20

So if um you feel that there's uh further concerns that need to be addressed at a statewide level in a more aggressive way than it is today.

4:26

There's a lot of bills on the table at the state.

4:28

I encourage you to reach out to the contact information on that piece of paper as well.

4:32

So those are located right there to continue the discussion of the broader concerns.

4:38

So now I'd like to turn my attention to this particular project.

4:42

Um this was submitted prior to the advertisement and adoption of any portion of the data center legislation.

4:49

When the project was submitted, in the absence of a listed use, the use was interpreted as a permitted industrial use.

4:56

An appeal of that decision has been filed with the zoning hearing board.

5:00

So the issue of use determination is currently being scheduled to be addressed by the zoning hearing board.

5:06

This review, therefore, focused on the overall land development beyond the issue of just use.

5:12

It includes the assessment of the project's conformance with a comprehensive plan, the subdivision and land development ordinance, we call it the saldo, we probably say that a lot here.

5:23

The various applicable city ordinances and regulations to the extent permitted by law.

5:28

In addition, we've taken a cautious approach with the reviews and used this process to thoroughly review the proposal, understand its impacts, including the impacts of this industrial use on nearby homes and sensitive uses, with the goal to support balanced decision regarding evolving industrial land uses and the impacts on surrounding areas.

5:50

So the decisions on land development are made by the planning commission.

5:54

And since we've got a new lot of new people in the audience tonight, the planning commissioners are those starting with Kate over here, Craig, Chris, Eric, Leslie, the decision will go to the planning commission for a final determination.

6:08

We've got a lot of staff support up here.

6:10

So if I can introduce some of our partners here that have worked together on this review, Melissa Velez, she's the chief planner for City of Allentown.

6:18

She's been the lead reviewer on this application and has prepared the staff report and coordinated the details.

6:24

Brian Heid to my right.

6:27

He is the assistant planner.

6:29

He takes notes on the meetings.

6:31

He's the one if you're if you've sent feedback on this and heard back from him, he watches the public comment and makes sure that every single comment that we receive makes it to the planning commission.

6:42

David Pet or Mike Hanso across the way, he's the city's zoning office or zoning supervisor.

6:48

His charge is for zoning compliance review.

6:51

David Petrick, he's our deputy public works director.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Technology and Innovation███████████████████████████████31%
Environmental Protection█████████████████████21%
Procedural██████████10%
Community Engagement█████████9%
Economic Development██████6%
Public Engagement████4%
Engineering And Infrastructure████4%
Water And Wastewater Management██2%
Fiscal Sustainability██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Allentown Planning Commission Special Meeting on 2401 Emaus Avenue Data Center - July 16, 2026

The Allentown City Planning Commission held a special meeting on July 16, 2026, from 5:32 PM to 9:34 PM to discuss the amended preliminary/final land development application (LMA-2022-00010) for 2401 W Emaus Avenue. The proposal would convert an approved 224,000 SF warehouse into a 247,342 SF data center with a 23,342 SF addition. The meeting was informational only; no formal decision was made. The applicant agreed to a 90-day extension of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) timeline, and the commission unanimously voted to table the application to a future meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • 172 individuals signed in; a large number of Allentown residents and taxpayers spoke, nearly all in opposition to the data center.
  • Priscilla and Angel Declet (2406 W Emaus Avenue) described their son Liam's sensitivity to loud noises and pleaded for the commission to consider children with special needs.
  • Serenity Pauley (2403 Weiss Court) emphasized harm to wildlife and the ecosystem on the south side of Emaus Avenue.
  • Alejandro Figueroa (747 Walnut Street, Emmaus) proposed an engineered closed-loop thermal network and urged conditioning approval on a public benefit covenant.
  • Brett Burghardt (2703 Barnes Court) questioned property value impacts and asked for PPL testimony on energy costs.
  • Drita Tahirovic (734 N 29th Street) noted she is surrounded by four proposed data centers and expressed concerns about cumulative effects.
  • Jeremiah Smith (2517 Allenbroom Drive) opposed the center, citing noise, affordability, and property value concerns.
  • Joseph Zacher (2281 S 12th Street) mentioned New York's moratorium on data centers and asked about fuel storage and noise from cooling equipment.
  • Jonathan Worsley (1819 Piccadilly Circle) opposed AI and diesel generators, raising air quality and water usage concerns.
  • Megan Kita (1013 N 29th Street) opposed the center, stating technology investment should not come at the detriment of residents.
  • Daniel Galvin (1847 E Emaus Avenue) reported widespread neighborhood opposition and concern over rising electricity costs.
  • Harshal Patel (Corner Mart, 2441 W Emaus Avenue) feared impacts on health and existing businesses.
  • Donna Dougherty (2456 S Lumber Street) raised concerns about the Lehigh County Humane Society and animals' sensitive hearing.
  • Johanna Heft (946 W Wyoming Street) questioned the city's ability to enforce conditions against a large developer.
  • Lisa Mertz (628 N 8th Street) asked about noise ordinance penalties and requested transparency on tax calculations.
  • Caren Lowry (1492 Cedarwood Road) urged protection for Camelot for Children, a nonprofit for vulnerable children across the street.
  • Jason Danweber (3650 Schoeneck Road, Macungie), owner of a nearby strip mall, voiced strong concern about noise and business viability.
  • Marissa Burns (527 Mountain Top Lane) argued the conversion is a high-risk change, not a simple amendment, and should be subject to current regulations.
  • Laura Lee Hellman (540 W Ethel Street) cited the Pennsylvania Constitution's Article 1, Section 27 (right to clean air and water) and advocated for the community.
  • Councilwoman Cynthia Mota (statement read by staff) opposed the application, citing strain on infrastructure, utility costs, climate change, and poor location.
  • Alicia Ruthrauff (411 N 9th Street) thanked the staff for taking concerns seriously but worried about noise, air, energy use, and employment.
  • Corinne Lalick (2447 S 5th Street) presented a petition and spoke for Physicians for Social Responsibility Pennsylvania, arguing against hyperscale data centers and urging compelling evidence of community benefits.
  • William Gorecki (3124 Pearl Avenue), a teacher, opposed the center and suggested the parcel be used for entertainment or community space.
  • Ryan Wexler (1968 S Law Street), a teacher, opposed AI and advocated for human-centered learning.
  • Kevin Cantwell (3042 Salisbury Avenue) questioned benefits and demanded independent third-party monitoring.
  • Farid Shahid (8235 Kirby Street) accused the developer of using front groups and propaganda.
  • Mark Marlucci (3327 Hobson Street) raised concerns about water usage and electricity costs.
  • Aiden LaPenta (806 N 28th Street) stressed verifying developer claims and raised issues of decommissioning and e-waste.
  • Julie Vitale (721 W Green Street) requested unredacted noise and water studies and accused the applicant of a Trojan horse strategy.
  • Spencer Snygg (721 W Green Street) discussed noise science, cooling tower Legionnaires' disease risk, Bitcoin mining, and AI's societal harms.
  • Quinn Allen (Church Auditor) cited the 14th Amendment and expressed distrust of government enforcement.
  • A minor from Emmaus spoke against AI and for protecting Camelot for Children, the environment, and animals.
  • Several other non-resident speakers from the Lehigh Valley also spoke against the project.

Discussion Items

  • Staff Overview: Jennifer Gomez explained the meeting's purpose, noted unprecedented public interest, and summarized recent legislation (Bill 20, Bill 52, noise ordinance changes). She stated no decision would be made.
  • Staff Presentation: Melissa Velez presented the project details (80 MW, 24/7 operation, 4-8 employees, closed-loop cooling, 36 Tier 4 generators, 42 rooftop chillers). She highlighted concerns about compatibility with surrounding residential uses, low employment density, and high infrastructure demands.
  • Third-Party Review (Daren Martocci, KCE): Raised issues of electrical infrastructure, noise (need for perpetuity monitoring), water resources (closed-loop system should be covenanted), stronger landscaping buffers, and emergency services coordination.
  • LVPC Review (Jill Seitz): Emphasized the need for detailed sound studies (including low frequency and infrasound), heat rejection system analysis, utility demand clarity, and documentation of all commitments.
  • Applicant Presentation (Tony Maras, Quantm Group):
    • Proposed 64-66 full-time jobs (average salary ~$140,000) vs. 336 for warehouse (~$45-67k).
    • Reduced generators to 32, moved substation, added 35-40 ft sound walls, enhanced landscaping.
    • Claimed net fiscal benefit over $4 million/year vs. ~$388k for warehouse.
    • Committed to restrictive covenants, self-monitoring, Tier 4 generators, closed-loop cooling (water trucked in), air dispersion modeling, and limited generator testing.
    • Agreed to provide fiscal benefit analysis and reveal the user before any vote.
  • Commission Discussion:
    • Chair Christian Brown questioned noise compliance and asked for matching renderings and plans.
    • Commissioner Kate Hartney requested clarification on fiscal study.
    • Commissioner Erich Hornung asked about willingness to accept third-party monitoring; applicant expressed openness.
    • Brown suggested a continuous sound wall with roll-up doors; applicant agreed to investigate.
  • Action Requested: Applicant requested to withdraw the July 10, 2026 resubmission and refile later; he extended the MPC decision timeline by 90 days.

Key Outcomes

  • Motion to Table: Vice Chair Craig Beavers moved to table the application to a future meeting; Secretary Erich Hornung seconded. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
  • Time Extension: Applicant Tony Maras confirmed on the record a 90-day extension of the MPC timelines, agreeing to provide written confirmation.
  • Next Steps: The applicant will revise plans and resubmit, targeting a September 2026 Planning Commission meeting for further discussion. The board will continue review after receiving updated materials and public input.

Meeting Transcript

Everyone, if I could have your attention, please. We're going to call this uh meeting of the Allentown Planning Commission to order. Tonight is a special meeting uh called in uh particular to 2401 Emma's Avenue, the proposed data center. This meeting has been arranged for the convenience of the public to uh to attend. Um we expect to hear from uh all of the staff tonight. We expect to hear from the developer. There'll be numerous presentations, and there will be an opportunity for public comment after all the presentations are made. Um hopefully everybody's at an opportunity to fill out a comment card if you plan to be a public commenter tonight. Um, we're gonna follow the same rules as the city council. There'll be three minutes provided to each city resident or taxpayer to comment on the agenda item tonight. Um, I guess I'll turn it over to staff. So um thank you for that introduction. My name is Jennifer Gomez. I'm the planning director here in the city of Allentown. So, as uh described today as uh a forum to discuss specifically 2401 West Domaius Avenue and the data center that's been proposed at this property. So the point of this meeting is to provide uh a time for continued dialogue to better understand the project and to better understand the community feedback related to 2401. So, since the forum is for discussion, there will be no decision this evening made on this project. This is just to have the communication regarding the project and uh best inform future decision making. So, before getting started, I will note that over the last several weeks, we have received an unprecedented level of public interest and concern on both this application and data centers in general. So I do feel compelled to start with that the city and the staff has taken this feedback very seriously. The city has worked tirelessly to both address the broader issue of data center legislation and to thoroughly review this project and its potential impacts. And as many of us are aware, the C recently adopted a zoning amendment, Bill 20, which established regulations, safeguards, and review requirements for data center, a use that previously was not defined in our zoning code. And so, with the understanding that that was the beginning of the legislation, the city council immediately introduced Bill 52 to address their highest priority revisions, including further limiting zoning districts where data centers can be located, increasing setbacks from sensitive uses, adding decommissioning requirements, adding additional noise protections, and additional public notification requirements. So that bill was sent through the zoning amendment process and is scheduled for city council decision on August 5th. Additionally, last night the city introduced changes to the noise ordinance to require all continuously operating noises to address both DBC and DBA based sound measurements, regardless of use if you're continuously operating. Um, and to measure those uses and continuously operating uses that do not include uh to measure that they do not increase baseline ambient noise above existing conditions or create hums, tones, or low frequency sounds. Uh the legislation also introduced third-party verification and enforcement tools that will ensure that the cost of monitoring noise impacts is not passed on to the city or taxpayers. So this option will be for the future for all or will be for all noise sources, not just data centers. So that bill will go before the community economic development committee, a subcommittee of council next week on July 22nd. So we acknowledge that this is both an emerging and an evolving issue, and there's likely a need to continue working on it beyond these initial efforts. So broader questions about data center legislation in general are best directed to the council as part of the legislative process. But we are taking notes. Um we're listening and we hear the concerns that are brought forward with recognition on how to manage that use. So this isn't just a local issue, this is a state issue, it's a national issue. Um we have um printouts of all of our um state senators and state representatives printed out here before you with all of their contact information. So if um you feel that there's uh further concerns that need to be addressed at a statewide level in a more aggressive way than it is today. There's a lot of bills on the table at the state. I encourage you to reach out to the contact information on that piece of paper as well. So those are located right there to continue the discussion of the broader concerns. So now I'd like to turn my attention to this particular project. Um this was submitted prior to the advertisement and adoption of any portion of the data center legislation. When the project was submitted, in the absence of a listed use, the use was interpreted as a permitted industrial use. An appeal of that decision has been filed with the zoning hearing board. So the issue of use determination is currently being scheduled to be addressed by the zoning hearing board. This review, therefore, focused on the overall land development beyond the issue of just use. It includes the assessment of the project's conformance with a comprehensive plan, the subdivision and land development ordinance, we call it the saldo, we probably say that a lot here. The various applicable city ordinances and regulations to the extent permitted by law. In addition, we've taken a cautious approach with the reviews and used this process to thoroughly review the proposal, understand its impacts, including the impacts of this industrial use on nearby homes and sensitive uses, with the goal to support balanced decision regarding evolving industrial land uses and the impacts on surrounding areas. So the decisions on land development are made by the planning commission. And since we've got a new lot of new people in the audience tonight, the planning commissioners are those starting with Kate over here, Craig, Chris, Eric, Leslie, the decision will go to the planning commission for a final determination.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com