At a rare Work Session held on 13 July 2026, the Newtown Township Board of Supervisors (BOS) conducted a technical review of the Jointure draft G-17 data center ordinance (read “G-17 Data Center Zoning Framework”), focusing on environmental protections, utility impacts, and procedural next steps for the Jointure. The discussion emphasized the need to strengthen the current draft before it moves to a public hearing. Three Supervisors—Calabro, Merriman, and Merk—and Solicitor Jerry Schenkman were present.

Background

This Work Session was precipitated after a significant portion of the 8 July 2026 BOS session was dedicated to a Wrightstown amendment to the G-17 Ordinance. The amendment consists of several substantive and procedural revisions, summarized below.

Because of these changes, the ordinance must be re-reviewed by the planning commissions of all participating municipalities and re-voted on by their respective boards.

Executive Summary

The current regulatory framework aims to balance the expansion of data center infrastructure with stringent protections for the community’s environment, utilities, and public health.

Critical takeaways include:

Technical Specifications and Site Requirements

The proposed ordinance establishes specific physical parameters for data center developments to ensure they are compatible with the surrounding landscape.

Utility Impacts: Water and Energy

Data centers are characterized by their intensive consumption of public and private utilities. The Board identified several “blind spots” in the current ordinance regarding these resources.

Water Usage and Cooling Systems

The cooling of high-density server equipment requires vast quantities of water.

• Closed-Loop Systems: There is a strong preference for “closed-loop” or two-loop cooling systems. These systems recirculate water through heat exchangers and chillers, minimizing the need to continuously draw from or discharge into local waterways.
• Groundwater Protection: Because some zoning districts may require on-lot water and septic systems, there is concern that a data center’s high volume of water extraction could impact the groundwater table and deplete existing residential wells.
• Water Treatment: The ordinance recognizes that water must be treated both before use (to prevent pipe corrosion from minerals) and potentially after use if it is to be discharged, particularly in the event of a major storm or system flush.

Electrical Consumption and the Public Grid

The power demands of data centers represent a potential strain on regional infrastructure.

• Public Grid Connection: Current revisions suggest a shift toward requiring connection to the public grid rather than separate on-site generation.
• Economic Impact: Public consumption of electricity by these facilities may lead to increased rates for the surrounding area. There is specific concern regarding the impact on high-usage institutions, such as hospitals, which rely on stable and affordable electricity for operating rooms and medical imaging.
• Renewable Energy Limitations: While the Board noted that large, flat data center roofs are ideal for solar arrays, current revisions discourage separate on-site renewable generation in favor of public grid connections. However, developers may apply for variances to implement solar or wind technology.

Environmental and Community Impacts

The Board emphasized the need for comprehensive environmental reports and mitigation strategies to protect residents and local wildlife.

Noise Mitigation

Data centers produce a “constant hum” from cooling fans and large diesel backup generators.

• Decibel Limits: Current standards limit noise to 63 decibels at the parcel line.
• Health Concerns: The Board noted that constant low-frequency noise has been linked to health issues in residents, including headaches and vertigo.
• Wildlife Impact: Constant noise can disrupt local wildlife habitats, with reports suggesting animals may avoid areas surrounding data centers.
• Technological Integration: A proposed amendment requires developers to incorporate new noise suppression technologies as they become available.

Wildlife and Natural Resources

Specific environmental concerns were raised regarding protected species, such as bog turtles and bats. The Board suggested that current ordinance language should be “beefed up” to require more detailed environmental reports covering water drawdown and the impact on local ecosystems.

Operational Oversight and Decommissioning

To ensure long-term accountability, the ordinance establishes rigorous inspection and closure protocols.

• Annual Inspections: Facilities are subject to annual recertifications and inspections by the Fire Marshal and the Police Department to ensure adherence to safety and security standards.
• Emergency Planning: Developers must provide an emergency access plan and an emergency savings fee plan, both subject to Fire Marshal approval.
• Sound Testing: Rather than relying solely on developer-provided data, the Board proposed professional sound testing both before and after construction to verify compliance with noise ordinances.
• Financial Security for Decommissioning: Section 12 of the ordinance requires developers to post financial bonds or lines of credit, renewed every three years. This ensures that if a facility closes, there is sufficient funding to remove all equipment, disconnect power generation, and restore the site to its original condition.

Procedural Timeline and Strategic Considerations

The Board is navigating a complex procedural path while considering broader strategic pauses.

Timeline of Actions

1. July: Joint meeting to review ordinance revisions.
2. August: Authorization to advertise for a public hearing.
3. Late August: Formal public hearing for comment and potential adoption.
4. Post-Hearing: Return to the Planning Commission if substantive changes are made during the hearing.

Strategic Considerations: The Moratorium

The Board discussed the possibility of enacting a moratorium on data center developments, similar to actions taken by counties in Maryland. This “pause” would allow the municipality more time to study the long-term impacts of the industry. The Board noted that data center developers often have “deeper pockets” and more technical expertise than local municipalities, necessitating a highly detailed and legally sound ordinance to ensure community interests are protected.