WEST CHESTER, PA — A Chester County judge ruled Nov. 10 that neighboring property owners and a residents’ advocacy group can participate in defending East Vincent Township’s rejection of a proposed hyperscale data center, preserving their role in a land-use dispute over the Pennhurst property, according to Spring-Ford Press.
Judge Nicole Forzato of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas granted intervenor status to John and Penny Hunt, who own an adjoining farm, and East Vincent Advocacy following a hearing challenging their eligibility to participate in the developer’s appeal.
The decision allows both parties to submit legal arguments alongside the township as Penn Hurst Holdings DE LLC seeks to overturn the supervisors’ denial of its conditional-use application.
The ruling addresses who may participate in the appeal, not whether the proposed development complies with township zoning requirements. The application remains denied while the litigation proceeds.
The dispute involves approximately 124.6 acres at 1205 Commonwealth Drive, commonly known as the Pennhurst property, where the developer proposed data-center buildings, an office building and related improvements in the township’s Industrial Mixed Use District.
East Vincent supervisors unanimously rejected the application May 21, concluding that the proposal did not qualify as a planned commercial development under the township’s zoning ordinance.
Penn Hurst Holdings appealed in June, arguing that supervisors incorrectly interpreted provisions governing permitted uses, zoning standards and transferable development rights.
The central legal question remains whether the township properly applied its ordinance when denying the project.
During the Nov. 10 hearing, the developer challenged the Hunts’ and East Vincent Advocacy’s standing to participate in that dispute.
According to Spring-Ford Press, John Hunt testified that he and his wife own approximately 130 acres at Eden Valley Farm on Dairy Road, adjoining the Pennhurst property along roughly one mile of shared boundary.
Hunt, an attorney and farmer, described concerns about stormwater runoff, agricultural operations and access to his property.
He testified that his farm sits downhill from Pennhurst and that the proposed development could affect land used for cattle, horses and crops.
Hunt also described deeded easements providing access through portions of the Pennhurst property, including Brown Drive and Commonwealth Drive.
He testified that access to those roads had been blocked for more than three years, resulting in separate litigation.
Attorney Matthew McHugh, representing Penn Hurst Holdings, argued that the Hunts had not satisfied the procedural requirements for intervention because they had not formally established party status during the township’s conditional-use proceedings.
Hunt acknowledged missing the first township hearing but attending the subsequent hearing at which supervisors denied the application.
He explained that he understood East Vincent Advocacy and attorney Carl Ewald, who represents the intervenors, to be protecting his interests during the original proceedings.
Ewald argued that the Hunts’ adjoining property ownership, deeded access rights and potential exposure to development impacts justified their participation.
East Vincent Township Solicitor Joe Clement supported the request, maintaining that the Hunts had property interests that might not be fully represented by the advocacy organization.
The developer separately challenged East Vincent Advocacy’s standing, questioning whether the organization could represent affected property owners when it does not own township property itself.
Christine McNeil, the organization’s president, testified that East Vincent Advocacy is a resident-led nonprofit with more than 950 members, approximately 80% of whom live in East Vincent Township.
The organization operates as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit focused on historic preservation, rural land use, public participation in local government and enforcement of township zoning regulations.
Membership does not require dues, and the organization’s legal expenses are supported through voluntary contributions.
McNeil identified members who live near the proposed development and whose interests the organization represented during the township’s conditional-use proceedings, where it had previously received party status.
“We would want the zoning of our township upheld,” McNeil testified, according to Spring-Ford Press.
McHugh argued that the organization’s advocacy for township residents did not establish the specific property interests required for intervention.
Ewald countered that East Vincent Advocacy could qualify through the interests of its members, including nearby property owners who could potentially participate individually.
Forzato accepted the arguments supporting intervention, determining that both the adjoining farm owners and the advocacy organization had sufficient interests in the proceedings.
“I do believe there is a direct, substantial interest,” Forzato stated, according to Spring-Ford Press.
The decision gives the Hunts and East Vincent Advocacy independent opportunities to defend the township’s zoning determination and present arguments concerning the proposed development’s potential effects on neighboring properties.
Their participation could supplement the township’s legal defense with issues involving stormwater management, agricultural activities, property access and nearby residents.
The ruling does not establish that those concerns justify denying the project. That question remains separate from the procedural issue decided at the hearing.
The next stage of litigation will focus on the developer’s challenge to the supervisors’ interpretation of the zoning ordinance.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Ewald indicated that Penn Hurst Holdings had requested 30 days to submit an amended brief.
Forzato directed the attorneys to propose a briefing schedule by Wednesday, Nov. 18. No date has been established for another court hearing.
Following the decision, McNeil told Spring-Ford Press that the organization’s concerns extend beyond East Vincent to surrounding communities, including Limerick, Royersford, Spring City and the Coventry townships.
“There’s a lot on the line right now for the health, safety, and welfare of our residents,” McNeil stated.
The court’s eventual decision on the underlying appeal could determine whether the rejected data-center proposal returns to the township for further consideration.
For additional details about the testimony, legal arguments and court ruling, read the full Spring-Ford Press report at https://www.springford.press/article/judge-allows-neighbors-advocacy-group-to-intervene-in-pennhurst-data-center-appeal
Support the local news that supports Chester County. MyChesCo delivers reliable, fact-based reporting and essential community resources—free for everyone. If you value that, click here to become a patron today.