Legal Challenges

Status as of July 19, 2026

See how we're fighting.

Three challenges, all live. Here's what we filed, what we're arguing, and where each one stands.

The one-company zoning

Appealing to county court

Substantive Validity / Spot Zoning Challenge · ZHB Case 2026-03

Filed May 13, 2026. Now on appeal in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas.

The township wrote a zoning overlay for one company and stuck it on 694 acres. Zoning is supposed to be a plan for the whole township. When a board carves out a parcel and writes rules that fit one owner, that is spot zoning, and Pennsylvania courts have thrown it out for decades. The overlay was written to fit a single property, and the developer's own attorney helped write the rules. We are asking the county court to strike it down.

The facts behind it

  • In December 2024 the developer's attorney sent the township a pre-written data center ordinance with the district boundary already drawn around their own land. The township's consultant confirmed a month later that the language was in the draft.
  • The board adopted the overlay in 35 days, from the April 25, 2025 request to the May 30, 2025 adoption. The township wasn't given an environmental study until August.
  • The township's comprehensive plan has not been updated since 2003, and state law says every ten years. In February 2026, after this developer got its overlay, the board voted to stop acting on zoning amendments until the plan is updated.
  • We filed our challenge May 13, 2026. The zoning hearing board had 60 days to hold a hearing and never did, which puts it in front of the county court.

The overlay went on in May 2025. The label underneath changed in September. Read the zoning story

What's next

The appeal is with the county court.

If we win

If the court agrees, the zoning that makes PAX-1 possible falls, and the project loses the ground it stands on.

The incomplete approvals

In county court

Land Use Appeal · Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas

Filed June 5, 2026.

The township's own rules require an environmental study, written by someone the township and the developer both agree on. The study for PAX-1 was written by an engineering firm whose principal is also the developer's chief operating officer. The same rules require sign-off from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission for a project drawing this much water. The developer said it did not apply. The supervisors approved anyway. We are asking the county court to vacate those approvals.

The facts behind it

  • The township ordinance requires the environmental study to be prepared by a consultant both sides agree on.
  • The study was prepared by Livic Engineering. Its principal, Justin Ross, is also chief operating officer of the developer's company.
  • No evidence was offered that the township ever agreed to that choice.
  • The ordinance requires Susquehanna River Basin Commission approval for projects using 100,000 gallons a day or more. PAX-1 is authorized for up to 400,000. The developer claimed an exemption.
  • Blasting and earthmoving were underway before the land development approvals were issued.
  • The Appalachian Trail Conservancy publicly opposed the project the same day the supervisors approved it.

What's next

The appeal is with the county court. We have asked for leave to add to it once the township produces the written approvals.

If we win

If the court vacates the approvals, they go back to the supervisors for denial, and the developer has to start over with a real environmental study and the approvals it skipped.

The 58-home permit

Appealing to the EHB

PADEP Stormwater Permit Challenge · Environmental Hearing Board appeal

Requested June 16, 2026. Heard July 1. PADEP ruled July 16.

A permit written for 58 homes on 15.3 acres is now covering a data center on 693 acres. It got there through four amendments, none of them opened to public comment. We challenged all four. PADEP answered only the fourth, so we are taking it to the Environmental Hearing Board.

The facts behind it

  • The permit was first issued for Cumberland Knoll, a 58 home subdivision on 15.3 acres.
  • Four amendments later it covers 693 acres. None went out for public comment.
  • County inspectors found 81 technical deficiencies in the plans. 21 were still open in May 2026.
  • We challenged all four amendments. PADEP's determination addressed only the fourth.

What's next

We are filing with the Environmental Hearing Board, an independent panel that reviews PADEP decisions. Three of our four objections have yet to be addressed.

If we win

If the permit is pulled or narrowed, construction stops or slows sharply while the developer starts over with the right permit and a real public process.

The constitutional grounds

Two of the three challenges argue this project violates the Pennsylvania Constitution.

"The people have a right to clean air, pure water... As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people."

— Article I, Section 27, Pennsylvania Constitution

Trustee is the key word: the township is not free to hand these resources away. In 2013 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a government body has to weigh the environmental impact before it acts, not after.

Fund the fight

Three challenges, one legal fund.

Briefs, expert witnesses, transcripts, and filing fees. All three cases are running at once, and every one of them costs money.

Fund the Fight100% goes to the legal fund.