
Archbald denies application for 18-data-center campus
News ClipScranton Times-Tribune·Archbald, Lackawanna County, PA·3/27/2026
The Archbald Borough Council unanimously denied Archbald I LLC's application for an 18-data-center campus, leading to applause from a large crowd of residents. The denial was procedural, citing an incomplete record and insufficient testimony from the developer, rather than the merits of the project. Residents expressed significant concerns about water, electricity, noise, emissions, and property values.
zoningoppositionelectricitywaterenvironmentalgovernmentlegalmoratorium
Gov: Archbald Borough Council, Lackawanna County Commissioner, Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Governor Josh Shapiro
The Archbald Borough Council voted 5-0 to deny Archbald I LLC's conditional use application for a proposed 18-data-center campus, Project Scott, located along Eynon Jermyn Road and Business Route 6. The decision, met with a standing ovation from over 200 residents, was attributed to an incomplete record and insufficient testimony from the developer, not the merits of the application itself. The council, under President Louis Rapoch, Vice President Joseph Altier III, and members Erin Owen, Marie Andreoli, and Tom Aniska, sought to avoid an automatic approval under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) by making a decision before a Saturday deadline.
The denial followed widespread community opposition, with 12 speakers, including Lackawanna County Commissioner Bill Gaughan, urging the council to reject the proposal. Residents raised concerns about significant water and electricity consumption, noise, emissions, deforestation, proximity to homes, schools, and parks, property values, and security. Commissioner Gaughan also advocated for Gov. Josh Shapiro to issue a three-year moratorium on data centers statewide.
The procedural issues stemmed from a canceled second hearing due to a clerical error at the newspaper, which failed to publish required public notices. The developer, represented by attorney Jeffrey Esch McCombie of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, declined to agree to an extension for the hearings, leading the borough to hold a special meeting to make a decision. The council's written decision indicated that if appealed, the case should be remanded to council to complete the record or for evidentiary hearings in court.