Wildcat Ridge Data Center attorneys seek recusal of all but one council member
Attorneys for the Wildcat Ridge Data Center Campus have filed motions seeking the recusal of six out of seven Archbald borough council members from voting on the project, citing bias. Meanwhile, an ongoing conditional use hearing continued with testimony debating the potential air quality and public health impacts of the proposed 14-data-center campus, particularly from its 588 backup diesel generators.
Attorneys representing the proposed Wildcat Ridge Data Center Campus have initiated legal maneuvers to disqualify six of Archbald Borough's seven council members from participating in decisions regarding the massive 14-data-center development. On Tuesday, attorneys for Brooklyn-based Cornell Realty Management LLC, the developer, filed motions citing due process rights under the U.S. Constitution, arguing that the council members' public statements, social media activity, and participation in anti-data center petitions demonstrate a lack of impartiality. Vice President Joseph Altier III was the only council member excluded from the motions. Borough Solicitor Jay O'Connor stated he needed more time to review the documents before a determination could be made by the council.
The ongoing conditional use hearing also featured contentious testimony concerning the project's environmental impact. Engineer Thomas M. Muscenti of Trinity Consultants, representing Wildcat Ridge, disputed findings from a previous air quality and public health assessment by Harvard University scientist Dr. Michael Cork. Cork's study, commissioned by Stop Archbald Data Centers, projected significant annual health damages from the campus's 588 backup diesel generators. Muscenti argued that Cork's methodology was unsuitable for a single facility and overstated emissions, asserting that the project's emissions would comply with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection standards.
Council President Louis Rapoch and other council members expressed skepticism regarding Muscenti's testimony, questioning the "proof" and comparing the conflicting reports. The hearing, which drew approximately 400 community members, did not reach a conclusion and is set to reconvene on September 9. The motions for recusal, if successful, could jeopardize the hearing process as the Pennsylvania Borough Code requires a quorum, and the Municipalities Planning Code dictates a timeline for decisions, with failure potentially leading to a "deemed approval" for the developer.