Judge: Scranton woman has legal standing to oppose data center development

Judge: Scranton woman has legal standing to oppose data center development

News ClipScranton Times-Tribune·Scranton, Lackawanna County, PA·7/9/2026

A Lackawanna County judge has ruled that a Scranton woman has legal standing to oppose a proposed data center campus in Ransom Twp. The developer, Scranton Materials, had its zoning change application dismissed by the township supervisors and has since filed an appeal and a second lawsuit. The woman's attorney argues the project would negatively impact stormwater, pollution, water and electric supply, wildlife, and property values.

legaloppositionzoningenvironmentalelectricitywater
Gov: Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Ransom Twp. Supervisors

A Lackawanna County judge has granted a Scranton woman, Susan Magnotta, legal standing to oppose a proposed data center campus in neighboring Ransom Township. This decision by Judge Margaret Bisignani Moyle could establish a precedent as data center opposition grows in Lackawanna County.

Magnotta's attorney, Laura McGarry, who is also her daughter, argued that her mother's property in Scranton's Keyser Valley section is close enough to the proposed site—about two-thirds of a mile—to be negatively impacted. McGarry asserted that the data center project would exacerbate stormwater runoff, cause pollution, strain local water and electric grids, increase utility prices, threaten wildlife, and decrease property values. Ransom Township does not object to Magnotta's intervention in the case.

The developer, Scranton Materials, initially filed a curative amendment in November to rezone its 251-acre quarry property for a data center district. However, the Ransom Township supervisors dismissed the application in January due to insufficient testimony and evidence. Scranton Materials has appealed this decision and filed a second lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment against the board, which is currently ongoing. McGarry contends that Scranton Materials' application was merely a rezoning request, not a valid curative amendment challenge to the zoning ordinance, and therefore not subject to judicial review of the governing body's denial.