On December 17th, the East Vincent Township supervisors decided to scrap their data center ordinance. Below is an excellent explanation of the current situation penned by an awesome and knowledgeable member of the community: 

"People consider me an expert in Pennhurst, thus, many have asked me to weigh in on the data center topic. Rather than give you an emotional response, I'll approach it the same way I approach my talks on disability advocacy. The facts:

The applicant (Pennhurst, LLC) has applied for the development of a data center on the grounds of the former Pennhurst State School and Hospital. The draft plans show the entire Pennhurst South Campus being used for the data center proposal. Every currently existing building – with the exception of Assembly Hall – has a structure planned in its place. It is safe to assume that the entire campus will be leveled to make room for the proposed data center.
In response to this proposal, the township had attempted to draft an ordinance to restrict certain aspects of the data center to protect the local population and ecology. The applicant would have then been allowed to reapply under the new ordinance in a good-faith attempt at listening to the community.
WHAT JUST HAPPENED:
The ordinance became “too restrictive” according to the applicant, and they declared that they would not switch to the new ordinance and will continue the application process under the currently existing Industrial Mixed Use zoning laws as a Conditional Use.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT:
Beginning in January, the Planning Commission will review the application and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding the application.
A public hearing on the application will be held in March. The hearing can be continued if the board chooses. This means a subsequent hearing may be scheduled for a future date. The Board of Supervisors must render a decision within 45 days after the last hearing, though all hearings must be completed no later than 100 days after the completion of the applicant's case. I am uncertain what date that is. The Board can choose to:
1. Approve the application
2. Approve the application subject to conditions – The applicant can accept the conditions and continue with the process or decline to meet the conditions and withdraw the application.
3. Deny the application – If the application is denied, the decision shall be accompanied by findings, conclusions, and reasons for the decision.
LONG TERM:
Should the application be approved, the applicant will undergo a rigorous, years-long process of getting permits and studies done.
Should it be denied, they have the option to appeal the decision and move up the chain of command (county, state, etc.). This appellate process can take years as well.
Regardless, it is safe to say that Pennhurst will stand for a few years, if not longer. Its fate currently rests on the votes of the Board of Supervisors some time in March, 2026.
RELEVANT FACTS AND OPINION:
Pennhurst is recognized as an International Site of Conscience. It is ground zero for national movements such as special education, disabled civil rights, workers' rights, and much more. Over 10,000 forgotten souls have lived in those halls. It stands as a reminder for how we behaved in the early 1900: damning those who are different, goading the Nazi movement, and our obsession with money. Its significance is deserving of a place in school textbooks, national conversation, and more - regardless of its fate.
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER:
An individual or group/organization can apply as an affected party to the application, which will allow them the opportunity to speak, cross examine, or provide evidence for or against the application. I am unsure of the application process at this time and will update when I learn how to do so.
WHY DOESN'T THE BOARD JUST SAY NO?
The board will be tasked with operating in a quasi-judicial capacity as early as March 2026. This means they will be acting as judges over this application. As such, a judge cannot reveal bias as they consider the facts. They will only reveal their opinion at the time of voting. It is for this reason the Board of Supervisors, most likely under the advisement of the Township Solicitor, are hesitant to answer questions directly related to the proposal. Prematurely revealing bias would open the floodgates on appeals and lawsuits. Many constituents are understandably frustrated at the seemingly neutral (or otherwise) stance the Board is presenting, but it is legally necessary."