A Lackawanna County judge recently denied a developer’s court challenge that sought to compel Jessup to approve plans for six data centers along Breaker Street after the borough denied them.

Judge Terrence R. Nealon rejected West Conshohocken-based Breaker Street Associates LLC’s contention that its proposal for a nearly 210-acre data center campus should be deemed approved due to issues with the timing and substance of Jessup’s denial of its plans last year. Although Breaker Street Associates could have successfully argued deemed approval because Jessup did not properly deny its initial application submitted in June 2025, the developer lost the ability to do so by voluntarily submitting revised plans in July 2025 and October 2025, restarting the 90-day window for the municipality to rule on the applications, Nealon’s Oct. 22 order states.

“The owner has not established that it is clear and free from doubt that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to mandamus relief in the form of a deemed approval,” Nealon wrote. “Accordingly, the owner’s motion for peremptory judgment will be denied.”

Breaker Street Associates, which shares a West Conshohocken address with Catalyst Commercial Development LLC, wants to build six data centers, ranging from 148,480 square feet to 187,500 square feet, south of Breaker Street off Hill Street, in addition to a 10,000-square-foot admin/security building and a 17.44-acre switchyard/substation area, according to court filings on the project.

The location of the switchyard/substation played a key role in Jessup’s denial of the project.

Data centers were previously principally permitted in the borough’s mixed-use zoning district south of Breaker Street until council amended its zoning ordinance last year to regulate and restrict data centers. However, the switchyard/substation fell into residentially zoned land north of Breaker Street, which never permitted data centers. The Jessup Zoning Hearing Board denied an appeal from Breaker Street Associates last year that sought zoning relief for that electric infrastructure; the developer is appealing the denial separately.

Another firm linked to Catalyst Commercial Development, Sunnyside Road Associates LLC, also proposes a data center next to the Lackawanna Energy Center natural gas power plant on Sunnyside Road near Alberigi Drive. Although Jessup council conditionally approved preliminary land development plans in June for Sunnyside Road Associates to build a 50-foot-tall data center next to the power plant, the developer is appealing the zoning hearing board’s denial of a 20-foot height variance that would have allowed it to build a 70-foot-tall data center.

Attorneys Richard M. Williams and Kevin M. Walsh Jr. of Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn in Kingston filed the mandamus complaint June 18 asking the court to approve Breaker Street Associates’ plans and to compel Jessup to approve them.

Attempts to reach Williams and Walsh were unsuccessful Monday afternoon.

Breaker Street background

Breaker Street Associates submitted its initial land development application June 11, 2025, followed by revised applications and plans July 23, 2025, and Oct. 2, 2025, in response to comments from the Lackawanna County Regional Planning Commission.

Jessup’s zoning officer denied the initial application June 16, 2025, because of the infrastructure in a residential area. The planning commission sent Breaker Street Associates a letter June 24, 2025, informing the developer that the commission had reviewed its application but would not be accepting it because of the non-permitted use in the residential zone.

The planning commission has 90 days to rule on an application, with the countdown beginning after the commission’s next meeting, or in this case, on June 18, 2025, setting a Sept. 16, 2025, deadline.

In its mandamus complaint filed this year, Breaker Street Associates argues that the planning commission’s letter was improper under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, or MPC, which provides the legal framework for municipal zoning, because it failed to cite specific provisions of Jessup’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, or SALDO, used to deny it. The lawsuit further argues that the borough never ruled on its July 23, 2025, application.

As a result, both the June 11, 2025, and July 23, 2025, applications should be deemed approved, according to the filing. The complaint does not reference the revised application submitted in October 2025.

Nealon’s order

Nealon recognizes in his order that Jessup denied Breaker Street Associates’ initial June 2025 application “without describing the unsatisfied requirements or citing the relevant provisions of the statute or ordinance supporting that denial.”

“The Planning Commission’s letter decision does not cite the provisions of the MPC, SALDO, or Zoning Ordinance upon which the Planning Commission relied in rejecting Breaker Street’s land development application,” he wrote.

If Breaker Street Associates had relied on only its initial application, it could have sought deemed approval. By voluntarily submitting revised plans with significant changes, it twice reset the 90-day timer, leading to Jessup properly denying the third application in October 2025, according to Nealon’s order.

“Breaker Street could have chosen to rely upon its original application on June 11, 2025, and if it considered the Planning Commission’s letter of June 24, 2025, to be insufficient … it had the option to stand firm through September 16, 2025 (i.e., 90 days after the Planning Commission’s next regular meeting on June 18), and assert that its original land development application was deemed approved as of September 17, 2025. But, instead, it chose to file a revised land development application on July 23, 2025, and prior to the expiration of the applicable 90-day period on October 21, 2025, submitted yet another revised land development application on October 2, 2025,” Nealon wrote. “Breaker Street has produced no evidence suggesting that Jessup compelled it to submit those revised applications, and the record is devoid of any proof that Breaker Street’s amended applications on July 23, 2025, and October 2, 2025, were not voluntary.”

After receiving the third set of plans, Jessup’s counsel sent Breaker Street an Oct. 14, 2025, letter indicating its plan was incomplete, citing “numerous reasons/deficiencies,” according to the order.

On Oct. 17, 2025, Jessup’s planning commission chairwoman sent Breaker Street Associates a letter advising it that its plans were incomplete and citing six provisions under Jessup’s SALDO, including a lack of letters from utility companies showing intent to serve the data centers or the availability of the utilities; no plans showing the exterior design of the data centers as they would appear from a public street and the nearest homes; and a lack of a transportation impact study.

“In its timely written decision on October 17, 2025, the Planning Commission specified six defects in the revised application, identified the applicable requirements which had not been satisfied, and cited six different provisions in the SALDO upon which the Planning Commission relied,” Nealon wrote. “Breaker Street does not contend in this mandamus action that the Planning Commission’s written decision dated October 17, 2025, does not comply with the requirements of … the MPC.”

Nealon’s order also cites numerous deficiencies identified by Lackawanna County’s planners across Breaker Street’s applications.

The appealed zoning denials for both Breaker Street Associates’ and Sunnyside Road Associates’ data centers remain ongoing.