A data center developer appealed the Dickson City Zoning Hearing Board’s decision to uphold the borough’s data center regulations, taking Dickson City to court in an effort to build four data centers above Business Route 6.
Dickson City Development LLC, a firm linked to Kriger Construction, filed a land-use appeal June 22 in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas challenging Dickson City’s data center zoning standards. The lawsuit, filed by attorney Michael Mey of Dunmore-based Mey & Sulla LLP, also asks the court to overturn the Dickson City Zoning Hearing Board’s May 20 decision that upheld the borough’s data center zoning ordinance after Dickson City Development challenged the validity of the legislation.
Dickson City Development proposes four data centers across Bell Mountain above Business Route 6, with an affiliated trio of limited liability companies named “Dickson City Power” one through three also applying to build three natural gas power plants above the data centers, producing a combined 400 megawatts.
The zoning hearing board denied appeals for each of the four data centers May 27.
Other companies tied to Kriger Construction propose a nearly 620,000-square-foot Project Boson data center on Eynon Jermyn Road in Archbald, with an Essential Energy LLC 400-megawatt natural gas power plant across the street.
The new land-use appeal is nearly identical to a previous land-use appeal that Dickson City Development filed against the borough in March, though the new appeal now includes a challenge to the zoning hearing board’s May 20 decision.
Dickson City Development wants to invalidate the borough’s data center zoning ordinance, adopted Feb. 12. The ordinance defines and regulates data centers by restricting them as special exceptions in the borough’s light manufacturing zoning district. The district limits data centers to Enterprise Street near Eagle Lane and undeveloped land southeast of Railroad Street.
While the legislation amended the borough’s zoning to include data centers, Mey argues in his lawsuit that the ordinance is still exclusionary.
The appeal contends that restrictions in the ordinance — including minimum site sizes, setbacks, design requirements, mandatory fire protection coordination that must be to the satisfaction of the Fire Department, and what the developer contends are discretionary operational and financial requirements that cause “discretionary choke points” — create compounding barriers that make data center development practically unattainable on most parcels within the zoning district.
The filing in county court wants the data center zoning ordinance annulled for: procedural noncompliance, internal consistency and vagueness, unlawful delegation of legislative authority, lack of uniform standards, substantive unreasonableness, denial of substantive due process; and/or because it is de facto exclusionary to data centers.
The appeal also asserts that the borough did not abide by the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, which provides the legal framework for municipal zoning.
Among the alleged violations, it describes a series of events involving an overcrowded meeting space and a council member’s unsuccessful attempt to move the meeting to a more suitable location.
Dickson City Development first uses the language in county court in its initial March 13 appeal.
However, the same language appears verbatim in an unrelated lawsuit filed in December by a different law firm describing events that occurred during a November council meeting in a different town.
On Dec. 23, attorney Donald G. Karpowich filed a land-use appeal on behalf of eight Archbald residents opposing data centers and challenging Archbald’s data center zoning, which council adopted Nov. 24.
Both the Archbald and Dickson City appeals describe a severely overcrowded meeting space where residents were unable to enter the council chambers and forced to stay in a vestibule or remain outside the Borough Building. The filings additionally reference a council member formally raising concerns related to fire, health and safety, and moving to table the meeting to secure a suitable location, noting motion was not honored and deliberations continued.
In Archbald, Councilwoman Erin Owen raised those concerns on Nov. 24 and unsuccessfully attempted to table and relocate the meeting to a large venue as residents packed the council chambers, spilling out of the room and outside the Borough Building.
Borough resident Carolyn Mizanty concludes her comments at the podium during the data center meeting at the Archbald Borough Building in Archbald Monday, November 24, 2025. (SEAN MCKEAG / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
Dickson City had a similar turnout during its Jan. 20 public hearing on data centers, with residents spilling out of the council chambers into the vestibule. Unlike Archbald, though, no council members raised concerns about the crowd size, and there was no motion to end the meeting to secure a more suitable location.
A few minutes into Dickson City’s January hearing, a resident interrupted the meeting to say the lobby was full, that they couldn’t hear anything outside and that they wanted to participate.
Solicitor Bill Jones welcomed the additional attendees, saying, “Well, why don’t you bring them all in? Come on in,” as a wave of residents crowded the room.
Council President Jeff Kovaleski then confirmed residents could hear the meeting from the back of the room before proceeding with the hearing.
“We just ask that everybody try to get in,” Kovaleski told the crowd.
An overflow crowd of at least 200 residents packs into the Dickson City Borough Building for a public hearing Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2026, in the Dickson City. (FRANK WILKES LESNEFSKY / STAFF PHOTO)
Dickson City council did not vote that night, instead reconvening Feb. 12 in the Dickson City Civic Center to accommodate the large crowd size.
At least 150 residents attended a public hearing on data center legislation in Dickson City at the Dickson City Civic Center on Thursday, Feb. 12, 2026. (FRANK WILKES LESNEFSKY / STAFF PHOTO)
Council listened to additional testimony at the hearing before amending its zoning to regulate data centers, prompting Dickson City Development’s initial appeal.
The land-use appeal asks the court to invalidate the ordinance, remand it back to the borough, overrule and reverse the zoning hearing board’s denial and award any other other relief that it deems appropriate.
Monday Update
THEN: The Dickson City Zoning Hearing Board denied a data center developer’s challenge to the validity of the borough’s data center zoning regulations.
NOW: The developer appealed the denial to county court.