Attachments

20261015-183719-66d-Linde Coproration Clinton Township Data Center Decision Complaint.pdf

20261015-183731-4bf-Linde Corporation Clinton Township SALDO Complaint.pdf

CLINTON TOWNSHIP, PA — After rejecting Linde Corp’s $6 billion proposed data center campus a little over a month ago, Clinton Township will now need to defend the decision in court.

The proposed data center was to house 20 data center buildings, use an estimated 40,000 gallons of water a day for sewer, and span almost 800 acres.

The legal battle and more was the topic of discussion during a regularly scheduled October 14 Clinton Township Board of Supervisors meeting. 

The lawsuit

Interim solicitor Ronald Bugaj clarified to audience members that there were two complaints filed against the township, both of which the town received on October 13. 

The first complaint, according to Bugaj, was challenging the Subdivision and Land Ordinance (SALDO) amendment that the township created while considering Linde Corp’s data center application.

The SALDO amendment lists requirements for data centers in regards to noise, light and water to protect existing infrastructure, such as residential areas. The amendment was not taken into consideration by the board when reviewing Linde Corp’s application, since it was instated after Linde applied. If Linde were to reapply, it would have to abide by the provisions set by the newly-instated SALDO amendment. 

“The essence of the attack is that we [the township] were too strict when we passed it, and put in there things that really should be in a zoning ordinance rather than a subdivision land ordinance,” Bugaj explained.

Bugaj also added that due to the nature of the complaint, the township has 20 days from when it was received on October 13 to respond. 

“Linde filed, in addition to the land use appeal, what’s called a motion for peremptory judgement, saying ‘give me a quickie judgement, court’ based on the deemed approval,” Bugaj stated, adding that this meant that Linde Corp felt as though the facts were clear.

Bugaj said after gathering information, he disagrees with what the complaint alleges.

“Linde’s facts are inherently wrong,” he commented. “What Linde alleges, I think, are wrong facts.” 

The complaint, filed by legal group Mey & Sulla on October 6, alleges that Linde would “suffer irreparable harm if the Amendment’s provisions are applied to its property and pending application”

The complaint also claims that the SALDO amendment may unfairly single out data centers, and therefore may violate prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court rulings. One example the complaint gives is Naylor vs. Hellam, which ruled in 2001 that a local municipality can not enact a temporary moratorium on subdivision and land development.

Though the initial response will have to be fast, Bugaj clarified that the overall battle in court could be lengthy. Discovery, which is the gathering of evidence by both parties, could take four to six months, he explained. Then, a judge will decide whether to have a hearing or make a motion, which could happen in six to 12 months. 

The second filing is an appeal to the board’s September 9 denial of Linde’s data center application. 

The appeal states that the township did not make a decision on the application within the required 90-day period. It reads that Linde’s initial application was on April 30, contrary to the July 1 date that the board of supervisors accepted. 

Mey & Sulla also claim that the deficiencies in the proposed data center plan were fixable had the township granted Linde Corp’s time extension request.

“We all felt that, when you have an engineer’s letter that says there’s 61 things wrong, there is no way you can say that this is gonna be corrected easily with just a few conditions,” Bugaj said.

“You should vigorously defend this,” Bugaj told interim supervisor Ken Coles regarding the SALDO amendment and data center rejection. “We’ve made a decision. We need to support that decision. If we don’t, we’re saying we don’t have any faith in our decisions.”

Next moves

A motion was passed for Bugaj to respond to both of Linde Corp’s court filings.

While the town gathers evidence for their case with Linde, Bugaj encouraged former objectors to the proposed data center plan to now join the land use appeal trial as intervenors.

“There’s time limits for filing as an intervenor,” Bugaj clarified. “You might want to pick up your phone and talk to your lawyer. Having additional people appear and support helps a lot.”

Many attendees pondered if they could represent themselves, as they do not have funds for a lawyer.

Bugaj estimated that in Wayne County about 10 to 20%, “maybe 30% of cases are pro se, by people that don’t have lawyers,”

“I thought Ms. Gwendolyn Brown did a very nice job.” Bugaj said, referring to a former objector representing herself in regards to the proposed data center plan.

One audience member stated that Brown had just passed the bar exam. 

Bugaj encouraged audience members to pool their resources together for a lawyer due to complicated planning codes, or look into pro-bono programs like the one Wayne County Bar Association has.

Funding the battle

Former Clinton Township supervisor James Zefran told the board that they should strongly consider hiring special counsel for the upcoming legal battle.

RR photo by Sonia Ahmed

Among the many concerns regarding the data center battle, one brought up by meeting participants was how the town would fund legal costs.

“I think it’s very important that the township supervisors and the constituents realize that you could always take an advanced draft on your liquid fuels money if necessary,” former Clinton Township Supervisor James Zefran commented. “Your other option, as supervisors, you could look at a one time tax increase for potential litigation fees.”

Many thought that the township should consider hiring special counsel.

“No offense to your interim solicitor, but if you go to a physician, your family physician, he says you have a heart problem. He sends you to who? A cardiologist. A specialist. We need a specialist here just as attorney Bugaj told us at the meetings this summer,” Zefram stated.

Coles described the legal fees as being an “unknown” and said that a temporary tax hike for legal troubles would be something the township would consider. Coles added that hiring special counsel would also be something the town would consider after some more discussion.

“Raise the taxes!” One attendee chimed in. “It’s money well spent,” another said, also in support of hiring special counsel.

Transparency

Clinton Township board member Brad Bates said he would prefer not to post court filings on the township website, as he didn't want to "add salt in the wounds"

"I'm not sure whose wounds," an audience member questioned Bates, bringing into question the township's transparency towards its constituents.

Previous Next

Some audience members thought it would benefit residents if the township could post new court filings on their website as they’re introduced to stay up-to-date on information.

“I would feel better posting it on our wall, keeping our dirty laundry off the internet,” Clinton Township board member Brad Bates said. “I just don’t wanna add salt in the wounds.”

“Are you concerned about retribution from Linde?” one audience member asked.

“What do you mean?” Bates questioned.

“You said by posting those documents that we may be rubbing salt in wounds. I’m not sure whose wounds,” they replied.

Bates responded that he grew up thinking to not “stir the pot” if things are going well.

“I would argue that they’re not going well, he’s [Linde Corp] suing us,” they said.

As audience members disagreed, Treasurer Lisa Lopatofsky said that posting the court filings online would take time, and that the township might need to pay for extra storage on the town’s website to accommodate them.

A decision was not made as to whether the court filings should be posted by the township or not.

The next Clinton Township meeting is November 11 at 1799 White Oak Drive. 

Editor’s note: Linde Corp. did not respond by the time of publication.  To see Linde Corp's court filings, please view the attachments linked in the article.