Tuesday, Sep. 22, 2026

Two new reviews of the Smithfield Gateway data center are now posted to the township’s conditional-use website. The bottom line: neither one blocks the project, but both raise real objections that the developer and the township will have to work through before, or as a condition of, any approval.

To give credit where it is due, back in March, Smithfield Township laid out its own baseline demands for the project: a comprehensive sound study from a qualified acoustical expert, a 200-foot minimum setback after one building was flagged at only 150 feet from residential zones, a requirement that the developer thoroughly demonstrate how it would meet the project’s electrical and water needs without straining the local grid, and a decommissioning agreement backed by a bond so the site does not end up an empty concrete shell if the project ever goes bust. Six months later, the two new reviews suggest that noise, water, and decommissioning still are not fully nailed down.

The two new items fall under “Engineer Reviews & Responses”: a courtesy review from the Monroe County Planning Commission and a second technical review from the township’s own engineering consultant, T&M Associates.

The county’s review, dated Sept. 4 and signed by Lead Senior Planner Eric Koopman, is explicitly a courtesy review only, since Smithfield’s zoning code does not actually require county sign-off on a conditional use application, and the county’s letter is careful to note that final approval and any conditions are “a matter of local determination” for Smithfield’s Board of Supervisors, not the county’s call. Still, it raises 13 numbered points for the township to consider: whether the site’s several separate parcels need to be formally consolidated, whether the developer’s own emergency response plan, acoustical evaluation and traffic statement are thorough enough to count as the “comprehensive” analyses the zoning ordinance calls for, and where an existing farmhouse on the property should be relocated to. It also lists conditions the county says the township could attach to any approval, among them rooftop solar panels, parapet walls to screen roof-mounted equipment, shielding against radio and TV interference, greater use of recycled wastewater for cooling, a waste heat and hazardous waste disposal plan, a construction management plan, and a full decommissioning plan backed by financial security the township would hold until the site is properly closed down.

T&M Associates’ review, its second look at the application, finds the technical backup still falls short in several places. The submitted noise study used the wrong measurement standard, A-weighted sound levels instead of the C-weighted analysis the review says is required, measured from the wrong height, and left out a full octave band breakdown. It also does not appear to account for what happens if multiple backup generators run at the same time. The water section rests on an intent-to-serve letter that has already expired, leaving actual water demand unconfirmed. T&M also flagged that the landscape buffer does not match the required dimensions and may encroach on setbacks, that the lighting plan is incomplete, that the draft emergency response plan is inadequate, and that the traffic study contains internal inconsistencies.

Together, the two reviews describe an application with real gaps still open on noise, water, buffering, lighting, emergency planning and traffic, meaning likely more revisions from the developer before any hearing gets scheduled, and a long list for the township’s board to work through once it does.

Residents can reach Township Manager Julia Heilakka at the Municipal Center or review the full application file on the township’s own website. As we reported Monday, the project still does not have a hearing date after the original Sept. 9 date was pulled over a newspaper notice error, and there is still nothing new on the calendar. By law the township has to schedule one within 60 days of receiving the application, and it is already bracing for a crowd, saying it is “exploring larger venues to accommodate more people.”

We will report the actual hearing date the moment it becomes public.