Pennsylvania Data Center Zoning Changes Could Boost Site Acquisition

Executive Summary

Pennsylvania is weighing zoning revisions that could materially reduce friction for data center developers seeking to site, permit, and build facilities across the state. The Springdale data center proposal — backed by developer Dynamo DC — has emerged as the leading case study in this debate, surfacing the core tension between streamlined development pathways and community land-use concerns. Developers and investors stand to benefit if reforms clear the way for faster approvals; local communities near proposed sites absorb the offsetting pressure. The InfraSale takeaway: Pennsylvania is worth watching closely as a jurisdiction where zoning posture toward data centers may shift in a single legislative or regulatory cycle.

What Happened

Pennsylvania is actively considering revisions to its zoning framework as it relates to data center development. The discussion has been crystallized by the proposed Springdale data center, a project being advanced by Dynamo DC, a developer pushing for clearer and more permissive land-use rules to move projects from concept to construction.

Brian Regli, representing Dynamo DC, identified the zoning structure itself — not power access or financing — as the central obstacle. "The real problem," Regli said, "is the current regulatory environment that data center developers must navigate before breaking ground."

Developers are actively advocating for zoning changes that would reduce ambiguity in the approval process, shorten review timelines, and expand the categories of land on which data centers can be sited as of right or with conditional use approval.

Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Why This Matters

Data centers are no longer a niche asset class. They are critical infrastructure, and where states position themselves on zoning — permissive or restrictive — directly determines which markets attract capital and which get bypassed. Pennsylvania's deliberations signal that the state is aware of this competition and is at least considering the pro-development side of the ledger.

The Springdale case is instructive precisely because it is not hypothetical. A real developer, with a real project, has run into a real regulatory wall. That specificity gives Pennsylvania lawmakers and county planners a concrete test case rather than an abstract policy debate.

Industry context: Nationally, data center demand is being driven by AI workload expansion, cloud infrastructure investment, and enterprise digital transformation. States that modernize zoning frameworks now are positioning themselves to capture a disproportionate share of that investment over the next five to ten years. Pennsylvania, with its mix of affordable land, existing utility infrastructure, and proximity to mid-Atlantic demand centers, is a credible candidate — if the regulatory environment cooperates.

The Dynamo DC situation also illustrates a broader pattern: developers are increasingly willing to engage publicly in zoning debates rather than navigate them quietly. That shift tends to accelerate reform timelines.

Power & Interconnection Impact

Zoning reform alone does not solve the interconnection equation, but it does set the stage. Data centers in Pennsylvania will connect to the PJM Interconnection, the largest competitive wholesale electricity market in North America. PJM's interconnection queue has faced well-documented backlogs, and new large-load customers — data centers routinely require 50 MW to 500 MW of capacity — add pressure to an already stressed system.

Industry context: If zoning changes catalyze a wave of new data center applications in Pennsylvania, utilities and transmission operators will need to anticipate load growth earlier in the planning cycle. Developers who secure zoning entitlements without simultaneously advancing interconnection applications risk holding entitled sites that cannot be energized on commercially viable timelines. The two tracks must run in parallel.

Local substations and distribution infrastructure near proposed sites — including the Springdale area — will face incremental load scrutiny as projects advance. Developers should engage utilities at the pre-application stage, well before zoning approvals are in hand.

Land, Zoning & Permitting Impact

The core issue raised by Dynamo DC is one that data center developers across the country know well: municipal and county zoning codes were largely written before data centers existed as a distinct land use category. Many jurisdictions classify them under industrial or office definitions that carry requirements misaligned with how modern hyperscale or colocation facilities actually operate.

Assumption: If Pennsylvania moves to create a dedicated or clarified zoning classification for data centers, it would reduce the number of variance and special-use permit applications required — compressing approval timelines from years to months in favorable jurisdictions.

For developers, the near-term implication is to track which Pennsylvania counties and municipalities are engaged in this debate at the local level, since state-level zoning guidance in Pennsylvania is typically implemented through township and borough ordinances. Site selection strategy should weight jurisdictions already signaling receptiveness to data center use.

InfraSale Marketplace

Turn this intelligence into a deal

InfraSale connects landowners, developers, and tenants directly — skip the broker chain.

Environmental review requirements — stormwater, impervious surface limits, noise ordinances related to HVAC and cooling systems — will remain relevant regardless of zoning classification changes and should be scoped early.

Investment Takeaway

Investors evaluating Pennsylvania as a data center market should treat the current zoning debate as a market timing signal rather than a concluded event.

Watch the Springdale outcome. How regulators and elected officials respond to Dynamo DC's project will serve as a leading indicator of Pennsylvania's broader posture toward data center development.
Zoning reform compresses risk premiums. Entitled land with clear data center use rights commands a premium over raw land requiring discretionary approval. Reforms that expand as-of-right or conditional use pathways increase the pool of viable, lower-risk sites.
PJM interconnection timelines remain the binding constraint. Zoning wins mean little without a credible path to power. Investors should underwrite interconnection milestones with the same rigor as entitlement milestones.
First-mover advantage is real. Developers who secure sites in permissive Pennsylvania jurisdictions before zoning changes are fully codified may benefit from both lower land basis and reduced competition.
Community opposition is a residual risk. Zoning reform at the state or county level does not eliminate local opposition. Projects that skip community engagement early tend to face it — expensively — later.

InfraSale Market Angle

For developers actively sourcing data center sites, Pennsylvania represents a jurisdiction in transition — which is precisely when site acquisition strategy matters most. Markets with settled, permissive zoning are already priced for data center demand. Pennsylvania, still in deliberation, offers the possibility of acquiring land before that premium is fully embedded in asking prices.

Developers should maintain active monitoring of county-level zoning board agendas and township ordinance reviews across western and central Pennsylvania, where land costs are lower and large-parcel availability is higher than in the Philadelphia suburbs. Engagement with local governments at this stage — before ordinances are finalized — gives developers an opportunity to shape definitions, setback requirements, and conditional use criteria rather than simply respond to them.

Landowners near existing transmission infrastructure or substations should understand that their parcels may carry latent value that current zoning does not yet reflect. The InfraSale platform surfaces those connections.

Market Signal

Location: Pennsylvania
Primary Issue: Zoning changes for data centers
Infrastructure Theme: Permitting
Who Benefits: Data center developers and investors
Who's at Risk: Local communities facing development pressures
InfraSale Takeaway: Stay updated on zoning changes to optimize site acquisition strategies.

Take Action

Pennsylvania's zoning environment for data centers is shifting, and the window to acquire well-positioned sites before the market fully reprices is open — but not indefinitely. Developers who move now on site identification, utility engagement, and local government relationships will be ahead of the queue when approvals become easier to obtain. Browse available powered land and DC sites.

FAQ

What are the current zoning laws affecting data centers in Pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania does not have a unified state zoning code — land use regulation is administered at the township, borough, and municipal level. Most existing ordinances do not include a dedicated data center classification, which means developers typically seek approval under industrial, light industrial, or office designations, often requiring variances or special-use permits that add time and uncertainty to the process. The Dynamo DC situation at Springdale reflects this structural gap directly.

How will zoning changes impact data center investment in Pennsylvania?

Clearer, more permissive zoning frameworks reduce the discretionary risk embedded in project underwriting — meaning investors can underwrite site acquisition with greater confidence that approvals will follow. That reduction in regulatory risk tends to attract a broader pool of capital, including institutional investors who currently avoid markets with high entitlement uncertainty. The flip side is that once zoning is clearly permissive, land prices typically rise to reflect that certainty.

What should developers know about the permitting process in Pennsylvania?

Because zoning is locally administered in Pennsylvania, developers must engage at the municipality or township level rather than relying on state-level guidance alone. Permitting timelines vary significantly across counties. Environmental review — particularly stormwater management and noise compliance — runs parallel to zoning and should be scoped concurrently. Assumption: Developers who engage pre-application with both the planning board and the local utility are likely to face fewer late-stage surprises than those who sequence these workstreams.

Is Pennsylvania a competitive data center market compared to Virginia or Texas?

Industry context: Northern Virginia remains the dominant U.S. data center market by capacity, but power constraints and land scarcity are pushing developers to evaluate secondary markets. Pennsylvania's proximity to major northeastern demand centers, combined with lower land costs and existing PJM transmission infrastructure, makes it a credible alternative — contingent on zoning and interconnection conditions improving. The current deliberations are a step in that direction.