On the agenda: Limerick meeting — data center (Mar 9)

LIMERICK TOWNSHIP - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

MARCH 9, 2026
6:30 P.M.

A meeting of the Limerick Township Board of Supervisors was held on Monday, March 9, 2026
in the Public Meeting Room of the Limerick Township Municipal Building, located at 646 W.
Ridge Pike, with Connie Lawson, Chair, presiding. This meeting was advertised in The Mercury
on December 30, 2025.
Members Present: Supervisors Patrick M. Morroney, Connie Lawson, and Dr. Cheryl Walraven
Members Absent: Kara Shuler, Linda Irwin
Others Present: Rebecca Geiser, Esq., Township Solicitor; Daniel K. Kerr, Township Manager;
Timothy Haas, Director of Administration
Call to Order: Ms. Lawson called the meeting to order at 6:31 P.M. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Ms. Lawson announced that the meeting is being recorded and live-streamed.
Mr. Kerr read comments sent via email prior to the meeting from Supervisors Shuler and Irwin:
Kara Shuler - Not that it is anyone’s business but my loved ones, today I had a medical appointment
scheduled in an advanced timeframe on a non-meeting day as to avoid scheduling conflicts with
any of my evening responsibilities. The prior Boards understood the give-and-take that was
needed time-to-time when our calendars had conflicting items ON A MEETING NIGHT,
regardless of who was majority vs. minority; such as when Supervisor Morroney's conflicts related
to his Coast Guard schooling, community outreach duties or otherwise. We afforded the mutual
respect if, and when, possible. Our considerations were guided by applicant deadlines or otherwise
emergency situations. To the topic at hand this evening regarding the Chairperson’s confusion on
how to dictate public commentary, past Boards listened and prioritized Limerick’s taxpayers and
encouraged them to come and interact. We answered questions within legal boundaries afforded
to us and if we couldn't in the moment, we directed the Township Manager to research and come
back to the Board collectively with an answer by the next meeting. There is no reason the prior
boards' approach to public comment during meetings had to change and there is no reason
a separate, special meeting was needed for this matter. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars and
further disenfranchises the public by not giving them advanced notice to attend and engage
in the issues at hand. The prior boards' approach aligned with guidance of the State of PA's Open
Records regarding the Sunshine Act which states: "Although members of the agency (Township
in this case) are not required to provide an answer, it is a good practice to do so whenever possible.
Answering questions can demonstrate a commitment to helping constituents and, in many cases,
answering questions informally at a public meeting can reduce future requests under the Right-toKnow Law, which saves time and money for both the agency (the Township) and the
commenter/requester." Since the onset of the Reorg Meeting in January, all subsequent board
meetings have been confusing and chaotic because, in my opinion, they are not effectively
managed. Let facts speak for themselves. During the last meeting, Supervisor Morroney overrode
and conflicted with the direction of the Chair, advising one Limerick constituent, Mr. Fidler, to
proceed with asking a question directly to the applicant when the timing was not appropriate. This
question was answered but yet, during this same meeting, another Limerick constituent, Mr.
Vasco, appropriately waited until public comment to ask his question. Mr. Vasco asked the Board
to provide any information on discussions which took place between the Township, the PA State

Board of Supervisors
March 9, 2026
Page 2, Minutes
Game Commission and the owners (past and present) of the former Publicker property which
ultimately were directed to be left unanswered. Linda and I would have preferred the Township
Manager to respond with factual information in another effort to be proactive and transparent with
the public, as we have always done. Chairperson Lawson, Supervisor Morroney and Walraven
opposed this, as was seen during the meeting. To further implement confusion, at a later time
Chairperson Lawson instructed the Township Solicitor to answer another question posed during
the meeting. The inconsistent and confusing leadership of our Chairperson has led to this
completely unnecessary and wasteful special meeting that had no urgency and should have been
part of a normal meeting. Taxpayers’ dollars do have to fund this frivolous use of power. The
majority of this Board was advised on multiple occasions by multiple staff members that this could
sufficiently be discussed at the next regularly scheduled Board of Supervisor meeting and,
ultimately ALL could be in attendance. I believe Limerick taxpayers should be prioritized during
these meetings and when possible, we should agree to answer questions or direct the Township
Manager to do so on our behalf. I also encourage residents of other municipalities, who could be
considered interested or impacted parties, to engage with their local elected officials who they elect
to advocate on their behalf in coordination with our Township Manager and staff; as Limerick has
done in the past on numerous occasions on behalf of our residents. As a sitting, elected Supervisor,
I have a first amendment right to engage with my constituents and speak. I am put in a position
by the majority of this Board to reduce my ability to participate into writing for no emergent reason
except for power play. Lastly regarding public comment, I do not show up at the School Board’s
public meetings prefacing speaking as a Township resident and during their public comment
disrespect and belittle ANY of the sitting Board regardless of my agreement or not of their
management skills. As a fellow professional and grown adult, one could expect the same
consideration. I will not be silenced and I'm not going anywhere. As always, thank you for your
considerations. See you at the next meeting.
Linda Irwin - First, allow me to explain my absence to my constituents. I was elected in November
2021 and I took office in January 2022. It was rare for me to miss a meeting or leave early and I
was able to balance my responsibilities at work, at home and with the township effectively. I have
been the primary caregiver to both of my elderly parents for the last 16 years. My father became
sick in November 2024 and passed away last year, requiring me to shift my priorities, adjust to a
new normal and hire a caregiver for my mother while I attend board meetings. Board meetings
can also include an executive session prior to the start of the meeting, which can impact my ability
to stay for the full duration of the meeting when they extend beyond 9pm since my caregiver is
unavailable. This forces me into a no-win situation where I am unable to provide feedback or cast
my vote when one comes up after my departure and the once-mutually given respect that was
afforded to a fellow Board member is no longer an option under this Chairperson. The prior board
understood the challenges I faced and worked with me as I adjusted to this new normal since I
cannot leave my Mom alone. Bottom line: We all worked together when our township duties
conflicted with our personal lives, regardless of which party was in the majority or minority.
Meetings were conducted with efficiency and transparency, rarely extending beyond 9pm to
conduct standard township business. Fast forward to 2026 with a new Democrat majority board,
in which Kara and I are the minority. Prior to the start of the meeting on January 20th, where there
was discussion of a possible land swap between the PA State Game Commission and the owner of
the former Publicker, I advised the entire board prior I was unable to stay for the duration due to
my caregiver responsibilities. Each board member acknowledged this and told me they

Board of Supervisors
March 9, 2026
Page 3, Minutes
understood. At her discretion as Chair, Supervisor Lawson chose to open the public comment to
extend beyond residents of Limerick, which set a new precedent. When I had to leave for my
Mom, I got up and left quietly, not wanting to disrupt the speaker at the time. My departure and
absence was painted as not caring about my community and being "derelict in my responsibilities"
by current sitting members of your school board and members of the local media. I do want to
acknowledge that Supervisor Lawson did add a Supervisor comment period earlier in the meeting
and I am thankful for that. I care deeply about this community and have done my best try to protect
this community while balancing the rights of property owners and adhere to the law, regardless of
my personal feelings and emotions. I led the effort to put the Open Space referendum on the ballot
in 2023 and also in enacting the data center ordinance, trying to establish guardrails regarding data
centers since we are forced to provide for every type of use within the township according to the
Municipal Planning Code. The MPC is controlled by our state legislators and no meaningful
legislation was introduced before this year to give local municipalities the power to say no to
specific uses or even any guidance on zoning for data centers. Past boards listened, prioritized
Limerick taxpayers. limited public comment to them and encouraged them to come and interact
with us. We did our best to answer the questions during meeting when possible and if we couldn't
and needed additional due diligence, we'd direct our Township Manager to research and come back
with an answer at the next meeting while also directly engaging with our constituents. There is no
reason the prior boards' approach to public comment during meetings had to change and
there is no reason a separate, special meeting was needed for this. It is a waste of taxpayer
dollars and further disenfranchises the public by not giving them advanced notice to attend
and engage in the meeting. The prior boards' approach aligned with guidance on the state of PA's
Open Records website regarding the Sunshine Act which states: "Although members of the agency
(township in this case) are not required to provide an answer, it is a good practice to do so
whenever possible. Answering questions can demonstrate a commitment to helping constituents
and, in many cases, answering questions informally at a public meeting can reduce future requests
under the Right-to-Know Law, which saves time and money for both the agency (the township)
and the commenter/requester." Since that board meeting in January, all subsequent board meetings
have been confusing and chaotic because they are not effectively managed. During the last
meeting, Supervisor Morroney overrode and conflicted with the direction of the chair, advising
one Limerick constituent, Mr. Fidler, to proceed with asking a question when the timing was not
appropriate. This question was answered but yet, during this same meeting, another Limerick
constituent, Mr. Vasco, waited until public comment to ask his question. Mr. Vasco asked the
board to provide information on discussions which took place between the township, the PA State
Game Commission and the owners (past and present) of the former Publicker property, but his
question went unanswered. Kara and I wanted our township manager to respond with factual
information in another effort to be proactive and transparent with the public on this sensitive
topic. Supervisors Lawson, Morroney and Walraven opposed this, as was seen during the
meeting. Later, Supervisor Lawson instructed our township solicitor to answer another question
posed during the meeting. This inconsistent approach has now led to this completely unnecessary
and wasteful special meeting. This topic could have been added to our next regular BOS
meeting for further discussion. No special meeting is warranted for this. The taxpayers are
now having to pay for the additional hours of the township solicitor, the police and advertising
expense. The chair sets the final agenda for the regular Board of Supervisor meetings. To be
fair, Supervisors Walraven and Lawson reached out with different possible dates, but again due to
the short notice, I'm unable to secure a caregiver for my mother. Knowing that 2 sitting

Board of Supervisors
March 9, 2026
Page 4, Minutes
Supervisors could not be in attendance for this special meeting, they elected to proceed without us
to hold this special meeting tonight anyways. I believe Limerick taxpayers should be prioritized
during these meetings and when possible, we should answer questions or direct our township
manager to do so on our behalf. Limerick taxpayers should be the only ones permitted to speak at
Limerick township meetings. I encourage residents of other municipalities, who could be
considered interested or impacted parties, to engage with their local elected officials whom they
elect, to advocate on their behalf, in coordination with our township manager and staff so that they
have a voice. As a sitting, elected Supervisor, I have a first amendment right to engage with my
constituents and speak. I will not be disenfranchised, silenced and I'm not going anywhere.
NEW BUSINESS
Review – Process to Answer Public Questions
Ms. Lawson summarized why the meeting is happening and the goal to establish consistent
procedures for public comment/questions. She provided examples from townships similar in size
to Limerick.
Discussion ensued about what types of questions could be answered during a meeting, such as
policy and administrative, vs. questions that should not be answered, such as during a zoning
hearing, or conditional use. The Board needs to remain unbiased and fair to all involved. Mr.
Morroney stated it can be difficult to answer a question if you don’t have the answer.
Ms. Lawson questioned if the Board was comfortable answering administrative questions and
would defer to staff and to the solicitor on operational questions. Mr. Morroney and Dr. Walraven
agreed unless research was necessary.
Discussion ensued over the allotted time given to answer questions. Mr. Kerr stated operational
questions should be allowed to be answered and not timed, but if the same topic is going to be
questioned under public comment, the question and answer should all take place within the (2)
minute time limit. He stated questions could also be submitted on paper. Staff would then review
and distribute it to the Board and see if there is a desire to answer or include as a discussion topic
on a meeting agenda. Everyone should have an opportunity to have their questions answered, but
within some type of structure.
Ms. Lawson suggested a FAQ page be created for the website about the data center and the
conditional use process. Mr. Kerr stated a page could be created to educate the public without
impugning the Board regarding upcoming applications.
Mr. Kerr asked if he had the direction from the Board to answer operational questions as they come
up, based on his discretion. The Board did not provide a clear directive, and Mr. Kerr expressed
his concern with answering questions until a policy of the new Board can be formulated. Mr.
Morroney stated that he believes a determination has been made that if the manager thinks he can
answer the question, he can answer the question. Mr. Kerr stated he wants to be completely sure
he is working in accordance with the direction of the Board.

Board of Supervisors
March 9, 2026
Page 5, Minutes
Discussion ensued on how written questions should be answered. Ms. Lawson suggested Mr. Kerr
could answer them at a future meeting under the Manager’s report. Ms. Geiser stated you cannot
account for every single question that's going to come before you. There's going to be random
questions, and you'll have to deal with that as a Board when that comes. At best, you can have a
general policy for how you're handling it. She further stated that if it is something that makes sense
to add to the agenda, it could be added, however, you also don't want to have 100 things added to
an agenda every week.
Discussion ensued regarding Conditional Use procedures. Ms. Geiser clarified that Conditional
Use discussions are a court hearing. Public Comment has to wait until the end of the hearing(s).
She recommended written comments be compiled during the process. Ms. Lawson asked if once
the conditional use hearing starts, public comment regarding the data center would be prohibited.
Ms. Geiser confirmed they would.
Mr. Kerr requested to add to a future agenda how Staff should address the multitude of emails
being sent in regarding the data center. Mr. Morroney suggested compiling the names on those
emails that are for and are against the data center and read those only; not the entire email sent by
each person. Ms. Geiser stated if people want their public comment to be included in the hearing,
they need to submit their public comment into the hearing, which means they need to be there.
Ms. Lawson asked Mr. Kerr if a new email such as [email protected] would be beneficial
to Staff. Mr. Kerr stated all concerns should be sent to [email protected].
Abby Deardorff - Ms. Deardorff asked about the difference between the [email protected] and
[email protected] emails. Mr. Kerr clarified.
Ms. Lawson stated Mr. Kerr and Staff can answer questions following meetings via email, phone
call, etc. If the same question reoccurs, the Board may decide to make it a topic on a future agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Abby Deardorff - Ms. Deardorff thanked the Board for having this meeting and asked them to all
work together.
Kelvin Zimmerman - Mr. Zimmerman thanked the Board for trying to deal with these
unprecedented issues.
Erica Herman - Ms. Herman thanked the Board for the meeting and urged them to document the
new comment and question procedures. She criticized Supervisors Shuler and Irwin who chose to
write-in their letter to make their comment as if they were a constituent; their comments should
have been in person.
Rick Fidler - Mr. Fidler stated his displeasure about being called to task by Supervisors Shuler and
Irwin via their emailed comments regarding his comments during the previous meeting. Mr. Fidler
stated he did not believe he had stepped out of line and had only offered facts.

Board of Supervisors
March 9, 2026
Page 6, Minutes
Christine Dziembowski - Ms. Dziembowski thanked the Board and suggested creating a simple
infographic showcasing how comments and questions will be handled.
Jeff Schmidt - Mr. Schmidt thanked the Board for having this special meeting and asked if
examples could be posted on the website regarding answering questions.
Mr. Kerr read in two emails to the public comment:
1. Stacy Salazo - Dear township supervisors, I'm writing to express concern regarding the
proposed change to the public comment policy that appears intended to prevent supervisors
from engaging with residents during meetings. Public comment is meant to be a meaningful
opportunity for residents to voice concerns and for elected officials to demonstrate that
they are listening and accountable to the community. Adopting a policy where supervisors
sit silently during public comment, similar to what we see with the school board, creates
the perception that the board is uninterested in hearing from the people it represents. It has
also been noted that newly elected supervisors are taking guidance from local school board
members on avoiding engagement with the public. Many residents are already frustrated
with that approach and bringing it here only increases the distance between officials and
the community. At the last meeting, one supervisor used her closing comment to respond
to certain public comments that had been raised earlier, but not others. If the board's
position is that the supervisor should not engage during public comment, it seems
inconsistent to selectively address only some of the issues raised while leaving others
unanswered. Choosing which comments to respond to while ignoring others only adds to
the perception that engagement occurs only when it is convenient. If the township is going
to adopt a policy of non-engagement during public comment, it should at the very least be
applied consistently and accompanied by a clear process for how residents can expect their
residents to be addressed. Residents deserve to know that their input is being heard and
treated fairly. I'm also concerned about the decision to hold a separate special meeting for
this matter when it could have waited until the next regular meeting, avoiding unnecessary
taxpayer expense. I respectfully ask that the board to consider changes that further distance
residents from their elected officials and instead focus on transparency, accountability, and
consistent communication.
2. Michelle Tabor - Good evening, I am concerned that this new majority of the Board of
Supervisors is questioning whether it should respond to residents’ questions and comments.
Previous boards did not seem to have an issue engaging in dialogue with residents, so I
have to ask why this is now being reconsidered. I am also troubled by the influence that
two school board members appear to have on the Board. Last meeting, one offered
“suggestions” about what the Board should and should not respond to, as well what
dialogue they could use. School board members represent the school district, not the
township, and I do not believe they should be guiding how this Board communicates with
its residents. If the Board stops responding to questions, residents may be forced to rely on
frequent Right-to-Know requests just to understand what is happening in their own
township. That creates unnecessary work, costs, and the risk of misinformation spreading
in the community. As a senior citizen and taxpayer, I am also concerned about the cost of
holding special meetings when this topic could likely have been addressed during a regular

Board of Supervisors
March 9, 2026
Page 7, Minutes
meeting. Finally, I would appreciate clarification on the process used to schedule special
meetings and whether efforts are made to ensure all supervisors have the opportunity to
attend, along with a few options to them to make sure we are fully represented.
Sue Pengelly - Ms. Pengelly inquired if the Board would consider resident input when amending
the Data Center Ordinance. Ms. Geiser clarified the process of amending an ordinance and directed
Ms. Pengelly to submit her recommendations. Mr. Kerr stated a discussion regarding the
Ordinance amendment that is being placed on the next meeting agenda. Mr. Kerr confirmed any
suggestions should be sent to [email protected].
SUPERVISOR COMMENTS
Mr. Morroney stated the Board recognized an issue and are trying to solve it.
Dr. Walraven thanked everyone for coming and thanked Ms. Shuler and Ms. Irwin for submitting
their comments.
Motion was made by Mr. Morroney, and seconded by Ms. Lawson to adjourn the meeting at 8:11
P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Daniel K. Kerr
Township Manager