Articles Data centers
Data Centers in Bridgewater, Explained: The Greymark Plan, Ordinance 26-15 and #26-21
How a 2025 redevelopment plan came to list data centers as a permitted use at 1200 Route 22, what the townwide data-center ordinance adopted Sept. 3, 2026 does, what residents and officials said, the owner's lawsuit, and the pending ordinance amending the Greymark plan, which TAPinto reported would remove data centers from it.
The short version
- The Greymark Redevelopment Plan for 1200 Route 22, adopted by Ordinance 25-05 in April 2025, lists data centers as a principal permitted use.
- Ordinance #26-15, adopted Sept. 3, 2026, 3-0 with two members absent, sets townwide definitions and standards for data centers. It does not permit them in any zone.
- The owners sued on Oct. 5, 2026, Patch reported, asking the court to declare Ord. 26-15 invalid or unenforceable in the Greymark area.
- Ordinance #26-21, introduced Oct. 15, 2026, would remove data centers from the Greymark plan and list them as prohibited there, TAPinto reported. The Planning Board found it not inconsistent with the Master Plan on Oct. 27. The public hearing and final vote are set for Nov. 5, 2026, by the township’s introducing resolution (#26-10-15-222).
LocalWhy has read the Township Council minutes through Oct. 1, 2026 and the township’s legal notices, the texts of Ordinances 25-05 and 26-15, the Planning Board’s minutes and agendas from January to June 2026 and the Zoning Board’s for the warehouse application. It has not yet reviewed the text of #26-21, the Greymark plan itself, the Planning Board minutes of March 17 and Sept. 1, 2026 or the Oct. 15, 2026 Council minutes. Facts below that rest on news reports are attributed to the outlet.
The site and the 2025 plan
The Greymark Office Tract is about 28 acres on Route 22 East at Adamsville Road North (TAPinto, Oct. 30, 2026). At the Aug. 6, 2026 Council meeting, resident Curtis Kraut showed illustrations of the site and the homes around it on Adamsville Road, Sunnyside Terrace, Union Avenue, Eli Court, Clark Court and Woodside Lane.
| When | What | Source |
|---|---|---|
| October 2022 | The township adopts an ordinance removing warehouses as a permitted principal use in certain zones | Mayor Moench’s letter, as reported by TAPinto (Oct. 19, 2026); confirmed in effect at the July 23, 2026 Council meeting |
| November 2022 | The owner sues to undo that ordinance; the case is SOM-L-1372-22 | Patch (Oct. 16, 2026), quoting the Mayor’s letter; TAPinto (Oct. 19, 2026) says the action “is still pending” |
| 2024 | The Planning Board recommends the tract be designated an area in need of redevelopment; the Council designates it in December 2024 | TAPinto, Oct. 19 and Oct. 26, 2026 |
| April 2025 | Ordinance 25-05 adopts the Greymark Redevelopment Plan, which lists data centers as a principal permitted use | Council minutes, Aug. 20, 2026 (Mr. Kraut); the owners’ complaint, as reported by Patch |
The adoption date. The records LocalWhy has read give two dates for Ordinance 25-05:
| Source | Date given |
|---|---|
| Curtis Kraut, Council minutes, Aug. 20, 2026 (“adopted April 24, 2025 (Ordinance 25-05)“) | April 24, 2025 |
| The owners’ complaint, as quoted by Patch, Oct. 12, 2026 | April 24, 2025 |
| TAPinto, Oct. 19, 2026 | April 25, 2025 |
The ordinance itself settles it: Ordinance 25-05 reads “Adopted: April 24, 2025” and “Effective: May 14, 2025.” It adopts the “Greymark Office Tract Redevelopment Plan” dated March 20, 2025, prepared by Michael Sullivan, ASLA, AICP, and adds a definition of “Data Center” to Section 126-2. The township’s resolutions record the ordinance introduced March 20, 2025 and adopted April 24, 2025, each 3-1 with Councilman Pedroso voting nay (Councilman Kurdyla absent at introduction, Councilman Kirsh absent at adoption). Its recitals give the Planning Board’s hearing on the redevelopment area as Oct. 15, 2024, its recommendation as Nov. 19, 2024, and the Council’s designation as Resolution #24-12-05-282, Dec. 5, 2024.
How the plan was described in 2026. On Aug. 6, 2026 Councilman Andrew Bucko said local media had reported that the plan was adopted as part of a tentative settlement of the owner’s warehouse lawsuit, that the 2025 deliberations had described it that way, and that in his view this should have been made clear to the public. On Aug. 20, Administrator Michael Pappas said prior councils, administrations and Planning Boards had set guardrails for “a reasonably sized data center to be located at the rear of the property.” The same night, Council President Joan Geiger and Township Attorney Christopher Corsini said no repeal of the plan was anticipated while related litigation was pending, and the attorney said settlements have historically come to the governing body.
The concept plan. A concept plan dated April 8, 2025, showing a “Phase 2” building, was filed with the owner’s preliminary major subdivision application, which the Planning Board approved on March 17, 2026 and memorialized 6-0 on April 21 (its agendas and minutes number it 25-021-PB; the Council’s Aug. 20 minutes, “25-02-PB”). The March 17 agenda describes it as four lots where five exist, “with one of the proposed lots intended for use as a Data Center and three of the proposed lots for residential use.” On Aug. 20, 2026 Planner Sarmad told the Council the concept plan had been “inadvertently included,” does not comply with the redevelopment plan (page 10 of the plan requires compliance with the concept plan on page 11) and has no legal effect. The owner’s representative, Reuben Twersky, said it was included in error and that no data-center site plan application exists.
What residents and officials said, May to September 2026
On May 18, 2026, Cathy Franco asked the Council in public comment to consider an ordinance like one recently introduced in Warren Township to prohibit data centers. A data center at the Greymark site first came up on July 9, 2026, when Joseph Charelle of Branchburg raised energy, water and noise concerns about it. Councilman Timothy Ring said there was no active application for a data center and that the property was in litigation. Council President Geiger described recently enacted state legislation requiring developers to pay for necessary electrical infrastructure.
On July 23, seven people spoke on data centers. Township Attorney Corsini said a concept plan is not an application and that, while a data center is one of the potential uses in the redevelopment plan, there was no active site plan application or approved data-center project. TAPinto (Aug. 5, 2026) reported that a resident said that night that a local petition against data centers had grown to more than 450 names.
On Aug. 6, the agenda first posted that week had listed a repeal of Ordinance 25-05 and separate data-center and detention-center ordinances. Council President Geiger said the repeal had been moved to closed session on the advice of counsel. Ten people spoke on data centers, asking for a repeal, a ban or stronger standards and raising noise, water, power and setback concerns. Mayor Moench asked Mr. Kraut whether he would prefer a warehouse or a data center on the site; Mr. Kraut said a data center would be the less desirable use. Councilman Ring said the draft would treat natural-gas generators as an accessory use and would not permit generators with fuel stored on site, and asked that the Environmental Commission review it. The Council then introduced the omnibus land-use Ordinance 26-14, 4-0 (Isla absent), on a motion to remove its Section 10 and all data-center language.
On Aug. 20, the Council adopted Ord. 26-14, 4-0 (Isla absent), with no public speakers, and introduced the data-center ordinance, 4-0 (Bucko, Kirsh, Ring and Geiger aye; Isla absent), referring it to the Planning Board for Sept. 1. In public comment:
- Ethan Chen supported an ordinance requiring data-center developers to bear the full cost of their electricity, use renewable energy and minimize environmental impact.
- Curtis Kraut said the redevelopment plan permits data centers and should be repealed in its entirety, and asked about the separate warehouse application, which he said was listed on the Zoning Board’s Sept. 22 agenda.
- Reuben Twersky, for the owner, said the owner is not opposed to reasonable regulation and described a “traditional collocation data center,” not an AI or hyperscale facility, with closed-loop cooling. He asked the Council to table Section 1 of the ordinance or exempt projects under redevelopment plans adopted before it, and said talks with PSE&G about total megawattage were ongoing.
Ordinance #26-15 (Sept. 3, 2026)
Ordinance #26-15 amends Chapter 126 (Land Use) to add a section under Article XLV “to create new requirements for data centers and hyperscale data centers.” Eleven people spoke at its hearing, among them neighbors of the site, a Basking Ridge resident and a Union Township resident; one statement was read for an absent resident. Their requests ranged from repeal of the Greymark plan and clearer limits for the site to community-benefit agreements, limits on non-disclosure agreements and provisions on low-frequency noise and the cumulative effect of smaller facilities.
What Planner Sarmad told the Council, as the minutes record it:
- A data center is defined by a power density of two megawatts or more per acre; a hyperscale data center by a power demand of 80 megawatts or more, regardless of density.
- The ordinance “does not permit data centers of any size.” Outside the Greymark redevelopment area data centers are not a permitted use in any zone, and the ordinance does not change where they are permitted. An owner may seek a use variance from the Zoning Board.
- Without the ordinance, the township would have no codified standards on low-frequency noise, generator use, water sources, renewable energy and waste-heat recovery for such an application.
Council President Geiger said the ordinance may not address every concern and could be improved or supplemented later. Councilman Bucko said his prior work in a data center informed several of its provisions. Councilman Michael Kirsh said the ordinance is not directed at one property, and asked the Township Attorney whether it would apply to 1200 Route 22; Mr. Corsini said that, “broadly speaking,” it would.
The vote: Bucko aye, Kirsh aye, Geiger aye; Isla absent, Ring absent. Adopted 3-0.
Figures that differ between sources:
| Item | Council minutes | TAPinto |
|---|---|---|
| Hyperscale threshold | 80 megawatts or more (Planner Sarmad, Sept. 3, 2026) | “over 100 megawatts of power capacity” (Sept. 16, 2026) |
| Natural-gas generators in the August draft | Would be an accessory use; generators with fuel stored on site not permitted (Councilman Ring, Aug. 6, 2026) | Ring said natural-gas emergency generators “are not permitted” (Aug. 19, 2026) |
The adopted ordinance (marked adopted Sept. 3 and effective Sept. 23, 2026) settles both: “Any use with a gross power demand of 80 MW shall be considered a hyperscale data center,” and “Emergency power generators utilizing natural gas shall be considered an accessory use,” while “Any generator utilizing a separate source of fuel that is stored on the property shall not be permitted.” It also requires generators to be set back at least 300 feet from any property line.
The owner’s lawsuit
On Oct. 5, 2026, according to Patch, 1200 Route 22 Land Investors, LLC and 1200 Route 22 Land Holdings LLC filed a complaint in Somerset County Superior Court against the township and the Planning Board. As Patch (Oct. 12) and TAPinto (Oct. 19) reported it, the complaint says the Greymark plan “expressly identifies ‘data centers’ as a principal permitted use” and supersedes the township’s Chapter 126 zoning in the area, and asks the court to declare Ord. 26-15 invalid, or unenforceable in the redevelopment area to the extent of conflict, to block its enforcement against the proposed development, and to award fees. LocalWhy has not read the complaint and has no docket number for it.
In a letter to Mr. Twersky reported by Patch (Oct. 16) and TAPinto (Oct. 19), Mayor Moench said he had instructed township attorneys to return SOM-L-1372-22, the 2022 warehouse case, to active litigation, and wrote: “If necessary, we will spend the next four years making sure that a shovel is never put in the ground at 1200 Route 22 for a warehouse or a data center.”
Ordinance #26-21: amending the Greymark plan
TAPinto (Oct. 26) reported that the Oct. 15, 2026 agenda listed an ordinance repealing the December 2024 redevelopment designation for 1200, 1210 and 1220 Route 22 and Ordinance 25-05, and that after a closed session the Council voted 5-0 to strike it and then, unanimously, introduced an ordinance amending the Greymark Office Tract Redevelopment Plan instead. The township’s notice of introduction of Ordinance 26-21 is dated Oct. 16, 2026.
As TAPinto described it, #26-21 removes data centers as a permitted use, designates them a prohibited use in the plan, and deletes other references to them, including performance and design standards. According to TAPinto, Councilman Ring read that the Council “desires to remove data centers as a permitted use in the Greymark office track redevelopment plan.”
On Oct. 27, 2026, at a special meeting, the Planning Board adopted a Master Plan Reexamination Report dated Oct. 16, 2026 and found #26-21 “NOT inconsistent with the Master Plan,” recommending adoption, according to the Board’s notices of Oct. 28. TAPinto reported that Planner Sarmad, the only witness, said the master plan changes reflect new state law and regulation of data centers.
The Council’s public hearing and final vote on #26-21 are set for Nov. 5, 2026, according to the township’s Resolution #26-10-15-222. LocalWhy will report the outcome from the Council’s record.
What is not known
- The text of #26-21 and of the Greymark plan.
- What the Planning Board did when it reviewed the data-center ordinance on Sept. 1, 2026 (its agenda lists the consistency review; the owners’ complaint, as Patch reported it, cites that review), and the conditions of the subdivision approval.
- Whether any settlement of SOM-L-1372-22 was proposed or approved, and on what terms.
- The docket number of the Oct. 5, 2026 suit and any response or ruling.
- When the warehouse application (#23-011-ZB) will be heard: the Zoning Board carried it from Jan. 27 to April 28 and, with new notice, to Sept. 22, 2026, when its agenda said the hearing would not proceed.
What residents can do
- The Nov. 5, 2026 hearing on Ordinance #26-21 at the Township Council is open to public comment.
- Public comment is open at every regular Council meeting (three minutes per speaker).
- Any data-center application outside the Greymark area would need a use variance from the Zoning Board, with a noticed public hearing at which residents may question witnesses.
- The court record of the Oct. 5 suit is public through the Somerset County Superior Court.