08/27/2026
Sunshine Act Violation: Locked Doors and Overflow Crowds Do Not Excuse Closed Meetings – Salem Township Planning Commission Ordered to Redo Data Center Hearing
On August 25, 2026, Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Lesa S. Gelb ruled that the Salem Township Planning Commission violated Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 701–716, by locking the public out of a July 23, 2026 meeting (some reports reference July 13) at which the Commission voted 2-1 to recommend expanding a special data-center overlay zoning district. The recommendation concerned a proposed third data-center campus involving roughly 4,466 acres. Eight pro se residents filed a civil complaint alleging that the main doors of the municipal building were locked due to an overflow crowd, that some members of the public were turned away (including with police involvement), and that an auxiliary room with a television feed did not afford meaningful observation or the opportunity for public comment.
Judge Gelb found a violation of the Sunshine Act’s core requirement that official actions occur at meetings open to the public. She ordered the Planning Commission to conduct a second, fully accessible public meeting that provides proper notice and a genuine opportunity for public input. She declined to halt unrelated township business but prohibited the Board of Supervisors from taking action on the data-center overlay until the Planning Commission complies. The court noted that the violation did not appear deliberate but was improper nonetheless.
This decision underscores fundamental principles of the Sunshine Act. Section 704 requires that official action and deliberations by a quorum of an agency take place at a meeting open to the public. Section 710.1 guarantees the right of the public to comment on matters of concern before official action. Capacity constraints, overflow rooms, or locked doors do not create an exception. Agencies must anticipate public interest in high-profile matters—such as large-scale zoning changes involving data centers—and select venues or procedures that ensure actual public access. Providing a secondary viewing room while turning people away at the door fails to satisfy the Act’s mandate of openness.
The ruling also highlights practical risks for local agencies. A finding of a Sunshine Act violation can invalidate official action, require a de novo public meeting, and expose the agency to attorney-fee awards under Section 714.1 in appropriate cases. Here, the court focused on remedial relief rather than damages or fees, but the message is clear: process failures can delay or derail substantive land-use decisions.
For solicitors and agency officials, several takeaways emerge. First, venue selection and capacity planning are not mere logistics; they are legal obligations when public attendance is reasonably foreseeable. Second, overflow arrangements must still permit meaningful participation, including the ability to observe and comment. Third, when a violation occurs, prompt corrective action—holding a fully compliant redo meeting—can limit further disruption. Finally, the decision reinforces that courts will enforce the Sunshine Act’s plain language even when the agency claims good faith or logistical difficulty.
Requesters and residents concerned about transparency in zoning and land-use matters now have a concrete illustration that physical barriers to attendance can constitute a violation. Agencies facing similar high-interest issues should document notice, capacity measures, and public-comment opportunities carefully.
At Schnee Legal Services, LLC, we regularly counsel municipalities, school districts, and other local agencies on Sunshine Act compliance, Right-to-Know Law obligations, and related municipal-law issues. We also represent requesters and intervenors in open-government disputes. If your agency needs proactive advice on meeting procedures, agenda requirements, or responses to Sunshine Act challenges, or if you are a requester seeking to enforce open-meeting rights, we are available to assist.
WILKES-BARRE — Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Lesa S. Gelb on Tuesday ruled the Salem Township Planning Commission violated the state’s Sunshine Act when it met July 13 to discuss changes to its zoning ordinance related to data centers.
