Key Takeaways

  • 1235 Martina Drive Owner LLC is proposing a 99-acre, $1.7 billion data center project in South Annville Township
  • Local experts warn that infrasound, light pollution, and long-term health impacts have not been fully addressed
  • The project highlights a growing tension between AI infrastructure growth and community-level environmental risks

The proposal by 1235 Martina Drive Owner LLC to build a 99-acre, $1.7 billion data center complex in South Annville Township has moved into the public spotlight, and not simply because of its scale. The site, positioned in a densely populated area of Central Pennsylvania, is already prompting pushback driven by health and environmental concerns. That reaction is becoming more common in regions where AI-related development is accelerating faster than community-level impact studies.

At the center of the dispute is proximity. The developer has stated that the facility would sit only 120 feet from the Carmany Place Apartments, 0.65 miles from the nearby elementary school, and 0.94 miles from the high school. For a data center, these distances are unusually tight. Many large-scale computing operations are sited in industrial zones or in regions with far fewer residents. Here, roughly 3,500 people live within a mile of the proposed site. Lebanon Valley College is in that radius as well. So the debate is not about whether the facility will be noticeable, but how noticeable and in what ways.

Here is where the discussion becomes more technical. Data centers generate noise, but the concern raised by epidemiologist Thomas P. Dompier is not only about audible sound. Infrasound, which sits below the 20 Hertz threshold of human hearing, travels easily across long distances and is not stopped by buildings or terrain. John Toon at the Georgia Tech Research Institute notes that infrasound is largely unaffected by obstacles and can travel hundreds of miles, while the Environmental Protection Agency has long known of the negative effects noise pollution has on health. Those risks have been framed mostly around audible frequencies, yet infrasound sits close enough to core bodily systems that its effects continue to be studied.

What makes the issue tricky is that infrasound research is still evolving. Some studies suggest biological effects on nerves, heart muscle, and human psychology. Other research explores its potential to augment cancer therapies. That mix leads to a complicated public conversation. Dompier argues that if a factor carries biological effects on human and animal physiology, positive or negative, then prolonged exposure near residential areas deserves caution. His comparison to ultraviolet radiation makes a clear point: Repeated exposure increases risk; therefore, less exposure to chronic disease-causing factors is better than more.

Developers often respond by noting that there is no epidemiological evidence tying data centers directly to community health outcomes. That is accurate today. But it is accurate partly because population-level studies require years of data, and AI-driven data center construction is rising rapidly. Ten years ago, the number of hyperscale facilities was far smaller. So it is understandable that longitudinal research has not yet caught up. The pattern mirrors other public health debates where emerging technologies outpace regulatory or scientific timelines.

Another dynamic sits just outside this technical focus. Infrastructure of this type tends to change local housing turnover. Residents living next to a new facility may relocate within a few years, making long-horizon health monitoring difficult. Population churn complicates the data set. That said, the question for a township board is more immediate. Do you permit a facility of this size, with these characteristics, so close to homes, schools, and long-standing community institutions?

Some regions have started to place tighter guardrails on siting large data facilities. Denmark and the Netherlands have done this for energy consumption reasons, and U.S. local governments in areas like Northern Virginia have begun reviewing noise and zoning ordinances tied to data centers. Still, policies vary widely and many communities are encountering these issues for the first time. That is the context South Annville Township is stepping into.

Residents are also raising concerns about light pollution. Data centers are heavily illuminated for security, often around the clock. Anyone who has lived near such a facility knows the glow does not simply disappear at night. It spills outward, altering the surrounding environment in ways that are hard to ignore, especially if the nearest homes sit only a few dozen yards away. Air and soil impacts tend to come from backup generators, construction, and cooling systems, each of which introduces pollution risks that stakeholders want accounted for upfront.

All of this places 1235 Martina Drive Owner LLC at the intersection of two accelerating forces. One is the explosive demand for AI and cloud capacity. The other is local resistance grounded not in opposition to technology, but in proximity, transparency, and long-term environmental safety. For business leaders and technology planners, this is an early indicator of the siting friction that AI growth will continue to create.

Whether the township ultimately approves the plan remains to be seen. The debate may feel local, but the underlying tension is national. The footprint of AI infrastructure is expanding, and the places where people live are increasingly the places where hyperscale ambitions collide with everyday health questions.