[Editor’s note: This story was originally published in The Woodbury Warbler, an independent local newsroom covering Gloucester County government, development, and more.]
South Jersey advocacy organization Sustain SJ filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to overturn the City of Vineland Planning Board’s approval of an amended site plan for the DataOne AI data center on South Lincoln Avenue.
The 14-page complaint, filed in Cumberland County Superior Court, alleges that the planning board improperly approved the development despite deficiencies in its stormwater management plans. But the lawsuit goes further, challenging the validity of a 2022 zoning amendment and arguing that the application should have been heard by the city’s zoning board of adjustment.
Sustain SJ names the City of Vineland, its planning board and DataOne USA LLC as defendants.
The lawsuit is an action in lieu of prerogative writs, a legal procedure used to challenge decisions by government bodies, including municipal planning and zoning boards.
What was approved?
The lawsuit concerns the planning board’s approval of an amended preliminary and final major site plan for the approximately 106.6-acre DataOne property at 3963 South Lincoln Avenue, Block 7503, Lot 35.01.
The planning board held special hearings on August 5 and August 17, 2026. Its decision was memorialized in Resolution No. 6767, dated September 9.
The amended project includes a 129,622-square-foot data center building and a proposed 587,980-square-foot, two-story expansion.
It also includes Bloom Energy fuel cells, cooling equipment, a water treatment plant, a proposed 1.5-million-gallon liquefied natural gas storage tank and a 27-million-gallon water reservoir.
The Woodbury Warbler previously examined the revised site plans, which illustrate the scale of the proposed expansion and supporting infrastructure.
Stormwater management deficiencies
The first count of the complaint alleges that DataOne failed to demonstrate compliance with New Jersey’s Stormwater Management Rules and Vineland’s municipal stormwater ordinance.
Sustain SJ cites engineering reports prepared by Clay Emerson and Ryan Krueger of Princeton Hydro, dated August 4 and August 17, 2026.
According to the complaint, the engineers identified numerous deficiencies in the project’s stormwater management plans, including inadequate soil testing, missing engineering details for proposed stormwater basins, deficiencies in groundwater recharge calculations and failures to demonstrate compliance with stormwater runoff quantity and water quality requirements.
The complaint also challenges the applicant’s modeling of existing conditions on the property, including its treatment of wetlands and natural depressions that contribute to groundwater recharge.
Emerson testified during the August 17 hearing that the proposed stormwater system could divert additional runoff toward downstream homes because the property’s watersheds had not been properly evaluated, according to the filing.
Sustain SJ also contends that the stormwater design failed to satisfy state green infrastructure requirements, including limits on drainage areas served by individual stormwater management systems.
The organization argues that correcting these deficiencies would require substantial revisions to the stormwater management system and potentially the overall development layout.
Rather than requiring a revised application and additional public review, Sustain SJ alleges that the planning board improperly allowed significant deficiencies to be addressed through conditions of approval.
Groundwater recharge and Vineland’s water supply
The complaint also raises concerns about the development’s potential effects on groundwater supplies.
According to the filing, nearly the entire property falls within the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s designated wellhead protection area for Vineland municipal supply Well No. 17.
The property is located above the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system, an important groundwater resource for communities throughout South Jersey.
Sustain SJ alleges that the applicant underestimated the amount of groundwater recharge occurring under existing site conditions and failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would maintain the groundwater recharge required by state regulations.
Groundwater recharge occurs when precipitation infiltrates the soil and replenishes underground water supplies. Development can affect that process by replacing permeable land with buildings, pavement and other impervious surfaces.
The complaint also raises questions about the project’s anticipated water consumption, noting that DataOne proposes a 27-million-gallon reservoir to support facility operations.
Sustain SJ argues that the combination of reduced groundwater recharge and water demand associated with the data center could place additional pressure on the aquifer.
Compliance with the Municipal Land Use Law
The complaint’s second count argues that the planning board’s approval violated New Jersey’s Municipal Land Use Law.
Sustain SJ cites provisions requiring municipal land use decisions to promote public health, safety and general welfare, including protection from flooding and other natural and man-made hazards.
The organization contends that the stormwater deficiencies identified by its engineering expert were incompatible with those requirements and that the planning board should not have granted preliminary and final site plan approval.
It asks the court to declare the decision arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and to invalidate the approvals.
The validity of Vineland’s 2022 rezoning ordinance
The third count challenges Vineland Ordinance No. 2022-44, which amended the city’s zoning map to place the development property within the I-B Industrial Business Zone.
Vineland city council adopted the ordinance on May 24, 2022.
Sustain SJ relies on testimony from planning consultant Peter G. Steck, who submitted an August 3, 2026 report and testified during the Planning Board proceedings.
According to the complaint, Steck identified a discrepancy between the zoning classification applied to the project and the zoning map available on the city’s website during the hearings.
That map reportedly showed the northwestern corner of the property within the R-6 Residential Zone, with the remaining portions designated I-B Industrial Business.
The R-6 district does not permit the industrial use proposed for the property.
Sustain SJ argues that Ordinance No. 2022-44, which sought to reclassify the entire site as industrial, was not substantially consistent with the land use element of Vineland’s Master Plan and failed to satisfy requirements of the Municipal Land Use Law.
New Jersey law generally requires municipal zoning ordinances and amendments to be substantially consistent with, or designed to effectuate, the land use element of a municipality’s Master Plan.
The organization asks the court to declare the 2022 ordinance invalid and overturn the project approvals associated with it.
Did the Planning Board have authority to approve the project?
The complaint’s fourth count raises a separate question about which municipal board had jurisdiction over DataOne’s application.
Sustain SJ argues that even if the 2022 rezoning ordinance was valid and the entire property is properly classified as I-B Industrial Business, an AI data center is not a permitted use under Vineland’s zoning ordinance.
According to the complaint, the project therefore required a use variance, commonly referred to as a d(1) variance, under the Municipal Land Use Law.
A use variance allows a property to be used for a purpose that is otherwise prohibited within its zoning district.
Applications requiring a use variance generally fall under the jurisdiction of a municipality’s zoning board of adjustment rather than its planning board.
Sustain SJ contends that DataOne should have applied to the zoning board of adjustment and that the planning board lacked jurisdiction to approve the development.
The organization asks the court to determine that a use variance was required and to invalidate the planning board’s approval.
This argument is independent of the stormwater engineering issues. Even if the project’s stormwater design complies with applicable regulations, the lawsuit separately challenges whether the correct municipal board reviewed and approved the application.
What is Sustain SJ asking the court to do?
The complaint contains four counts challenging the approval under state and municipal stormwater requirements, the Municipal Land Use Law, the validity of the 2022 rezoning ordinance and the planning board’s jurisdiction.
Sustain SJ asks the court to:
- Declare the planning board’s approval arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
- Find that the approval violated the Municipal Land Use Law.
- Declare Ordinance No. 2022-44 invalid.
- Determine that the application required a use variance and that the planning board lacked jurisdiction.
- Reverse and void the approvals associated with DataOne’s amended site plan.
The organization also seeks attorneys’ fees and litigation costs in connection with its challenge to the zoning ordinance.
A separate issue from NJDEP enforcement
The lawsuit follows a September 2026 NJDEP enforcement action imposing a civil penalty of approximately $1.07 million against DataOne in connection with the installation and operation of natural gas generators without required air permits.
The state enforcement action and Sustain SJ’s lawsuit involve different legal proceedings.
NJDEP’s action concerns air pollution permitting requirements associated with the project’s power-generation equipment. Sustain SJ’s complaint challenges the municipal land-use approval process, including stormwater management, zoning and the planning board’s authority.
What happens next?
The defendants will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint through the court proceedings.
Several central questions remain, including which stormwater deficiencies were addressed before approval, what conditions the planning board imposed, whether the 2022 zoning amendment is legally valid and whether the proposed data center required a use variance.
The court will ultimately determine whether there are grounds to overturn the planning board’s decision.
The Woodbury Warbler has requested comment from DataOne, the City of Vineland, and Sustain SJ’s attorney.
The City of Vineland declined to comment on the lawsuit. Warbler has not yet received a response from DataOne or Sustain SJ’s attorney.
Court information: Sustain SJ v. City of Vineland Planning Board, City of Vineland and DataOne USA LLC, Superior Court of New Jersey, Cumberland County, Law Division. Docket No. CUM-L-000727-26. Filed October 13, 2026.
