South Brunswick, NJ — As the data center backlash grows, several New Jersey municipalities are grappling with data center-related litigation. On August 25, one of New Jersey’s first cases went to trial.
The plaintiffs, Mark and Katherine Smith, challenged the designation and planning process of South Brunswick Township, which permitted the construction of a data center on the former Princeton Nurseries site on Route 1. The Smiths own a 4-acre lot behind the emergent 700,000 square foot facility.
Superior Court Judge Christopher Rafano of Middlesex County ruled in favor of the Township, saying it had followed the correct procedures.
Sign Up for FREE Princeton Newsletter
Get local news you can trust in your inbox.
But this is not the last the New Jersey courts will hear about the South Brunswick data center. Within hours of losing the case, the Smiths’ attorney, Bruce Afran, filed an appeal. Given the technical nature of data centers, the appeal could hinge on a surprisingly non-technical question: what defines an active farm?
The Smiths’ appeal accompanies a separate case they brought against the facility — and which was dismissed by Judge Rafano on August 26. Yet it amplifies the clamor of opposition emerging from neighbors and environmental groups, including the Sierra Club of New Jersey and Food & Water Watch.
The Smiths’ case is also playing out against a broadening distaste for data centers. Just two years ago, New Jersey was offering incentives to attract developers to the state. They accordingly entered communities, often with the blessing of local officials. But as agita grows about the environmental impact of data centers and the societal costs of AI, residents are rising up. South Brunswick’s data center is a case in point.
The Smiths vs South Brunswick Township
In May, 2024, the Smiths filed their complaint. The named defendants were South Brunswick Township and the data center developer, WRV Nurseries South Brunswick Owner, LLC.
Between filing and trial — 833 days in total — briefs and motions flew back and forth, a conflict of interest forced a judicial switch, and the attorneys on both sides suffered illness and loss. Meanwhile, the data center steadily rose from the ground.
On August 25 of this year, the Smiths finally had their day in court. Clutching yellow legal pads, they sat in the front row behind their attorney. Mark Smith took copious notes while Katherine Smith listened intently, occasionally whispering to the handful of supporters in the rows behind.
The trial, which took place in New Brunswick, hinged on the township’s designation of the land upon which the data center is being built. It had been labeled “an area in need of redevelopment”— a designation giving flexibility to municipalities wishing to optimize the potential of tricky pieces of land. This designation has been invoked frequently across the state, including in Princeton. To qualify, it must satisfy certain technical criteria.
The site in question had previously been the home of Princeton Nurseries, once the largest commercial nursery in the U.S. During that time, the soil had been contaminated with pesticides. In the 1980s, Princeton University purchased the land. It remained undeveloped until the university sold it to WRV in 2024.
That same year, when considering the economic potential of the site, South Brunswick officials cited the presence of wetlands, pesticide contamination, and unfavorable soil conditions as explanations for why the site had been unattractive to commercial developers. The township also noted that a tangle of title issues and public easements had contributed to its economically stagnant state. Due to these conditions, the township’s consultant noted, the land had remained vacant and unimproved. For these reasons, the criteria had been met to make it “an area in need of redevelopment."
But the Smiths said these criteria had been improperly cited.
Wetlands and public easements benefit the public, Afran argued in filings, and could not be considered a blight to the property. The clay-rich soil was a normal condition many builders face, and did not present a notable barrier. Moreover, despite township claims, the land had not been vacant prior to development. Instead, as Afran found during the discovery process, it had been continuously farmed so the then-owner, Princeton University, could claim a tax break. A farm does not count as vacant land, Afran said to the judge. Therefore, given the site did not qualify for an in-need designation, the approval process was illegitimate. The township’s permissions should be overturned.
When is a farm not a farm?
The state of agriculture is not entirely strange in the context of data centers. As deep-pocketed developers fan out across the U.S. seeking land, rural communities are facing the dilemma of immediate economic gain versus the loss of productive farmland. Closer to home, as NJ.com reports, residents in Monroe Township are concerned a data center is slated for currently vacant farmland.
But as to whether the Princeton Nurseries site counts as “farmland,” opinions diverge. Afran argued that it had been a legitimate farm, and he had the receipts to prove it. Between 2013 and 2024, when Princeton University still owned the land, Keisler Farms had rented it to grow rye, wheat and soybeans, and to harvest wood. Princeton University had also used the land to grow nursery trees and shrubs. As a result, Princeton University was able to take advantage of the Farmland Assessment program, which provides tax breaks to lands under cultivation.
However, the developer’s attorney, John DeSimone, who argued the case on behalf of both WRV and the Township, noted that case law was on the defense’s side. New Jersey farmland had been designated “an area in need of redevelopment” before. Moreover, DeSimone argued in filings, the Princeton Nurseries land had not been permanently farmed. It still qualified as vacant land, he argued, because no farm structures had been built.
“Instead, the farming has been intended solely to meet the minimally needed amount of farming under the Farm Act. The proceeds derived from the winter wheat farming are so minimal that the farmer must be paid to break even,” DeSimone wrote. He added that the farmer had only visited the land three times a year — to plant, to fertilize, and to harvest. He also called into question whether this person was truly a farmer. “The farmer functioned as a consultant, typically being paid to raise a crop that would satisfy the Farm Act for tax purposes; the farming itself was not profitable.”
Three days after the trial, Judge Rafano issued his opinion. Due to expert testimony and the land’s history of unrealized development potential, the Township had accurately cited the criteria needed for an ‘in-need’ designation, he said. Whether farmed land counts as being vacant, there was no case law saying a farm could not be deemed vacant under the redevelopment statute. Rafano dismissed the case, triggering Afran’s appeal.
(Alongside this case, Afran also represented the Smiths when challenging the decision-making process of South Brunswick Planning Board, saying the notice and approval of the site plan had been invalid. On August 26, Judge Rafano dismissed the case. In addition, Afran represented the Smiths at a July, 2025, hearing of the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission as it considered WRV’s application for final site approval. The DRCC voted unanimously to grant the approval. Previously, the Smiths filed a suit against the Township for building a PSE&G substation on that land. Again, they were represented by Bruce Afran. They lost the case on appeal.)
Gathering headwinds
New Jersey is a build-at-risk state. Thus, despite active lawsuits, in the absence of a stay, work on the South Brunswick data center may continue. Today, the site bustles with construction activity, and the outer shell is almost complete. Yet the specific water and energy requirements of the center have not yet been stated, despite public queries, and the ultimate tenant of the site remains unknown. WRV has repeatedly ignored TAPinto Princeton’s requests for comment or clarification.
Yet like all data center developers these days, WRV faces growing community resistance — something that did not exist when they first approached South Brunswick’s planning board. Indeed, three quarters of Americans now oppose data centers, according to a Heatmap Pro poll. In New Jersey, more than 30 municipalities have banned them. On August 27, Governor Sherrill signed a bill revoking previous data center subsidies and mandated more rigorous reporting about their water and power needs. These support her four-part plan, announced in May, to address the growing impact of data centers.
WRV is on a winning streak, but the financial stakes are high. Political resistance is getting stronger. As Afran hurls a volley of legal missiles against the 700,000-square foot hulk, the idea of slingshots and giants comes to mind. No doubt the South Brunswick data center will continue to feature as a local story. But it is also part of a building national drama. Both elements are likely to play out in courtrooms and at ballot boxes for years to come.
Related Content
Princeton Neighbors Grapple With Major Data Center Plans