• The Ohio Supreme Court has ordered the Delaware County Board of Elections to hold a hearing on a residency challenge.
• The challenge questions whether board member Melanie Leneghan, who is running for reelection on the state GOP central committee, lives in Ohio.
• A previous hearing could not proceed after three of the four board members, including Leneghan, recused themselves.

In the latest development in the ongoing challenge over where a Delaware County Board of Elections member actually lives, the Ohio Supreme Court has weighed in.

On March 27, the state’s high court ruled that the Delaware County elections board must hold a hearing about the challenge to Melanie Leneghan’s residency. Leneghan is running for reelection to the position of District 19 women’s representative for the Republican State Central Committee seat in the May 5 primary.

A March 5 elections board hearing could not proceed after the two Democrat members recused themselves, along with Leneghan, a Republican, and the board could not reach a quorum. After that meeting, Velva Dunn, a Delaware County Republican Party Central Committee member, asked the Ohio Supreme Court to force the board to act.

Democrat elections board members Ed Helvey and Peg Watkins both recused themselves from the March 5 decision, citing concerns that any action they took could be perceived as partisan. Leneghan also recused herself.

Dunn challenged Leneghan’s ability to vote in Ohio, claiming Leneghan lives in South Carolina. Leneghan has denied the allegations, saying she lives in Ohio but travels out of state for work and to visit her daughter, who attends college in South Carolina. Leneghan owns two homes there.

She sold her Delaware County home in 2025 and is registered to vote at a house in Galena, of which she became a listed co-owner March 12 through a deed transfer that involved no monetary exchange, records from the county auditor’s office show.

Since the start of 2025, Delaware boys track and field athletes have set 11 state records between the indoor and outdoor seasons.

After a winter season in which 17 performances reached the top five on the state all-time list, Delaware appears poised for another strong spring.

Our list of track and field athletes to watch (presented alphabetically) features athletes from 24 schools who compete in sprints, distance races, throws and jumps. They are the athletes we expect to be among the state’s leaders at the DIAA Championships at Dover High on May 15-16 although many new names could emerge by then.

After defending its indoor track and field state title, Middletown is in search of its second straight Division I championship. Saint Mark’s enters the season as the Division II winner in three of the past four seasons.

2026 Delaware boys track and field athletes to watch

Elijah Annan, sr., Dover

Jason Baker, sr., Cape Henlopen

Derick Belle, sr., Odessa

Suhayl Benson, jr., Howard

Shaun Bosman, sr., Christiana

Elijah Burke, sr., Saint Mark’s

Khalid Burton, sr., Laurel

Isaiah Charles, jr., Caravel

Chukwuma Chukwuocha, jr., Wilmington Friends

Timothy Claessens, jr., Newark Charter

Rodney Coker, so., Odessa

Jaheim Cole, sr., Dover

Josh Cox, sr., Archmere

Calvin Davis, fr., A.I. du Pont

James Dempsey, jr., Salesianum

Will DiPaolo, sr., Cape Henlopen

Logan Elmore, jr., Middletown

Dahani Everett, sr., Caesar Rodney

Jayden Feaster, sr., Middletown

Gabe Harris, sr., Caesar Rodney

Phoenix Henriquez, sr., Smyrna

Christian Jenerette, sr., Odessa

Brandon Jervey, jr., Middletown

Mekhi Jimperson, sr., Caesar Rodney

Benjamin Johnson, jr., Dickinson

Michka Johnson, sr., Hodgson

Trey Johnson, sr., Cape Henlopen

Amir Jones-Branch, sr., Middletown

Alec Jurgaitis, sr., Saint Mark’s

Gavin Leffler, sr., Tatnall

Elijah MacFarlane, sr., Caesar Rodney

Max Martire, sr., Tatnall

Dylan McCarthy, sr., Tatnall

Chase Mellen, so., Salesianum

Zamir Miller, sr., Middletown

Ryan Moody, sr., Sussex Academy

Wayne Roberts, jr., Appoquinimink

Elijah Tackett, sr., Dover

Kai Thornton, sr., Sussex Central

Marc Patterson, sr., Dover

Charles Prosser, so., Salesianum

Riley Robinson, fr., Middletown

Roan Samuels, sr., Salesianum

Douglas Simpson, jr., Cape Henlopen

Jessie Standard, jr., Middletown

Riley Stazzone, sr., Cape Henlopen

Jamar Taylor, jr., Salesianum

Jordan Welch, sr., Sussex Tech

Brandon Williams, sr., Charter of Wilmington

Xzavier Yarborough, jr., Dover

Brandon Holveck reports on high school sports for The News Journal. Contact him at bholveck@delawareonline.com.

• A Delaware board upheld the state environmental agency’s decision to prohibit the “Project Washington” data center.
• The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) ruled the project violated the 1971 Coastal Zone Act.
• The developer, Starwood Digital Ventures, argued the project’s infrastructure did not fall under the act’s regulations.

Project Washington’s prospects in Delaware appear murkier after a board stood on the state environmental agency’s decision to prohibit the data center proposal.

The public hearings with the Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board kicked off in Dover on March 24 at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control’s Auditorium near Legislative Hall. It finished on March 26 after days of testimony from witnesses supporting and opposing the DNREC decision on the data center, which would be the largest in the state.

Project Washington was prohibited by DNREC in February because the agency said it violated the Coastal Zone Act, which was signed in 1971. Project Washington’s developer, Starwood Digital Ventures, filed an appeal of that decision soon after.

A little more than 30 people attended the meeting on March 24. It was modeled more like a court hearing than a public government meeting. The next two days included testimony from witnesses from both Starwood Digital Ventures’ and DNREC’s attorneys.

The Coastal Zone board consists of nine members, five of which are appointed by the governor and approved by the state Senate. Four other members are the state director of the Division of Small Business and Tourism and the chairs of the planning commissions of each county.

It’s the first time this assembly of the board has been called to action. Board members said they are making decisions on a fact and law basis, and are trying to cut out the noise this project has caused on social media and in other public meetings.

Witnesses and experts explained a ton of technical definitions for generators and got into the nitty-gritty of emissions and infrastructure. It was up to the board to take those facts in stride and make their decision.

“What we have to do is come back to the purpose of the appeal,” said Willie Scott, a member of the board during a break between sessions on March 24.

They voted unanimously to uphold the DNREC decision to prohibit the project based on the Coastal Zone Act.

Courtroom-like arguments for and against the data center

The hearing on March 24 began with opening arguments. Attorneys for Starwood Digital Ventures, Project Washington’s developer, argued that Project Washington’s purpose and infrastructure fall outside of the Coastal Zone Act’s regulations, and that DNREC’s definitions of smokestacks and tank farms are flawed.

“It fails every element of the statutory definition, as interpreted by the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Superior Court,” said Jeff Moyer, an attorney representing Starwood. “Its limited diesel infrastructure is not a tank farm within any reasonable meaning of that term, and each of the core three functions of Project Washington – data storage, electrical infrastructure and backup power – are all expressly not regulated.”

DNREC’s attorneys argued the data center campuses fall under heavy industry in a modern context, and it is the kind of project the act is intended to kill. They also argued it has a potential to pollute when backup generators are working if the power fails.

“The law requires that it be prohibited, not recharacterized, not broken into pieces and minimized, but prohibited,” said Michael Hoffman, attorney representing DNREC. “Over the course of the next few days, we will show that Starwood’s proposed hyperscale data center is one such project.”

Closing arguments on March 26 reiterated arguments from both sides, and the board voted to stand with DNREC.

How Project Washington and DNREC got here

The Coastal Zone Act prevents heavy industrial projects from developing along the Delaware River and Bay, Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, Atlantic Ocean, Indian River Bay and other Sussex County bays. The 14 projects that have been grandfathered include the Delaware City Refinery and the Port of Wilmington.

Project Washington’s proposed site falls within the defined coastal zone, which extends west to Dupont Highway in that specific spot. In February, DNREC said the massive data center is prohibited, stifling the project while it worked through state and county permits.

It would be 11 two-story data center buildings surrounded by electrical fields on two large land parcels north of Delaware City accessible by Hamburg Road, Governor Lea Road and River Road. 

DNREC’s beef with the project is in the backup generators and their accompanying diesel tanks. The data center is proposed to run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. If power goes out, it needs to use the backup generators to keep running. DNREC’s decision says the project includes some 516 double-walled diesel fuel belly tanks, each capable of storing some 5,020 gallons of fuel. That’s about five acres of tank farm.

There would be 516 backup generators with 516 smokestacks, which DNREC said in its original decision is the exact type of infrastructure the Coastal Zone Act targets by prohibiting “heavy industrial” projects.

Starwood Digital Ventures, appealed the decision, mentioning countervailing factors including avoiding wetlands, no direct surface water discharges and projected economic benefits.

Their appeal said the original DNREC decision “solely focuses on alleged environmental risk and worst-case emissions, and does not fairly weigh or explain these countervailing factors in light of regulating criteria.”

Jim Lamb, who is handling media communication for the project, said the backup generators would only run 37 to 45 minutes per month just to test if they are operational. Project Washington will also use a closed-loop cooling system, limiting its water intake.

The appeal required a hearing, which is the first time the board made a decision since 2021.

The developer of the project did not immediately respond to Delaware Online/The News Journal’s request for comment. New Castle County officials did not immediately respond to either.

Shane Brennan covers Wilmington and other Delaware issues. Reach out with ideas, tips or feedback at slbrennan@delawareonline.com.