Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to block data center site, citing traffic, noise, groundwater and emergency‑response worries
Summary
Multiple residents told the council they oppose a proposed data center and annexation that would bring large industrial buildings near Ross Township, raising traffic, noise, water and ambulance‑response concerns and asking for baseline groundwater testing and stronger ordinances.
A series of residents who addressed the council during the March 18 public comment period urged local officials to block a proposed data center and to adopt stronger protections before construction begins.
Resident Patricia (Speaker 8), who gave an address in the record, told the council she and other neighbors view the proposed site as a "dumping zone" and urged the city not to permit the data center at the 61st/69th Avenue area. She asked for a written commitment that residents would receive replacement wells if private wells go dry during or after construction: "Josh, if it would happen to go through, can I get a statement from you on that for records?" she asked the mayor. Patricia also described a recent 911/ambulance incident at which she said responders had trouble locating her home and urged staff to review response times.
Other commenters — including speakers who identified themselves as Jean and Jennifer McQuaid — raised traffic and safety questions about off‑site parking, bus plans and whether the project’s construction traffic could block emergency access on 61st Avenue. Jennifer McQuaid and others characterized Ross Township residents as opposed to rezoning farmland for industrial uses; several speakers raised concerns about diesel backup generators and long‑term air emissions from large data‑center operations.
Residents also pressed for technical protections. At the meeting one speaker requested baseline groundwater and soil testing prior to any dewatering or major earthmoving, citing incidents in other jurisdictions where construction dewatering or water‑recycling practices changed contamination concentrations. "We should know what's on that ground and in that now before we let them do anything to it," a resident said, asking the council to require tests so the city can establish a baseline.
Council response and staff notes Mayor/Chair (Speaker 1) and staff acknowledged resident concerns and described ongoing steps: city staff said permit files include soil testing submitted with the permit applications, and the administration said it has traffic studies and has discussed mitigation measures including off‑site parking and controlled check‑in procedures to reduce roads backing up during shift changes. Speaker 1 said staff are "working diligently" on traffic studies and mitigation. The mayor also said he would follow up with the fire department about the ambulance call record residents raised.
Why it matters: Residents say potential noise, air and groundwater risks, plus construction traffic, could affect nearby homes; they asked council to require stronger safeguards and baseline testing before work advances. The council recorded the comments and said staff would follow up with additional information and technical meetings as requested.
Next procedural steps: Council did not take a final land‑use vote at the meeting; it set the annexation introduction and scheduled a public hearing for April 15 where more detailed review, public comment and testimony are expected.
