Residents press Hobart leaders over proposed data center, urge environmental and safety safeguards

Residents pressed Hobart elected officials on Wednesday over plans for a proposed data center and recent annexation activity, raising concerns about traffic, noise, water and emergency response and asking the council to adopt protective measures before construction moves forward.

At the start of a lengthy public‑comment period, a resident who identified an address in Hobart urged the council to secure “a promise statement” that private wells would be replaced if development caused them to go dry and said the community should not become a “dumping” or “sacrificial” zone for industrial projects. The resident said: “I say absolutely no data center at 61st And 69th Avenue.”

Jennifer McQuaid, who identified herself and her street address, told the council that Ross Township residents feel treated as a sacrifice zone after the city rezoned farm land for industrial use. “It feels like you have turned us into a sacrifice zone,” McQuaid said, arguing that rezoning and large industrial buildings across from homes will bring diesel generators, noise and air pollution.

Council members and staff responded that traffic, parking and other operational concerns are being studied. Mayor (acting as meeting chair) said staff has traffic studies and is working with developers to stage off‑site parking and check‑in procedures to avoid roadway backups. He added the city would continue to meet with developers to seek mitigations.

Residents also recounted local emergency‑response problems. One resident said an ambulance crew had trouble finding her home during an emergency and asked the city to pull call records; the mayor said he would follow up with the fire department and investigate response times.

On environmental concerns, a resident asked for baseline groundwater and soil testing before any dewatering or construction that might mobilize decades of agricultural chemicals. She argued that the city should require testing to avoid situations like those reported elsewhere. The mayor and staff said developers had filed stormwater and soil reports required under permits, but acknowledged the public’s request and agreed to continue the conversation.

Speakers urged the council to consider a city‑wide data‑center ordinance modeled on protections used by other municipalities, including noise limits and downward‑facing lighting, and to require specifics about generator tiers, dewatering plans and off‑site parking. One resident asked the council to lower the noise ordinance for new construction to 55 decibels, a suggestion that prompted a detailed discussion about feasibility, retroactivity and exemptions for existing uses such as hospitals.

Council members emphasized they must balance public health and long‑term fiscal needs: several members said large developments provide revenue the city uses to fund services such as police and fire. But members acknowledged the need for additional safeguards and promised follow‑up meetings with developers, staff and residents.

The council did not take immediate regulatory action at the meeting; several residents asked the mayor and staff to hold dedicated sessions with Nipsco, developers and planners to answer technical questions and to provide clearer information to affected neighborhoods. The annexation petition for a nearby parcel was introduced earlier in the agenda and has been set for public hearings in April, giving the council additional opportunities for specific review.