Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Hobart council for protections as proposed data center, annexation draw fierce opposition
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Hobart council to halt or better regulate a proposed data‑center development, raising concerns about traffic, noise, groundwater/dewatering, and emergency response; the mayor and staff said traffic studies and mitigation strategies are being pursued and committed to follow up.
Residents at the March 18 Hobart Common Council meeting voiced sustained opposition to a proposed data‑center development and the annexation that would enable industrial zoning in Ross Township.
Patricia Corey, who identified her address in public comment, said residents fear groundwater impacts and asked the council for a written assurance that private wells would be replaced if they went dry. She also recounted an ambulance call for her mother that she said involved locating difficulties and delays; the mayor said he would follow up with the fire department and pull call records.
“‘I say absolutely no data center at 61st And 69th Avenue,’” Corey told the council, summarizing residents’ broader objections to siting a large data facility near homes.
Other commenters raised concerns about traffic and emergency access if large numbers of employees and trucks are bussed or parked off‑site, and about the number and type of diesel generators associated with large data facilities. Jennifer McQuaid and other speakers said the rezoning process had left residents feeling like a “sacrifice zone” and pressed the council for public hearings with developers and utility representatives present.
Council members and staff repeatedly responded that the city has required traffic studies and that staff is working on mitigation strategies — for example, off‑site parking with shuttle or staged check‑in to avoid backups on corridor roads. The mayor and staff also said not all data centers are identical and that engineering mitigations (noise buffers, downward‑facing lighting, stormwater controls) can reduce impacts.
On environmental concerns, residents asked the council to require baseline groundwater and soil testing ahead of any dewatering or major earthwork. One resident cited the Oregon case where water‑handling practices were implicated in later contamination claims; councilors and staff said the facts differ between cases but agreed to review submittals and consider baseline testing.
Noise was another focal point. Commenters urged the city to lower the property‑line noise standard toward levels they said public‑health research supports (citizen speakers recommended ~55 dB) and to adopt a dedicated data‑center ordinance with specific remediation measures. Council members said changes to the city’s noise ordinance would have city‑wide implications and merit study; they also flagged exemptions and retrofit challenges for existing institutions (for example, hospitals).
What council said it would do next: staff committed to review files and test results on record, follow up on ambulance call logs as requested by commenters and continue traffic‑study and mitigation planning. Council set a future public hearing on a separate annexation petition introduced earlier in the evening, which residents said will be central to the data‑center debate.
The meeting did not produce an immediate halt to permitting or rezoning; instead, councilors emphasized process steps and directed staff to gather technical materials and respond to residents’ specific requests for data and testing.
