Residents press council over proposed data center, raising traffic, noise and groundwater concerns

The City Council on March 18 heard extended public comment opposing a proposed data‑center development tied to a voluntary annexation petition introduced at the meeting, with residents urging the city to study traffic impacts, lower noise thresholds for new construction and perform baseline groundwater testing before major site work.

Resident Patricia Corey told the council she opposed placing a data center “at 61st and 69th Avenue” and asked for a written promise that any well that goes dry would be replaced. She also described a recent ambulance response she said was delayed and difficult because responders initially could not locate her home: “They cannot find your house,” she said as she urged the mayor to follow up. Mayor (speaker 1) responded that he would pull 911 call records and follow up with the fire department.

Several other residents cited traffic and safety worries, comparing the Hobart proposal to a different project in New Carlisle and pressing whether the applicant had off‑site parking and how contractors would be staged. “Where’s the off‑site parking drive?” asked one commenter; staff and council said the applicant planned off‑site parking and that traffic‑management plans and traffic studies are being reviewed.

Residents also raised health and environmental concerns. One commenter relayed a physician’s opinion that the development could worsen respiratory conditions; councilors said data centers vary by design and emissions profile and that specific technical controls (for example, Tier‑4 engine choices and sound mitigation) affect impacts. Multiple speakers urged the city to require baseline groundwater and soil testing so there is a record to compare against any later dewatering or construction activity.

Council and staff answered that applicants have submitted geotechnical and soil reports as part of permitting and that erosion control and stormwater measures are part of the review. The mayor said the city had discussed lighting and other design mitigations with project representatives and that traffic‑management ideas — such as staging and remote parking with controlled bus or shuttle access — are part of the applicant’s traffic mitigation planning.

The council neither approved nor rejected the project at the meeting; instead, members treated the annexation petition as an introductory item and scheduled a public hearing for the annexation and related land‑use requests. Staff committed to follow up with residents on ambulance call records, to share technical reports on file and to continue discussions with the applicant about traffic, noise and environmental mitigations.

What’s next: the annexation petition was introduced and set for public hearing; staff will compile the submitted traffic and environmental studies for council and public review and the council indicated willingness to consider ordinance or permitting conditions (for example, sound‑mitigation requirements or baseline testing) as the application proceeds.