Residents urge council to block data center plan, cite traffic, noise and groundwater worries

A flood of residents told the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on March 18 that a proposed data center on the city’s Ross Township corridor would harm health, safety and quality of life, urging the council to slow or condition the project.

Patricia Corey (speaker 7), who gave her address and spoke during public comment, said she opposed siting the data center at “61st and 69th Avenue” and asked the council to honor prior park commitments and protect neighborhoods. “I say absolutely no data center at 61st And 69th Avenue,” Corey said, adding the area is not “a dumping zone.”

Jean Clausen (speaker 3), who said she had sought time on the agenda, pressed officials for baseline testing and data, asking why groundwater and soil sampling were not completed before the second‑fill permit and whether the city would require testing prior to dewatering. “We should know what’s on that ground and in that now before we let them do anything to it,” Clausen said.

City staff (speaker 1) responded that project teams have performed soil borings and storm‑water controls and that the city is working with applicants on traffic‑management plans, off‑site parking and staged check‑in to reduce queuing on public roads. Staff said multiple traffic studies are under review and pledged to follow up on ambulance call records after residents reported delayed emergency responses.

Richard Anderson (speaker 6), who introduced a 6.66‑acre annexation tied to development in the I‑65/37th Avenue corridor, described the annexation as an introduction tonight and said a fiscal plan is in place; he asked the council to set public hearings in April. He did not address the environmental claims directly but said the site would be used for M‑1 industrial purposes and noted the developers had modified timelines to meet construction goals.

Other residents raised noise concerns and asked the council to lower the city’s property‑line noise limit for new construction; one commenter cited measurements in excess of 65 decibels at the property line and urged a 55‑decibel standard for new builds. Council and staff said property‑line standards are used for enforcement and that the acoustic impact at residential structures depends on distance, landscaping and other buffers.

Neighbors also reported specific emergency‑response incidents they say illustrate staffing or location problems; the mayor (speaker 1) said he would review call records and follow up with the fire department. City leaders repeatedly emphasized that mitigation measures—traffic staging, off‑site parking, storm‑water erosion controls and engineering for lighting/noise—are being considered but that some impacts will be managed during construction and operation.

The council did not vote on the data‑center project during the meeting; the annexation was introduced and set for a public hearing. Residents asked the city to require baseline groundwater and soil tests, to tighten noise and lighting rules, and to hold more direct meetings with the developer, utilities and state agencies before approvals proceed.

Next steps: the council set a public hearing on the annexation (related project) and staff said they will continue traffic and environmental reviews, report back to the council and follow up on residents’ requests for additional data and meetings.