Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Hobart leaders over proposed data center, citing traffic, noise and health fears
Summary
At the March 18 meeting residents urged Hobart leaders to block or limit a proposed data center in the Ross Township annexation area, citing traffic backups, noise and possible groundwater and health impacts; councilors said traffic studies and developer mitigation are under review and asked for specific data to guide policy changes.
Residents used the public‑comment portion of the March 18 Hobart meeting to deliver a sustained challenge to city leaders over a proposed data center in a recently annexed area, pressing officials for traffic controls, noise protections and baseline groundwater testing.
Corey, who gave her address to the council, told members she opposed the project at "61st And 69th Avenue," said a promised park had not been delivered and described a recent ambulance response problem at 2101 East 70 as a public‑safety example. "I say absolutely no data center at 61st And 69th Avenue," the resident said, urging the council to prioritize residents' concerns.
Why it matters: Residents and some councilors framed the dispute as a tradeoff between revenue from large industrial development and local public‑safety, health and quality‑of‑life impacts for nearby neighborhoods. Jennifer McQuaid, who said she represents part of Ross Township, called the area a "sacrifice zone" and urged the council to adopt clearer protections, including lower noise limits and groundwater baseline testing.
Council response and staff actions: Mayor (speaker S1) and staff repeatedly said the city is studying traffic impacts and working with developers on mitigation. "Our team is working diligently on this traffic," the mayor said, describing traffic‑study and off‑site parking strategies the developers have proposed. Staff and council members agreed to follow up with detailed technical information and to continue public engagement before final approvals.
Health, noise and water concerns: Multiple residents referenced health risks and noise impacts. One commenter relayed a physician's worries that certain emissions could harm residents with respiratory issues. McQuaid asked the city to require pre‑construction groundwater and soil testing so officials would have a baseline before any dewatering or large earthmoving began. She also urged lowering the permissible noise level for new development to 55 decibels at the property line for future projects.
What residents asked for: baseline groundwater testing, a specialized data‑center ordinance with explicit protections (noise, light, dewatering), documented off‑site parking and transportation plans to reduce neighborhood traffic, and more direct meetings between residents, NIPSCO and the developer.
Next steps: Councilors set a public hearing date for related annexation matters (April 15) and staff committed to sharing technical materials from traffic and environmental reviews with residents and to follow up on the ambulance call records Corey asked the city to check. The council did not take a final vote on the data center at the March 18 meeting.
