Residents press council over data center plan, citing traffic, noise, water and health worries

Dozens of residents pressed the Hobart City Council on March 18 over plans to allow large-scale industrial development — including a data center — in annexed parcels in Ross Township, focusing their remarks on traffic congestion, ambulance response times, noise and potential groundwater impacts.

The meeting’s public-comment period featured sustained testimony from multiple speakers. Patricia Corey (7203 Colorado Street) told the council the development would treat the area like a “dumping zone” and demanded a city promise to replace private wells if they go dry: “If it would happen to go through, can I get a statement from you on that for records?” she asked. Corey also detailed an ambulance response she said had been delayed and sought a city follow-up.

Richard Anderson, a project representative who introduced an annexation petition for roughly 6.66 acres near I‑65 and 37th Avenue, described the parcel’s intended industrial use and said the developers had prepared a fiscal plan; staff confirmed an updated fiscal analysis from Baker Tilly. Anderson told councillors the development proposal is being processed through required hearings and said utilities and frontage work were part of the plan.

Council members and staff acknowledged the neighborhood’s concerns while defending the city’s review process. Mayor (speaker 1) said the city is “working diligently” on traffic studies and mitigation measures and repeated that construction will cause disruptions but that “we will navigate through it” using traffic-management plans and off-site parking/busing strategies to reduce roadway backups.

Residents pressed specific technical concerns. One commenter asked about diesel generators and long-term air pollution from testing runs; another urged sound‑level protections and asked the council to lower the city noise limit at the property line from 65 to 55 decibels for future construction. Jennifer McQuaid (speaker 4) asked the council to require baseline groundwater and soil testing before any dewatering or major earthwork, citing instances in other communities where construction altered groundwater behavior.

Council responses stressed limits on local authority and the need to review technical data. Staff said the applicants had submitted standard soil and stormwater reports and that dewatering and related permits are part of the construction-review process; the mayor said the city would review additional requests for baseline testing and engage relevant departments. Council members noted that alternative land uses (such as residential development or continued farming) carry their own fiscal and service‑delivery implications.

Several residents asked for a formal, citywide “data-center ordinance” — a package of protections (noise, lighting, air and groundwater provisions) some nearby municipalities have adopted for large computing facilities. Council members said they had discussed elements such as shielded lighting and traffic mitigation in early conversations with developers and that they would consider further code-level protections, while also noting state and regional permitting constraints.

The annexation petition was introduced for public hearing scheduling; Richard Anderson requested an April 15 public hearing on the annexation and the council set the next procedural steps. The council did not vote on final rezoning or development approvals at the March 18 meeting.

The council closed the comment period after an extended exchange and paused to follow up with staff, promising to compile requested materials and to meet with residents and technical experts as the application proceeds.

The next formal step on the annexation is the public hearing scheduled for April; other procedural requirements (formal zone changes, plan commission hearings, and subsequent council actions) remain pending.