Munster planning commission tables Kenmara PUD amendment after hours of public opposition; sends neutral UDO recommendation to council

The Munster Planning Commission on July 14 drew a packed room and more than 50 public commenters for hours of testimony about a proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) rewrite and a related Kenmara Technology Park PUD amendment that residents fear could open the town to data centers.

Commissioners heard a staff presentation on the UDO, including recent edits that struck explicit data‑center regulations from the draft. Staff said removing that regulated use would leave the town relying on the state use‑variance process for any applicant seeking a data‑center‑type use; opponents said striking the language effectively left an opening for such facilities. In response to questions, staff said the edits reflected a directive given to staff and emphasized that individual projects would still require review and any necessary waivers.

Developers and their legal team, representing Saxon Partners / SPIN Munster LLC, presented the Kenmara amendment and a proposed special‑use framework intended to treat advanced computing facilities as a special‑exception use with higher standards, including energy and wastewater plans, decommissioning requirements and an independent development agreement. Petitioner Gary Warfell and counsel Scott Yane said the standards and development agreement would give the town leverage and that the 59‑acre site is not likely to attract hyperscale, campus‑sized data operations.

Residents disagreed. Dozens of speakers — parents, retirees, nurses, engineers, teachers and students — told the commission they feared increased noise (including concerns about low‑frequency or infrasound effects), higher utility costs, heavy water consumption, threats to tree cover and nearby natural areas, lower property values and long‑term environmental risk. Several speakers submitted petitions and signature counts opposing any allowance for data centers and urged either an outright ban or a longer moratorium and more technical study before allowing the change.

Multiple commenters also criticized process issues: staff said some engineering reports arrived the morning of the meeting and that portions of the docket remained in transition between legal teams, prompting requests that hearings be continued until staff could complete review.

After hearing public comment and discussion among commissioners, a motion to table the Kenmara PUD amendment carried; the commission voted to pause further action so members could consult legal counsel and review outstanding technical reports. The chair said the public hearing would remain open when the item returns. Earlier in the meeting, the commission took a separate motion on PC 26‑005 (the UDO), voting to forward a neutral recommendation to the town council so councilors may consider the draft and proposed redlines.

What happens next: staff and legal counsel will continue reviewing the PUD amendment and related technical reports. The planning commission will revisit the item at a future meeting; the UDO will go to the town council with a neutral recommendation from the commission. Residents and petitioners asked that any future meeting include complete technical analyses on noise, water use, energy demand and enforcement mechanisms before commissioners take a final vote.

The public hearing portions of both the Kenmara PUD amendment and the UDO remained open at the end of the July 14 meeting; no final land‑use approvals were granted for the Kenmara parcel.