Metropolitan Development Commission Meeting - July 2, 2026

The Metropolitan Development Commission (MDC) held a public hearing on July 2, 2026, to consider a proposed zoning ordinance amendment (2026 AO001) creating a new Special Use District (SU 47) for data centers. After hearing presentations from Department of Metropolitan Development (DMD) staff, public remonstrators, and a city-county councilor, the commission debated and voted on several amendments before approving the ordinance by a 5–3 vote.

Consent Calendar

• Approved minutes from the June 17, 2026 meeting (7–0, with Commissioner Dillon recused).
• Approved continuances for Resolution 2026A028 and 2026A029 (Presimian Cables and Systems USA) to August 5, 2026 (8–0).
• Approved continuance for petitions 2026 CVR 815, 2026 CPL 815 to July 15, 2026 (8–0).
• Acknowledged withdrawal of 2025 ZON 114 (4005 East Southport Road).
• Approved continuance of 2026 REG 015 (412 West McCarty Street) to August 19, 2026 (8–0).
• Approved Resolution 2026 R018 (old fire station at 834 East Westfield Boulevard) to go out for RFP (8–0).
• Approved five zoning petitions on the no-appeal docket (5 petitions, 8–0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Ashley Hooley (7115 Mendon Hall Road, Camby): Representing thousands of Indianapolis residents, she expressed strong opposition to the ordinance as written, calling it “vague” and “injurious.” She cited a Gallup poll showing 7 in 10 Americans oppose data centers in their community and listed six key concerns: failure to distinguish data center sizes, insufficient setbacks (requested 1,500+ feet for hyperscale), inadequate noise regulation (low frequency/DBC not addressed), lack of tier 4 generator requirements, failure to address rising utility costs and heat island effects, and insufficient emergency response training for firefighters. She called for a moratorium, referencing 22 Indiana communities with active moratoriums, including Boone, Shelby, and Madison counties. She also noted a unanimous City-County Council resolution (Special Resolution 12-2026) requesting a pause on all data center activity.
• Julie Goldsberry (2804 Davis Road, Indianapolis): Criticized the ordinance as weak and accused DMD of using the “Delphi technique” to limit public engagement. She urged the commission to involve remonstrators in developing a revised ordinance and to hire impartial technical experts for noise and other issues.
• Robin Heldman (8824 Combs Road, president of the Gateway Community Alliance): Acknowledged improvements in the revised ordinance (stronger setbacks, lower noise limits, annual reporting) but requested five additional measures: wetland avoidance/preservation, a financial assurance (bond or escrow) for decommissioning, an e-waste management plan, building height transition standards near neighborhoods, and a host community agreement for each SU 47 rezone.
• Pat Andrews (7631 Reynolds Road, Camby, representing Decatur Township Civic Council and Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations): Supported a moratorium for more public process. Noted that diesel exhaust health issues and insufficient separation from protected districts remain concerns. He corrected that a 10 dB change is perceived as a doubling of sound and noted that Indianapolis’s gravel/sand/borrow district already requires DBA and DBC measurements.
• William Smith (1120 North Berwick Avenue, autistic): Expressed that a 55 dB noise level near his property could force him to leave the city, called for special needs protections, and raised concerns about heat from data centers and diesel emissions. Supported a moratorium.
• Alex McFarland (71 South West Street, Buggersville): Mentioned his connection to Irvington but was cut off when remonstrator time expired.
• City-County Councilor Jesse Brown (District 13): Stressed that constituents believe the commission is “deeply corrupt” and ignoring the unanimous City-County Council resolution. He cited the lack of public notice (DMD gave 6 days instead of required 14), the dismissal of staff who disagree with leadership, and campaign finance forms with commissioners’ names. He urged the commission to adopt a moratorium and conduct “actual public conversations in every township.”

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation (DMD): Megan Vukasich, DMD Director, presented the proposed SU 47 district. Key provisions:
  • Definition: Data center as a facility for storage, management, processing, and transmission of digital data, excluding incidental IT in other uses (e.g., hospitals, telecom facilities).
  • Base district: I-3 (Medium Industrial).
  • Setback: 400 feet from any protected district (residential, schools, churches).
  • Noise limit: Originally 65 dBA, but staff proposed lowering to 55 dBA based on community feedback.
  • Operations plan: Must include noise study, water management plan, electricity capacity plan, decommissioning plan, etc.
  • Annual report and public dashboard required for compliance.
  • Staff recommended a temporary moratorium if the commission deemed further research and community outreach needed (per page 55 of staff report).
• Commissioner Questions:
  • Whether any property (e.g., agricultural or commercial) could apply for SU 47. Yes, SU 47 uses I-3 standards but any property can rezone to it.
  • Concern that the ordinance might allow developers to circumvent SU 47 by seeking variances under existing zoning. Staff clarified that a variance for use would not be permitted; a rezone to SU 47 is required for any data center primary use.
  • Debate on setback distance: Commissioner Lyle pushed for a 500-foot setback, stating the city should lead; staff defended 400 feet as a balance based on peer communities.
  • Debate on noise: Commissioner West noted the difference between dBA and dBC, citing low-frequency concerns. He expressed discomfort with 55 dBA, noting that ambient levels near one data center site were 60–65 dBA, and that 55 dBA could be unrealistic. He suggested returning to 65 dBA and exploring dBC separately.
  • Commissioner Murphy questioned the lack of a grandfather clause for existing data centers and asked DMD to draft one.
  • Noise limit debate: Commissioner West argued 55 dBA might be below ambient levels, making compliance nearly impossible, and moved to change the limit to 65 dBA.

Key Outcomes

• Amendment 1 (Noise limit): Commissioner West’s motion to change the maximum permitted sound level from 55 dBA to 65 dBA passed 5–3 (Ayes: Hergett, Morerity, Murphy, Robinson, Dillon; Noes: Lyle, Schumacher, West).
• Amendment 2 (Decommissioning plan deletion): A motion to delete the decommissioning plan section failed 2–6 (Ayes: Murphy, Dillon; Noes: Hergett, Lyle, Morerity, Robinson, Schumacher, West).
• Amendment 3 (Grandfather clause): Commissioner Dillon’s motion to exempt existing data centers from SU 47, allowing them to remain under their original base zoning, passed 7–1 (Ayes: Hergett, Murphy, Robinson, Schumacher, West, Dillon; No: Lyle).
• Final vote on 2026 AO001 (SU 47): The ordinance, as amended, was approved 5–3 (Ayes: Hergett, Morerity, Murphy, Robinson, Dillon; Noes: Lyle, Schumacher, West).
• Next steps: The amended ordinance will be introduced to the full City-County Council on July 6, 2026, then go through committee (July 13) for another public hearing, with a final council vote anticipated on August 10, 2026.