OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Metropolitan Development Commission Meeting July 15, 2026: Data Center Variance Approved

Metropolitan Development Commission — Wednesday, July 15, 2026
BodyIndianapolis, Indiana
SessionMetropolitan Development Commission
DateWednesday, July 15, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:34:07

Transcript — Verbatim
1:05

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

1:07

Welcome to the July 15, 2026 meeting of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

1:13

I will now call the meeting to order.

1:16

We have a quorum in place.

1:19

Would all rise and join me with the Pledge of Allegiance, please?

1:27

I pleasantly the United States of America.

1:43

Thank you.

1:46

Members of the Commission, you received the minutes of the July 1st meeting last week, and you've had an opportunity to review those.

1:56

Are there any additions or deletions to those minutes?

2:02

Hearing none.

2:04

Commissioner Meridi, can I get a motion to approve?

2:07

So moved.

2:10

Commissioner Hergett, can I get a second?

2:12

Second.

2:14

Let me call the roll.

2:15

Hergett.

2:18

Lyle.

2:19

Lyle, yes.

2:20

Moreity.

2:21

Moreity, yes.

2:23

Murphy.

2:23

Murphy, yes.

2:24

Schumacher.

2:25

Schumacher, yes.

2:27

West.

2:28

West, yes.

2:30

Dylan is a yes.

2:31

The minutes from July first, 2026 passed seven to zero.

2:36

Moving forward.

2:38

Are there any continuances, withdrawals, or special requests?

2:46

Hi.

2:47

Please introduce yourself.

2:49

Absolutely.

2:49

My name is Alexandra Curlin.

2:51

I represent the Irvington Community Schools.

2:53

Um, thank you for your time today.

2:55

Um, on behalf of the Urban Community Schools and their community.

2:58

Um as you know, we have hearing today, case numbers 2026 C VR eight one five, as well as twenty twenty-six CPL eight one five on the school's behalf and on the school community's behalf.

3:11

I respectfully request a continuance for cause under Article Six, Section 8.

3:20

The School of Elementary School adjoins the site that is being requested for development and requested for a variance, yet the school was not contacted by the developer until June, after the hearing recommendation had already been made.

3:36

The board first had an opportunity to review the site plan on June 24th, barely a month ago, and a revised plan reached the school only last week.

3:46

The petitioner's comments, uh commitments still remain in draft form for the large part, and the school is still in the middle of negotiating commitments with the developer.

3:57

Indeed, the school district just had an opportunity to go visit the site on Monday, and the board hasn't even had a chance to talk amongst itself about that visit.

4:08

We're not seeking a delay.

4:10

What we're seeking is time to do due diligence.

4:14

And so we are asking for a fair opportunity to evaluate the materials, to evaluate the request, and therefore are seeking a 45-day continuance.

4:23

Thank you.

4:24

Thank you, Alexander.

4:26

Counselor, don't you have a thoughts on this matter?

4:30

First of all, welcome.

4:31

Good to see you.

4:32

Thank you, uh, President Dillon Commissioners, Andy Nielsen, City County Councillor District 14, uh, in support of the continuance requested uh by the school district.

4:41

Um did reach out to the petitioner and their representatives to let them know.

4:45

I think there were other conversations with the school district, but again, um appears this is a fairly substantial change to the to the site, and so just backing up the the council's comments that allowing for proper uh time for that communication to happen and would be supportive of of their request.

5:02

So thank you.

5:04

Thank you, Councillor.

5:05

We thank you for uh all your hard work.

5:08

We appreciate anyone else would like to comment on this.

5:17

Yes, council.

5:18

Please introduce yourself.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Zoning and Land Use███████████████████████████████████████████43%
Procedural████████████████16%
Land Use Regulation██████████████14%
Environmental Protection███████████11%
Economic Development██████████10%
Community Engagement████4%
Public Engagement█1%
Public Health█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Metropolitan Development Commission Meeting – July 15, 2026

The Metropolitan Development Commission (MDC) met on July 15, 2026, to consider several continuance requests, resolutions, and a major public hearing on a proposed data center at the former Ford Vistian site. The meeting lasted approximately 3 hours, with the public hearing on the data center variance dominating the agenda. Key decisions included denial of a 30-day continuance for the data center case, approval of several tax abatement resolutions, and eventual approval of the data center variance and plat for DC Blocks Indianapolis LLC.

Consent Calendar

  • Minutes of July 1, 2026: Approved 7-0.
  • Resolutions without public hearing (2026 R021, 2026 A014, 2026 A015): Approved (7-0, 6-1, 6-1 respectively).
  • Petitions of no appeal: Nine petitions approved 7-0.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Continuance for DC Blocks data center (2026 C VR 815 / 2026 CPL 815):
    • Alexandra Curlin (attorney for Irvington Community Schools) requested a 45-day continuance, arguing the school was not contacted until June and had insufficient time to review the revised plan. She stated the school board only saw the site on July 13 and had not yet discussed it.
    • Councillor Andy Nielsen (District 14) supported the continuance, citing substantial changes to the site.
    • Mindy Westrick Brown (petitioner's counsel) opposed the continuance, noting the case had been pending since March, multiple continuances already occurred, and extensive outreach to the school had been made (5 emails, 2 phone calls, 1 in-person visit, postcard, legal notice). She argued delay would harm contractual obligations.
    • Vincent Ash (property owner) opposed continuance, citing capital reliance on schedule.
    • Anna Warnsing (school psychologist) spoke in favor of continuance, raising broader concerns about data centers and tax incentives.
    • Councillor Michael Paul Hart (District 20) opposed continuance, stating ample notification was given and the school moved into an industrial area knowingly.
    • John Hooker (Central Indiana Building Trades) opposed continuance.
  • Public hearing on the data center variance:
    • Petitioner (DC Blocks) presented: The project is a two-building edge node data center on 32 acres (22 developable), up to 330,000 sq ft, with reduced parking (100 spaces vs 330 required). They highlighted community support, a $2.5 million charitable commitment, a project labor agreement with unions, emissions reductions, sound studies, and commitments for low-frequency noise, decommissioning, and annual sound testing. They argued the use meets all five findings of fact.
    • Remonstrators (Irvington Community Schools board members): Heather Rodriguez, Eric Serrano, Madison Monfrida argued the variance fails on all five required findings. They stated the sound study was undersized, low-frequency noise not adequately addressed, emergency generator definitions are loophole, environmental contamination on site, and the application is a rezoning disguised as a variance. They requested denial or holding the record open.
    • Megan Lappa (nearby resident) argued the petitioner's outreach was insufficient, property value reports were flawed, and the hardship is self-inflicted.
    • Rye Steinhart warned data centers could become obsolete (AI bubble), and asked for bonds to protect the community.
    • Steve Key (neighbor) asked about property value impacts, enforcement of commitments, and AES rate pledges.
  • Councillor Nielsen (District 14): Asked the commission to deny the variance, arguing findings 1 and 4 are not met. He cited overwhelming community opposition (83% of respondents oppose) and that the petitioner's engagement was transactional.
  • Councillor Hart (District 20): Supported the project, noting the industrial context, his own noise measurements, the $30 million tax base over 10 years, $10 million to Warren Township schools, $10 million to TIF district, $2.5 million charitable fund, and $5 million for Washington Square Mall redevelopment. He argued the use is compatible and the process was thorough.

Discussion Items

  • Continuance for DC Blocks data center: Following debate, a motion for a 30-day continuance was made and seconded. The vote was 4-3 in favor of continuing (Hergert, Lyle, Morerity, Schumacher yes; Murphy, West, Dillon no). The motion failed on a procedural misunderstanding? Actually the roll call shows 4 yes, 3 no, but the president declared the continuance defeated 4-3. The transcript shows: "Hergate yes, Lyle yes, Morerity yes, Murphy no, Schumacher yes, West no, Dylan no. The continuance has been defeated four to three." (Note: 4 yes + 3 no = 7 votes, but 4 yes means motion carries? The president said defeated, so it appears the motion needed more than 4? Actually it's a simple majority of those present. 7 members present, 4 votes in favor is a majority. The transcript says "defeated four to three" – possible error. However, we report as stated: the continuance was denied 4-3.
  • Other continuances:
    • 2026 ZON 057 (3709 East Washington Street) – continued to August 5th without objection, vote 7-0.
    • 2026 A034 (parcel error) – continued to August 5th, vote 6-1.
  • Special request for data center moratorium: Councillor Jesse Brown asked the commission to institute a moratorium on new data centers. President Dillon explained that the city council and mayor support a moratorium, but state law on vested rights prevents stopping projects already in the queue. The commission did not act on the request.

Key Outcomes

  • DC Blocks data center variance and plat (2026 C VR 815 / 2026 CPL 815): After the public hearing, the commission voted on two companion ballots. The plat was approved 7-0. The variance of use and development standards was approved 6-1 (one commissioner voted no). The project will proceed with commitments including: 65 dB sound limit at property line, low-frequency noise mitigation, annual sound testing, decommissioning plan with annual budget for environmental remediation, generator use only for emergencies and testing, and a $2.5 million community benefit pledge.
  • Resolutions:
    • 2026 A019 (Alpha Laval abatement amendment) approved 7-0.
    • 2026 A033 (Coca-Cola bottling abatement) approved 7-0.
  • Continuances:
    • 2026 ZON 057 continued to August 5, 2026.
    • 2026 A034 continued to August 5, 2026.
  • No action on moratorium request.

Meeting Transcript

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Welcome to the July 15, 2026 meeting of the Metropolitan Development Commission. I will now call the meeting to order. We have a quorum in place. Would all rise and join me with the Pledge of Allegiance, please? I pleasantly the United States of America. Thank you. Members of the Commission, you received the minutes of the July 1st meeting last week, and you've had an opportunity to review those. Are there any additions or deletions to those minutes? Hearing none. Commissioner Meridi, can I get a motion to approve? So moved. Commissioner Hergett, can I get a second? Second. Let me call the roll. Hergett. Lyle. Lyle, yes. Moreity. Moreity, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West. West, yes. Dylan is a yes. The minutes from July first, 2026 passed seven to zero. Moving forward. Are there any continuances, withdrawals, or special requests? Hi. Please introduce yourself. Absolutely. My name is Alexandra Curlin. I represent the Irvington Community Schools. Um, thank you for your time today. Um, on behalf of the Urban Community Schools and their community. Um as you know, we have hearing today, case numbers 2026 C VR eight one five, as well as twenty twenty-six CPL eight one five on the school's behalf and on the school community's behalf. I respectfully request a continuance for cause under Article Six, Section 8. The School of Elementary School adjoins the site that is being requested for development and requested for a variance, yet the school was not contacted by the developer until June, after the hearing recommendation had already been made. The board first had an opportunity to review the site plan on June 24th, barely a month ago, and a revised plan reached the school only last week. The petitioner's comments, uh commitments still remain in draft form for the large part, and the school is still in the middle of negotiating commitments with the developer. Indeed, the school district just had an opportunity to go visit the site on Monday, and the board hasn't even had a chance to talk amongst itself about that visit. We're not seeking a delay. What we're seeking is time to do due diligence. And so we are asking for a fair opportunity to evaluate the materials, to evaluate the request, and therefore are seeking a 45-day continuance. Thank you. Thank you, Alexander. Counselor, don't you have a thoughts on this matter? First of all, welcome.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com