Metropolitan Development Commission - Regular Meeting

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. To the Metropolitan Development Commission public meeting of 03/18/2026. We appreciate everyone being here today. I will remind you as we start, the Metropolitan Development Commission runs their meetings with professional decorum and polite conduct. I'll repeat myself.

The MDC runs their meetings with professional decorum and polite conduct. Would you all rise and join me with the pledge of allegiance? Members of the commission, last week you received the minutes of the March 2026 meeting. Are there any additions or deletions to those minutes? Commissioner Schumacher was not here and will be shown as recused.

Any other additions or deletions? Seeing none. Commissioner Garver, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Commissioner Hergot, can I get a second?

Second.

I'm going to call the roll. Dylan, yes. West, yes. Robinson,

yes.

Murphy, yes. Lyle, yes. Hergot?

Hergot, yes. Garver?

Garver, yes.

The minutes pass. Seven to zero with one recusal of commissioner Schumacher. Moving forward, I'm going to ask now for any continuances, withdraws, or special request. Kathleen, I know you've got one.

Yes. President Dillon, members of the commission, there is a special request, and I believe mister Brown, Russell Brown, is here to explain that.

Good afternoon, members commission for the record. Russell Brown with law firm of Clark Quinn. Business address, 320 North Meridian Street, Suite 1100 here in Indianapolis. Do you have a special request for a matter not on your agenda today? The petition number is 2020ZONO26 With 3565 South Keystone.

A matter of background, in January, I was retained by the contract buyer for this property who filed a rezoning and companion petition requests for this site. After filing and mailed notice and initial staff feedback, the contract was terminated and for reasons other than the zoning request. On February 11, before any hearing was conducted on this petition, we withdrew the request, which was acknowledged by the hearing examiner on February 26. On March 2, I was contacted by the owner who was the seller under the previous agreement who wants to move forward with the rezoning of this property. We have filed that petition, paid the filing fee on this matter, and it's got the petition number I gave earlier.

The request today is to allow for filing and docketing of a petition on this site without a ninety day waiting period. In accordance with your rules, article eight, section two, This that's allowed with a majority vote of this commission, and that is our request today. We have spoken to that to staff and have their support for this request.

Councilor Brack, repeat the case number, please.

It's 2026ZONO26, and the property is 3565 South Keystone.

Thank you. Staff, comments?

Thank you, president Dillon, members of the commission. Staff, when this was initially filed as a as a companion petition, a rezoning, and then some variances related to sign signage. Staff was supportive and would support the rezoning of this property and it was for regional community uses. Staff did not want to support and could not support the variance of development standards related to the signage. And indicated to mister Brown that staff was going to recommend denial of that variance but staff would support the rezoning to the SU or excuse me, C 4 District.

So you are for waiving the three month waiting period?

Yes.

Thank you. We have before us a request to waive the three month waiting period of former case number 2026ZONO26, which Kathleen will receive a new case number.

That is the new case number.

The That is the new case

number.

That is the new case number. The previous case numbers were 2026CZN802 and 2026CBR802.

Thank you.

Yes.

Members of the commission, we have before us, and I will make the motion to keep it straightforward. I'm gonna recommend we waive the three month waiting period on the new case number 2026ZONO26. Commissioner Murphy, can I get a second? Second. Let me call the roll. Dylan, yes. West.

West, yes. Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Murphy. Murphy, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes.

Hergot. Hergot, yes. Garver.

Garver, yes.

Councilor Brown, you have a new you have the waiver. You can arrange with staff on the hearing date, and it passes eight to zero. Thank you very much. Kathleen, do you have another one?

Yes. Thank you, president Dillon, members of the commission. Staff would draw your attention to item number five on the petitions of no appeal. This is 2025ZON112 amended located at 6641 Langsail Avenue and some addresses on Doctor. Martin Luther King Jr. Street. I don't know if the petitioner's representative is here. But they staff has been in communication with him relative yes. He is here. So I'll let him explain, and then staff will answer any questions that you might have.

Sir, please introduce yourself and your address.

Zach Rodenbarger. 5645 Castle Creek Parkway Drive North, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250. Page two number five, that is 2020 or sorry, 2025 Dash Z 0 N 112. Requesting a continuance to May 6.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who have a comment on this matter? And I'm assuming Kathleen, this is 2025ZON112 as amended.

That is correct.

Thank you. Any questions from members of the commission? Commissioner Herget, can I get a motion to approve? So moved. Commissioner Schumacher, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll. Dylan is a yes. West. West,

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Murphy. Murphy, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes. Hergot.

Hergot, yes. Garver.

Garver, yes.

You have your continuance till May 6. Thank you. By account of eight to zero. Kathleen?

I'm finished.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other requests for continuous withdrawals, special requests? Seeing none. Nancy, would you read the resolutions into the minutes?

Thank you, President Dillon and commissioners. Twenty twenty six A008, preliminary economic revitalization area resolution for TAG Midwest Properties LLC located at 82058215 And 8345 Georgetown Road, 4635 West 84th Street and 4925 West 86th Street Council District 1 Pike Township recommend approval of six years real real property tax abatement. Twenty twenty six A009 preliminary economic revitalization area resolution for TC Heartland LLC doing business as Heartland Food Products Group located at 82058215 and 8345 Georgetown Road, 4635 West 84th Street, and 4925 West 86th Street, Council District 1, Pike Township, recommend approval of six years personal property tax abatement. And lastly, we have 2026 P002 authorizing an appointment to the Platt Committee of the Metropolitan Development Commission. This ends the reading of the resolutions.

Thank you. We received in the pre meeting a very well done presentation as always by Katie Culp on the TAG Midwest properties and on TC Heartland. And also we had a discussion on the Plaque Committee new member. I'd like to take all three resolutions as one. Commissioner Robinson, can I get a motion to approve all three policy resolutions that do not stand for public hearing?

So moved.

Thank you. Commissioner Lyle, can I get a second? Second. Let me call the roll. Dylan,

yes. West. West, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Murphy. Murphy, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes. Hergot. Hergot, yes. Garver is a yes. All three pass, eight two zero. Moving forward. Nancy, can you read in the petitions of no appeal into the minutes, please?

Yes, thank you again, President Dillon and commissioners. Petitions of no appeal recommended for approval by the hearing examiner. 2026APP 002. 1733 Central Avenue Center Township Council District 13. 2025ZON134 at 1759 West Moore Street Center Township Council District 18. 2025ZON139 amended at 1055 And 1095 East 52nd Street, Oersterton Township Council District 7. This ends the reading of the no appeals docket recommended for approval by the hearing examiner.

Thank you. All three petitions of no appeal have been recommended from appeal excuse me, for approval. I like to take them all as one twenty twenty six APP two twenty twenty five z o n one three four twenty twenty five z o n one three nine. Commissioner Garver, can I get a motion to approve all three?

So moved.

Commissioner Herget, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll. Dylan is a yes. West. West, Schumacher. Schumacher. Yes. Robinson.

Robinson. Yes.

Murphy. Murphy, yes.

Lyle. Lyle. Yes. Hergot.

Hergot, yes. Garver.

Garver, yes.

All three passed by a count of eight two zero. Moving forward, we have today one public hearing. Nancy, can you read it into the record, please?

Yes, thank you again President Dillon and the commission. We have two petitions for public hearing, companion petitions recommended for approval by the hearing examiner, appeal filed by Remonstrator. 2025 CAP eight fifty six and 2025 CVR eight fifty six amended at 6,400, 6,449, 6,500, 6,559, 6,000 565, 666833 Kentucky Avenue And 67792479448002 And 8032 And 80 And 10 Camby Road. Decatur Township Council District twenty one. Property is zoned I two.

Petitioners Sabi Data Center Properties LLC by Mindy Westrick Brown requesting first a modification of commitments related to 2020 CZN August to add and modify commitments associated with the proposed data center use including details of a closed loop air cooled system, commitment to pay all related costs associated with the proposed substation and energy infrastructure for said data center, develop the site in accordance with the site plan and building elevations filed dated 12/29/2025, to provide for building heights of 30 feet for East Building A and 50 feet for West Building B to provide for sidewalks, outdoor amenities, loading docks, short term truck parking, landscaping, connection to sewers for various addresses on Camby Road, and dedication of public streets. Also requesting a variance of use of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a data center technology park not permitted and to provide for 200 parking spaces, minimum seven zero eight parking spaces or one parking space for each 1,500 square feet of floor space required. Also, a variance of development centers of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to permit structure height in excess of 50 feet but no more than 75 feet within the airspace secondary overlay due to parapets and roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairwell, stairways, air conditioning apparatus, cooling towers, ventilating fans, skylights, or similar equipment to operate and maintain the structure.

Maximum of 50 feet structures permitted. Lastly, conveyance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision owners to permit utility yards and outdoor operational areas exceeding 25% of the gross floor area of the principal buildings for Building A, maximum of 120%, and Building B, maximum of 160% due to operational and infrastructure requirements associated with proposed data center use, 25 of gross floor area permitted, and to allow utility yards and outdoor operational areas a minimum of 200 feet from a protected district, 500 feet required. Will all those intending to testify on these petitions well

Thank you, Nancy. I'll take it from here. Counselor Brown, would you have all the petitioners, witnesses line up behind you, please, to your left of the podium? Anyone who's gonna testify, please bring them up and line up single file behind you. To the left of the podium, Mindy.

Mindy, to the left of the podium.

Like, right here.

Correct. And Mindy, you'll be first. Pat, would you bring the individuals who are gonna testify for the demonstrators and line them up on the right side of the podium, please? Thank you very much. I'll start with the petitioners. Mindy, please introduce yourself and your address.

And just to be clear, mister president, these are all folks that will be available for questions. We have three primary speakers, but I assume you wanna get them.

I want anybody who's gonna testify to take the oath.

Perfect. Okay. So that

they're swearing to tell the truth. Yes. You're first. Okay. Name and address.

Mindy Westrick Brown, 300 North Meridian, Suite 2500, Indianapolis, Indiana 46

Nancy, please swear in.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do. I do. Thank

you. Who's next? Please introduce yourself and your address.

Ryan Beebout. 4405 Grant Road, East Wenatchee, Washington 98802. Nancy.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do. Thank you.

Next. Please introduce yourself and your address.

I'm Clete Casper. 12201 Tukwila International Boulevard, Suite 400, Seattle, Washington 98168.

Raise your right hand. Do you swear

or affirm that the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Please introduce yourself and your address.

John Hooker. 1828 North Meridian, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, say I do. Thank you.

Sir, introduce yourself and address.

Hello. Jerome Stanford. 771 Greenwood Springs Drive, Greenwood, Indiana 46143.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties perjury to tell the

truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do.

Thank you. Kara Anderson, 12201 Tukwila International Boulevard, Seattle, Washington 98105. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do. Thank you.

Next, please introduce yourself and your address.

Ross Nixon, 9025 River Road, Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240.

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do.

I do. Thank you.

Next, please. David Hall, 4981 North Franklin, Indianapolis, Indiana 46220.

Thank you, sir. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the the truth? Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Mark Leach. 600 East 96th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46240.

Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do.

I do. Thank you.

Ryan Cernerich, 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202.

Please raise. Do you swear or under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do. Thank you.

Doug Brown, 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.

Do you swear or affirm another penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do. Thank you.

Matt Kinghorn. 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47405.

Please, do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Greg Stowers, 193446202.

Please raise your right hand. Do you you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, say I do.

I do. Thank you.

Counselor Brown, you mentioned you had three primaries witnesses. Who are the three primary witnesses, please? I'm assuming you're gonna present.

I'm gonna present, and John Hooker and Jerome Stanford are going to join me in the first fifteen minutes.

Thank you. Pat. Please introduce yourself and your address.

Pat Andrews. 7631 Reynolds Road in Camby.

Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Thank you.

Loreen White, White Legal Services. 2629 Lindbergh Road, Anderson, Indiana.

Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Thank you.

Pat, you're only going with two remonstrators.

That's all we need.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All of the witnesses now have been sworn in under an oath that you've taken. I will now explain the rules of engagement as we go forward.

The petitioner has fifteen minutes to present your case. I then will go to the demonstrators. Pat, you will have fifteen minutes to prepare to present your case. I saw Josh Bang, counselor district twenty one come in. I'll ask counselor if he would like to make some comments and have him come up after the demonstrators are done, and then I will go to staff. After staff is complete in its entirety, I will then come back to the petitioner for five minutes rebuttal. And after that, I'll come to the demonstrators for five minutes of rebuttal. Counselor, you're on the clock. Go.

Thank you, mister president. Members of the commission, Mindy Westrick Brown, 300 North Meridian, Suite 2500. Today, I'm joined by Kara Anderson, Clete Casper, Ryan B. Bout with Sabie to answer all of your questions. Their bios are located in tab one of your large exhibit binder.

Sabie is a family owned business with six operational facilities and over twenty five years of experience in the data center colocation industry. Before you today is a request for a variance of use because data centers are an unlisted use in the zoning. We didn't think we needed a variance because we're bringing a technology use to a technology park. But in October, we were told by the administrator that we would need a variance. Before you is also a companion petition to modify the previous technology park commitments.

The new site is shown on the slide and those changes to the commitments. And also development standard variances that all relate to the data center use. We have robust commitments that address the demonstrators' concerns and are a product of months of work with the district counselor and members of the community. As you know, the hearing examiner recommended approval of our petitions. However, we've made some additional written commitments since the hearing to address community concerns.

There wasn't a day that went by that we weren't engaging with elected officials or community members over the last three weeks. You can see more about our robust outreach to the community in tab two of your binder. Also, in separate handout, which we call the appendix to this presentation, you will find correspondence offering a sit down with the McWarders, which we did not receive a response, and correspondence with Protect Decatur Township to which we also didn't receive a response after asking for their written questions. After working with Councilor Bain, we eliminated the need for airspace overlay variance by reducing the height of Building B. We are now committed to being no taller than 50 feet, including rooftop equipment for both buildings.

Second, we addressed environmental concerns in an effort to ease concerns. StructurePoint Engineering Environmental has an analysis in Tab 14 of your binder showing the overall environmental impact of this project is 92% less emissions than the previously approved technology park, which provides a significant benefit to the community. But even better news than the 92% reduction in emissions is that report was done before Seby reduced the total count of generators for this project, which are needed for backup power, and that reduction is 38 less generators, and it's also a significant reduction in the diesel fuel storage. We also have a commitment where we're adding diesel particulate filters or DPFs to each generator. Those DPFs collect 85% to 95% of particulates and sometimes even more on optimal conditions.

And remember, the generators are only running during power outages or limited testing times, which we've defined. Just new this morning, we're excited to have the support of a Decatur Township School Board member. The letter, I think, is on your desk. And we're also excited to have the support of a majority of the Decatur Township Advisory Board, including the member that represents this specific project location. And he wrote, and I'm gonna quote, I believe the impact of positive growth to our community will be a blessing by Seby that will never be achieved by the current direction in poor planning and development.

We need great neighbors that can change our current course and condition. Sebi intends to be that great neighbor here as they are in other communities around the country. You can look at tab 16 for quotes from local government officials in communities where Sabie operates. Next, I wanna start by walking through a series of important questions that we've been asked over the last few months. We recognize that some of the comments and form letters from the demonstrators were submitted early in the process before this proposal was amended.

And sometimes those were based on incomplete or misinformation. The revised plan before you today addresses those concerns. And we can start with energy. Under Tab three, which is an energy tab, there are comments from AES and a memo that highlights all the protections for existing customers. Sabie has committed to paying for the infrastructure, the generation, the transmission and the distribution associated with this data center project. And as the memo outlines, there are numerous checks and balances. We also have a will serve letter from AES. Next, we could talk about water. Sebi is using a closed loop system. It's non evaporative.

All water utilized by Sebi will be provided by a municipal provider. The developer will not use natural aquifers for supply. The city of Round Rock, which is just outside Austin, Texas, where Sebe has its newest facility, has confirmed the water usage is the equivalent of 15 homes annually. The closed loop has a leak detection system that can pick up even a drop of water. Next, we'll talk about sound and noise.

No data centers are the same. They don't serve the same purpose. They're not designed the same. So to address noise concerns, we've prohibited cryptocurrency mining on this project. The project has walls around the utility yards, large buffers at 200 feet, 14 foot tall berm and fences with double staggered evergreen trees 15 foot on center.

In Texas, I spoke to the Round Rock planning director who mentioned they'd been monitoring Sebe for low frequency noise because of social media questions, and they've found no issues surface to date. We're committed to being 65 decibels or less at the property line while the generators are running. I think it's been lost with a few demonstrators that that's not constant noise from the generators. The generators are backup if the center were to lose power. And with a transmission line running through the middle of the property in a brand new substation, we hope power outages are less.

For reference, a car is 70 decibels as you can see on the chart on the slide. And this property is surrounded on two of the three sides by busy roads. We have a traffic memo at tab seven showing 80% to 81% decrease in peak traffic, which will significantly reduce truck traffic noise. There'll be no entrance or exit off of Camby Road, and the generator testing is prohibited on the weekends, holidays, and after 5PM. To address environmental concerns, I've mentioned the new commitments around generators, but it's less generators, less fuel, diesel particulate filters.

And the study found we're 92% less emissions. We will abide by all federal, state and local regulations. More information can be found on tab 14, which shows the areas where Sebe has agreed to exceed the regulations for the benefit of the community. Round Rock has also tested Sebe's water and found that it did not even need to be pretreated. Next, we can talk about lighting.

We're using motion sensors. Lighting will be pointed downward and directed away from the neighbors. We've been asked about this location, and this question hits at the hardship for these variants. This request meets the criteria for our variants and is a perfect location for this project as outlined in the letter from pioneer of data centers local Indianapolis native Jack Carr in Tab 18 and a robust expert memo from a site selector with experience from River Ridge, IEDC and data centers around the country. That's found in Tab 21.

This site has electrical infrastructure, access to fiber, acreage and municipal infrastructure. Next, we can talk about property values. We worked with a professional licensed appraiser with experience as a former city planner. Unlike the remonstrators generic submissions, which were not from an appraiser, this appraiser visited the site, the area and reviewed the site plan and the specific commitments. His findings and analysis show the values of the residential properties surrounding the project will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner, meeting the second criterion in the findings.

His report and some rebuttal pieces to address the demonstrators' generic comments are found in Tab 8. There's also a recent report from George Mason University that matches the Integra report. We can next move to neighborhood views. There's a 14 foot berm and fence combination on the southern border of this and to the east with a double staggered row of evergreen trees. We have renderings that show beautiful aesthetic with plantings above the landscape ordinance.

We have a commitment to preserve the trees and only remove the trees that are necessary in the winter. The site plan is also has a much larger transitional yard at 200 feet, which is bigger than the technology park had proposed, pushing these beautifully designed buildings to the center of the site, which are also less total square footage than the previous approved project. The boards in front of me show the site plan, the renderings, and the difference in setbacks. And on the next slide, you can see a rendering from the Eastern property line. And here's a rendering from Camby Road.

The demonstrators have claimed that we are losing thousands of jobs for this project, but that's not an accurate picture. First, the owners of this property have been unable to bring the six to seven buildings currently approved for the site to life after more than five years. But more importantly, we pulled the previously approved abatement for this project, which requires only two fifty nine jobs at only $18 an hour. You can see that approved abatement for this project site at Tab nine. The IU Kelley School of Business report at Tab twenty shows the Sabey project is a much better project for the benefit of Decatur Township.

You can look at the slide for a breakdown on high wages, significant construction duration, and even great jobs during operation. That's significantly better for the township than $18 an hour. In addition to the IU report, there are other reports in the exhibit that show the job multiplier for these tech jobs provide a real benefit for Marion County and the state of Indiana. We are pleased to have union leadership here to say a few words.

Hi. I'm John Hooker. 1828 North Meridian, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202. I'm the president and executive director of the Central Indiana Building Trades Council. I proudly represent 35,000 men and women across the union construction industry here in Central Indiana. The construction jobs associated with a data center of this size are not temporary. Long term construction and maintenance is needed inside and outside these buildings. Sebe has a long history and partnership with unions. I visited the facility in Texas as well as as well and saw the constant partnership with the unions and the providing meaningful work for our members. This is a real opportunity and meaningful impact to skilled labor.

Jerome Stanford, political director with the Central Midwest Regional Council of Carpenters. I represent over 39,000 men and women over the region. We're aware of Sabie's partnership and workforce programs with skilled labor in schools, which fits well with our training facility on the South Side. We live and work in this community, and our 500 plus members that live in Decatur Township are excited about the project and impact it's going to have.

Thank you, John and Jerome, and all the men and women that are here today to support this project. And it's a good point. Hoosier workers are a requirement with the IEDC for data center projects. Details about that are in the energy memo on tab three. We've spent a significant amount of time engaging with nearby property owners.

For example, we met with the representatives of Daymar Services on multiple occasions over the last several discussions were constructive and open. And to date, Damar has not filed any objection to this project. Damar is doing great work in the community, and Sabian tends to be a good neighbor. On this next slide, you can see a view here from our property looking at the active train track across four lanes of highway near a substation in a tree line towards DeMar, which sits across the street from Ameriplex. The next slide.

Indy Chamber, StructurePoint, Integra Realty Resources, the unions, and SABEE all stand ready to answer any questions you may have. We'd like you to please incorporate everything listed on this slide into the record, plus the appendix that was given today, and we are in agreement with the staff report. This next slide shows some of our experts on file. This project represents one of the largest investments in the history of Indianapolis. For scale, this project is five times the investment of the Lucas Oil Stadium.

Just this morning, we received outreach from the neighborhood directly to the east, Camby Woods. And they asked if Sabie could help with grading, a basketball court, and a playground. And before the workday even started, Sabie responded to that call and said they were absolutely interested in being good neighbors to Camby Woods just as they are around the country. I wanna say thank you to staff for their thorough review of the file and providing comprehensive report that finds the criteria have been met. We respectfully ask for your favorable vote showing we've met the findings of fact for each variance, which is supported by staff, opinions from experts, and the hearing examiner's determination.

Thank you.

Time, counselor. Please stay at the podium. Questions for the petitioner from members of the commission. I have a question. Commissioner Murphy.

Counselor, one of the first slides, maybe the third or fourth slide you showed was a bar chart of decibel levels of various things. And is that in a tab in your six inch thick binder?

It is that chart is not in the binder.

Can you bring it back?

Yeah. It's tab it's slide 10.

Thank you. I have no other questions at this time.

Other questions, members of the commission? Councilor would you I'm sorry Commissioner West?

Thank you. Access to your job site is my question and the screening in the trees. At what point in the project will the screening in the trees be put in place?

Please introduce yourself again, please.

Clete Casper, 12201 Tukwila International Boulevard, Seattle, Washington. Our plan is to complete the site work as the initial phase of the project. And so 100% of the landscaping and related perimeter work, including the berms, will be done in the first phase of the project.

And thank you. Regarding access then in tab five on page four of eight, you're wanting to be in compliance with previous commitments. If I don't know what those are, does that involve staying off of Camby Road

Yeah.

And accessing only on Kentucky?

There will be no access on Camby for operation or construction.

And then on the ninth line where you say post construction, I think that's a description of what your traffic impacts will be. But it's not meant to say traffic will be restricted off of Canby Road only after construction. Is it? In other words, will we be staying off of Camby Road during the construction period entirely?

Yes. Yes. Okay. No access on Camby for construction or operation.

Okay. Thank you. Another question if I might. You talk about fiber wire that you're close to some big networks there. Yes.

There are projects envisioned immediately to the Northwest of you that the township in the past has been interested in high-tech customers, R and D, biotech, that kind of thing. Would they have direct access what is latency? Could you talk about latency, what that means? Do businesses like to be close to data centers? And can we attract them somehow with can we just give them an IO port or something direct in or would they tap into your superhighway there? How would that work?

Yes. So Tab 22 shows a current fiber map of the area, which shows fiber near the project. So you can look at that for reference. And your point on latency is absolutely correct. I think that's why we're seeing this attention in the Midwest as we've had significant growth of data centers on both of the coasts, latency, delivery and fast times to customers, whether in their health care space, financial institution space, universities, etcetera.

All of these tenants that may be tenants of Sabie have needs to be in the Midwest, and that's why they're excited about this project. As far as connectivity, I don't know if Ryan can answer that question for us.

Please introduce yourself.

Ryan Bebout with Sabee Data Centers. Yes, Commissioner West, so data centers represent a large demand for fiber, both long haul fiber as well as metro or regional local fiber. So what you see when a developer or when a data center builds is fiber carriers, telecom carriers will build in new routes over time. And those, you know, that's outside of our control. That's up to the carriers themselves, but certainly ourselves as well as our tenants are gonna need that fiber and they're we're likely gonna need more of it into the future.

So I would say that the more fiber that gets built, the easier it is to obtain services for local businesses.

One more thing if I might add on to that. Your question hits on there's a letter of support in one of these tabs from the Indiana Technology and Innovation Association. And I think that their letter of support hits on exactly what you're talking about. It's the tech community being excited about the future of Indianapolis and growing the tech and tech supporting tech. So, that letter may address some of your questions as well.

Commissioner West, any other questions? I'll ask mine while you're looking for yours. Can you go back to tab three, which was in your presentation on AES and just briefly repeat that.

Yeah. So AES, we have a will serve letter from AES. We also have a letter of support from AES. Tab three, also the President of AES visited Sebe Round Rock facility in Texas. She wrote a LinkedIn post and attached a mere article that that came out around her visit explaining what data centers are and her positive experience there.

House Enrolled Act 10 o seven is in your binder as well with a highlight talking about how large load customers need to protect other existing customers and the requirements in that legislation from last year. And then there's an energy memo in here as well, kind of walking through a bunch of the different checks and balances that that currently exist, whether they're in 10 o seven or IEDC's requirement for energy neutrality, which requires the data center to pay for their cost. We have our written commitment that we're paying for infrastructure, generation, transmission, and distribution with the project. It walks through the I r IURC protections, the governor's work in this, talks about MISO and how we're an interconnected grid. Killing this project doesn't kill the demand for the energy.

It just kills the the local economic development for for Indianapolis. And then the memo also walks through AES's IRP from this fall, which shows that data centers can have a benefit to existing customers.

Thank you. Commissioner West, did you come up with your question?

Yes. Yes. Thank you. I have a question probably falls under the banner of good neighbor. To the extent that we can attract other high-tech businesses nearby that ripple effect that you referred to, is there anything that can and I'll say commit, but with a small seed, not a big seed, not an actual commitment. But are there things that Sabee can do to help attract to whatever that might look like, whatever that's lines, hardware, marketing, those type of things to be a good neighbor in that way to the area?

Yes, I'll answer this and then maybe Cletor, somebody might have some additional examples. But the first thing that comes to mind for me is the new sub substation that SABE is going to put in on their site and give back to AES. That will have a huge benefit for the community. Everyone's going to benefit from new infrastructure, new electrical infrastructure that they don't have to pay for. And so updating the grid on Sabie's dime really benefits a lot of different people, and Cleat may have examples of other ways that they've worked with others around the country. Cleat?

I would just like to say that our investment profile is long term hold, that we are not a merchant builder that comes in and sells the property after completion. We have a commitment to long term investment. Again, that's in line with our union partnership. So our commitment long term to the community is to be a good neighbor, to participate in the community, whether it's through investment in roads, as Councilor Bain has constantly reminded that we need to do a better job of investing in immediate road improvements, we're committed to do that. We also commit on the charitable side and have had conversations with Daymar Services about how we might participate with them in the immediate community.

And the other thing we're very proud of is our ongoing vocational training and interaction at the high school levels to bring the current student population into the jobs of the future. And we think that that's very important to give people who are here locally, growing up in the community, a pathway to high-tech innovation jobs of the future. So I hope that answers your question.

Commissioner West? I think it does.

Thank you. So you're wanting to be present in the community, not just a fenced off thing that's unapproachable.

Absolutely. That's been their history. Tab 15 shows a McKinsey workforce development document and they've been partners with the local schools and other organizations around the country. So absolutely.

Yes, sir. Had a question. Commissioner Lyle. How many buildings are being approved or seeking approval today and is there any phase approach or schedule? I think we were seeing six proposed structures at one point. Yeah. And now we're only talking about buildings a and b. So that's part number one.

Yeah. So this board that's right in front of me here, you can see the difference. So so the site plan on top is the previously approved project that you can see there. It had two different site plans, one with six buildings and one with seven buildings. Ryan, can you go to the first slide, slide four?

So the modification of commitments takes that six to seven building option down to just six buildings, and you can see that on your screen here. For the data center site plan, that's two buildings, Building A and Building B. And as the the names might indicate, Building B is planned to be constructed first, and then Building B will follow after that.

Thank you for that. If the technology or market demand changes are there any plans for how to address those changes being that construction would take several years, technology is only expected to improve And with the shrinking of chips and that different kind of thing, kind of talk to me about Yeah. How technology's future projections for improving and shrinking correlate with the building being so large.

Yeah. So Kara is the chief design officer here. And so if I get this wrong, she can come up and correct me. But Sabie's designing these buildings for the future. They're they're not designing them for 2026.

They've been looking at plans. And so there's another benefit of being a colocation data center facility is there will be smaller data halls in each of the buildings. And so as needs change, those what goes into each data hall can change and adapt to it. And so you're exactly right, is fill the need for Building A and then assess Building B. But we have the known footprint of what Building B could Ryan's gonna come up and give you more. Yeah.

Thank you. And, counselor, also, building I I think I read this. You reduced the height of let me throw that in while we're talking with the buildings.

Excuse me. Thank you, president Dillon. That's actually my next question I was trying So

Building A is a one story building with a height max of 30 feet, and then it's capped at the rooftop equipment for Building B. Normally, you can have 25 feet for an elevator shaft or stairs or a parapet or rooftop equipment. We made an additional commitment to be no taller than 50 feet for Building A. So the building height will be 30 feet, no more than 20. We probably won't need the 20 feet for rooftop equipment, but it's there.

For Building B, the commitment stands. That previously was 50 feet, and you could have an additional 25 feet for rooftop equipment. We made a commitment after talking to councilor Bain and members of the community to be no taller than 50 feet, including that rooftop equipment. So Building B with the new renderings that are shown shows a still a two story building, but it could be a one story building. We just have committed that Building B and Building A will be no taller than 50 feet, including all the rooftop equipment on those buildings.

Thank you. Finish the answer to his question that I interrupted you.

Yes, it's Commissioner Lyall's question about technology changing. So going able going able we're sure energy each ship will consume. But besides that, in our twenty five years of operating history, our track record has many examples of adaptive reuse where a tenant might move out and we have somewhat outdated infrastructure and we commit capital to that to revitalize it, to bring it up to modern standards and to make it marketable again. So we've done that multiple times in our history. And at the end of the day, the infrastructure doesn't change that much.

The technology, the chips are changing, yes, but the electrical and cooling infrastructure just doesn't change that much and data center space is valuable. And whatever we build today is still going to be valuable and needed well into the future.

Okay. Thank you. And then the last one is about the retail village component that was previously in the mix. Can you tell me about why that was removed? What that was intended to do? And what is the proposal without that going forward?

Yes. Just unfortunately, that plan never came to fruition and it had an expiration as part of the commitments that had expired after five years. So it was clean up to remove that. The commitments currently allow for Building 2 to be expanded into that area if needed. And if that, you know, site plan were to to move forward, we'd work with the community and the the property owner to to figure out what that looks like.

And then lastly, being that this is such a hot button topic that in the present now as we go forward, if this goes forward into construction, what sort of interaction would you have back going forward in the phases to come with the municipal body about keeping in touch with what those technology changes, the infrastructure changes, the utility needs, the building size and scope have changed in say three years from now should this go forward?

Yeah, think we have document in here. Sabie's got a pretty great track record of kind of constant communication with the communities and and local governments that where they serve their six locations around the country. My visit to Texas and meeting with Round Rock local government staff, that was very apparent that they have ongoing relationships and are good neighbors and work well with the community.

Thank you.

Final questions for the petitioner?

I have a couple.

Commissioner Murphy.

Council, you one of your commitments is noise monitoring compliance with 65 decibel limit at property line. I think in your presentation you mentioned that that would be the maximum decibel limit even when the generators were running, right?

That's correct.

So what is the when emergency or backup generators are not running, what is the average decibel level reaching a property line?

We don't know that at this time. They have experience. There's an acoustical engineer that did a rebuttal document.

I read that, but I didn't see where he answered that question that I just asked.

Yeah. So we're the commitment is to be less than 65 decibels under all conditions at property line and that's for when the generators are running. So assuming less than that, but I don't have a specific number for you.

Can one of your development team members speak to what a typical decibel level is when generators aren't running for this type of data center?

I apologize, I don't have the exact number.

And I'm not looking for exact.

And I would just say that the decibel level will be around 50 as a normal operating. And our experience has been that in areas like this where you have Kentucky Avenue directly adjacent, that the traffic noise is considerably more than any noise that would be generated by our operations. But we can certainly have our acoustical engineer respond to your question.

Thank you. And then one more question for Councillor. You just stated that the retail component after five years never came to fruition. I assume that was because of lack of demand from retailers. Is that correct?

Yes. Just the entire project never got off the ground from what I understand.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions for the petitioner? Hearing none. Remonstrators, I'm gonna do the same thing for you, so stay calm.

All those who are here today in attendance, which we appreciate on both sides, quietly, if you are supporting the petitioner, please stand quietly so we can figure out. Thank you. Quietly be seated. Remonstrators, you'll be next. Pat, you're up.

It's you or Lori. Lori, you're gonna start. Please reintroduce yourself. It's the other. Thank you so much. Loreen White, White Legal Services, 2629 Lindbergh Road, Anderson, Indiana.

I represent Jan and Tim McWhirter, Decatur Township residents that will be directly affected by the proposed development of a phased development data center campus. Your granting of Sabie's request for a variance puts my client's health, safety, and property at risk. The five criteria you see on the screen are those that Sebe must demonstrate compliance with. As you will see as we review the briefing and exhibits provided today, these criteria have not been met by Sebe. And their petition for variance should be denied.

First, it's clear that the comprehensive plan does not anticipate the development of a data center in Decatur Township. The Pattern Book lays out use classification systems that guide the orderly development of the county and protect the character of neighborhoods. The Pattern Book is built around neighborhood typologies, which it defines as combinations of uses that work well together to create a thriving community. Here, Sabie's proposed data center creates an incompatible land use, which is shown by the numerous requirements needed to even move this proposal forward. The area where Sebi is proposing its data center build is defined as village mixed use.

Village mixed use is intended to strengthen small town centers. Businesses in these areas are meant to serve adjacent neighborhoods rather than the wider community. They're walkable spaces such as pocket parks and sidewalk cafes. The comprehensive plan also includes the land use maps. Land maps show that the parcel is labeled mixed use in a critical area.

A critical area is intended for mixed retail office and residential uses with housing as a priority. Data center is a single use industrial facility and does not contribute to the mixed use development envisioned for the site. The site also states that the area should create a destination that draws consumers and employees from outside the surrounding community, which a restricted use access data center does not do. While limiting light industrial uses may be allowed, the plan requires height transitions near residential areas, generally limiting buildings to 35 feet or 150% of the nearby residential height. Sabie's own material shows that the building heights would be 50 feet.

Sabie's 14 foot high mounding and landscaping and transition yards do little to stop the sights and sounds of this twenty four hour a day industrial complex. Overall, the proposed data center conflicts with the plan's core values of the mixed use development, housing integration and publicly active destination area. Sabie's request for proposed variances undeniably interest public health, safety morals and the general welfare of the community, and Saby's commitments do not eliminate these injuries. Saby's own plan shows how close this heavy industrial application with its air pollutants, noise and environmental contaminants is to neighboring residential properties. This project will be just 115 feet from my client's property line.

Sabies, berms and landscapes will not be able to mitigate the negative health and safety effects of this heavy industrial use. My clients will have injury to property and health if this project moves forward. The use and enjoyment of their property will be affected in a negative way. In the binder provided, you will find an NIH study on the auditory and nonauditory effects of noise, health effects ranging from cardiovascular disease risk factors such as increased blood pressure, risk of hypertension, and related severe events such as myocardial infarction and stroke, as well as effects on children's cognition, including communication difficulties, impaired attention, and consequences of sleep disturbance on performance. As shown in the studies attached, exposure to low frequency airborne pressure waves can cause cellular and tissue damage.

Low frequency tones have been found to interfere with daily activities, feelings, thoughts, sleep, rest, and might be accompanied by negative responses such as anger, displeasure, exhaustion, and stress related symptoms. Sabies claims that noise levels will not exceed 60 decibels at the property line, but as you can see in the NIH report provided in your binder, this far exceeds the levels known to be harmful to human health. Saby has not done a sound study or provided information that shows that its proposed 65 decibels is reasonable and safe. Sebe's plans show they'll use 122 tier diesel generators for emergency power, which they'll continue to test. These generators require that Sebe also place fuel storage tanks with a capacity of over a million gallons of diesel on-site.

When these gas generators are run, they emit a range of air pollutants listed on this slide. Fuel leaks, improper storage, and accidental spills of diesel can contaminate groundwater and soil. Long term exposure to nitrogen oxide and particulate matter has been linked to respiratory disease, cardiovascular problems, and cancer. Vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and those with preexisting conditions are particularly at risk. Sabie's application shows these generators will emit noise up to 65 decibels at the property line, a limit that NIH states is harmful to human health.

Sabie claims the water used is based on a closed loop cooling system that requires a one time water load. Closed loop systems require the operator add more chemicals to the water, including corrosion inhibitors, biocides and antifreeze. These chemical additives are particularly concerning in Decatur Township, where many residents in older homes are connected not to city water systems but the use of a water well. The chemicals listed above create an added concern for flooding and spills, which would directly soak into the ground and contaminate wells where many residents get their water for drinking, bathing and cooking. While Sabie has built several other data centers, they've never built one on this scale.

Sabie's prior data center builds are between one to 20 megawatts of power. Sabie's current proposal in this residential neighborhood is a hyperscale data center, which is over 200 times larger in scale than their typical data centers. Sabie's hyperscale data center is larger in size and capacity than any other in the Indianapolis districts. According to the Southern Environmental Law Center, prioritizing industrial users like data centers during peak demand could leave residential customers vulnerable, especially during extreme weather. SELSI states that this approach goes against the mission to focus on public welfare.

A two fifty megawatt data center consumes enough electricity to power roughly 200,000 to 250,000 U. Homes. Since data centers are often geographically concentrated, they can significantly strain power grids. The potential for fire at this hyperscale data center campus poses a real safety risk to homes adjacent to the site and numerous schools within one mile. This is a major concern for my clients as Sabey had a two alarm fire at their Round Rock, Texas facility on 03/22/2024, costing over $2,000,000 in damages.

The fire report lists a civilian injury as well as a release of chemicals due to the fire. Jason Holliday, the trustee for Decatur Township, shares the concerns about fire safety. He openly opposed the project, stating, If this request is approved, it would bring unprecedented public safety and environmental concerns to the township, such as unknown additives to the data center's water cooling system that could leak as well as the storage of a million gallons of diesel fuel, which, if ignited, requires special firefighting agents and delivery methods that the township's fire department does not already own. Physical threats to data centers are very real and can have catastrophic impacts. Data centers are considered potential high value targets for bombing and other forms of physical destruction due to their role as critical infrastructure.

Just this month, Iran began targeting data centers in The UAE for drone strikes. In 2021, a 28 year old Texas resident was charged with plotting to blow up an Amazon web based service facility in Ashburn, Virginia. Placing this data center in the middle of a residential neighborhood is both dangerous and negligent. The value of the area adjacent to this property will be substantially affected in an adverse manner. Mary McLinton Clay, an MAI damages appraiser, has conducted a number of damages studies regarding detrimental conditions related to development.

She has determined that though diminution in value varies, the result of a detrimental condition impact the property's utility. These types of industrial projects bring with them a decrease in the value of properties adjacent to them. Sebi intends to construct a substation on 10 acre site for additional electrical needs. The extensive land clearing and excavation activities required for the substation foundation create permanent changes to the land. The new substation will impact the area's aesthetic.

Transformer switches and high fences and new substation will detract from the character of the neighborhood. The effects will have a detrimental effect on property values. Incompatible uses impact the value of proximate properties to the extent that they are viewed in the market as a negative externality, as an externality is typically not considered to be economically curable under generally accepted appraisal theory and practice. Some of this loss in value may be attributed to stigma when there are unknowns and risks associated with ownership of the property. According to a Pew Research study published 03/12/2026, more Americans say data centers have negative effect on the environment, home energy costs and people's quality of life nearby than say have a positive effect.

This information only supports Clay's position that industrial applications such as this are considered detrimental conditions and will reduce the value of surrounding adjacent properties, including that of my clients. Once the lengthy construction begins, neighboring landowners' use and enjoyment of their homes will be disrupted. They will have claims for nuisance and negligence actions. Additionally, landowners will be able to file claims for their property value depreciation. Once the data center is up and running, the nuisance will only continue, which is hard to imagine in Decatur Township.

Data centers are not listed in the land use and zoning for Marion County. This does not constitute an unnecessary hardship. Instead, it shows that this type of industry does not belong in this location. The additional steps that the petitioner has undergone to simply bring this variance are proof that the data center is not an appropriate use in a light industrial zone and that it will have a detrimental effect on health and safety. The numbers that you see on the screen are the signatures from Decatur Township.

The petitioner submitted a list with hundreds of duplicate signatures, all from outside of the Decatur Township area. Here, you'll see a map of over 1,300 people who have signed a petition against the data center. Sabie uses the term technology park in their commitments in an attempt to manipulate this commission into believing that they are still building what was previously promised. However, in its application for variance, Sabie is requesting substantial changes, eliminating the retail village component and allowing for future i2 uses. The petitioner is changing berm heights and final landscaping.

Finally, they increased the square footage of buildings while providing no visual breaks. This development will impact adjacent landowners' use and enjoyment of their properties. SABE's own site plan shows that this development will rest less than 50 feet from neighboring homes. Petitioners urge or the demonstrators urge this commission to deny this proposal. There's also findings of fact in your binder as well to accompany this.

Thank you. Pat?

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Pat Andrews. I live at 7631 Reynolds Road in Camby. I'm here representing the Decatur Township Civic Council. On our February 4 meeting, we considered this petition and voted two to support and 95 to oppose.

I would say that this is the general trend in our township. Taking a walk around the neighborhood, this is the site where there is right now on the ground zoning for an R and D type of park. The very same type of park that governor Brown Brown just announced a billion dollar effort to attract to Indiana. We have a shovel ready parcel here. It is surrounded by homes and other special protected districts.

There are 221 residences in a one mile stretch or distance from this site. 2,221 families who can be affected by this data center. Taking numbers from the assessor's office, the aggregate investment, the average aggregate investment is about $450,000,000 These folks have a right to the the private use of their property. The the the the I'm sorry. I'm missing my words here.

They have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. They have a right to sustain their property values. The property value study that was commissioned by the petitioners is in tab four. Our rebuttal to that, it is terribly flawed. It is the worst study I've ever seen.

And if I have time, I'll get back to it. This is in the critical area, which does require, if this is developed industrial, that the building footprints be less than 200,000 feet, the building height less than 35 feet. We're on just tab three at this point. If we give up the zoning that's on the ground now, our community is denied thousands of jobs. And these are jobs in the targeted industries from the State of Indiana, from R and D to light manufacturing, and these are career jobs, thousands of permanent jobs.

In addition, we're talking about the modification of commitments. Staff had nothing to do with the commitments that are on the ground now, and yet, at this point, they take the unusual step of commenting on the removal or replacement of those commitments. The proposal before you is to create 75 permanent jobs. They need several commitments, two of which would not be needed if this was zoned I four. They also need a commitment a special exception in an I two that they have not applied for. We ask that you deny this petition.

Thank you, Pat. Members of the, commission, questions for demonstrators?

I have some. President Dillon.

Commissioner Murphy.

This is for miss White. Laurie. So you mentioned that diminution of value in property to your client? Correct. And in looking at your materials, I see a damage study theory and methodology, which I read kind of a generic kind of academic paper about that topic, but not specifically about this development or your clients piece of property.

And then following that there is a letter from a real estate broker, again kind of generally saying that these things can have a deleterious effect on the property value. But did you or your client engage a licensed real estate appraiser to do a before and after analysis of reduction in property value?

There's no specific damage study at this point. However, as soon as the data center begins to be built, my clients will have the opportunity to get that appraisal and to file suit.

Thank you.

Commissioner Murphy, other questions? Any other questions from members of the commission?

Yes, sir. Commissioner Lyle,

who would like?

For either, both, if you would like.

Pat, please come up.

Are there any specific protections or guarantees that would be able to sort of satisfy any of the conditions that you might have?

The issue is that this data center doesn't belong in the middle of a residential area for the impacts on health and peaceful enjoyment of property from noise, and also what I didn't get to, which I will get to, is that from Savvy's own data in Washington State, we know that these generators, the diesel combustion products, will have significant impacts on the health of the surrounding neighbors. Significant. So, this doesn't belong. Two fifty megawatts is really huge, not just new for Indianapolis. It's way up there from the size of data centers that we currently have.

This one is multiples of all the sum of all the data centers that we have right now. The commercial ones. So, it is not trivial that they want to put it here. It doesn't belong in the middle of all of these residences. Given the health effects from the noise which are scientifically proven and the issues surrounding aggravation of existing conditions with the the diesel combustion, and the rise in incidence of cancer that can happen because of diesel combustion.

In Washington State, they were required to notify everyone within a quarter of a mile of the effects on the health from diesel combustion. So, this is this desk does not belong here and what we have on the ground right now is for the very thing that Governor Braun is trying to entice here and as I said, it's shovel ready and the commitments are are put together with the neighbors in mind and the the generation of those jobs for our community. Thousands of jobs for Decatur Township. We need that stuff. To throw it away for something that's inappropriate in this spot.

It is it's not not the right way to go.

Thank So, just to maybe target a little bit more, if specific conditions were put in writing and enforceable to some degree or somehow, would that address the primary concerns that you are facing, that you're raising?

The let me let me just the issues of compatibility, I'm not sure can be negotiated away. The decibel level at the nearby residence would be helpful. It needs to be below 50 at night during the day. It could be a little more. The issue of the combustion of diesel fuel, I mean, for a half an hour of testing a month, I calculated that's like having 3,500 semis idling on the property.

That's the kind of diesel combustion that we're talking about here and I don't know that you can just move that away. I haven't seen any effort to bring that way down, way below what would cause cancer in the neighboring community.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Schumacher.

So, miss Andrews, the petitioner referred to diesel filtering that would

I would have to care

of this,

but you I would have to see the specifications of that. They certainly what they offered in Washington State, you know, did still generate three quarters of a mile away generated an increase of cancer incidence projected to be five point six in a million, which is just under what the state would allow. So, I would have to look into the specifications and the reputation of those approaches. But, again, they're seeking heavy industrial variances here. They can't put this in an I2.

They have attributes that are I4, the heaviest industrial we have. And those attributes are the very things that would impact the folks living around there. So,

this is

with the information I have right now, all I see is a word filter, and I would need to have a lot more information, but this is not the site. This we are forfeiting a ton of potential for our community and putting in place a hazard for our community. And so there are more appropriate places for something like this. And this just is not a fit.

Any other questions? Yes.

Question please.

Commissioner

West? Thank you. For you, Pat Andrews or Lori, regarding the land use or comp plan, would that be something that was a vision and then post dated by the industrial zoning? Is the zoning the law or is the comp plan is the vision? Okay.

If I got you right, the comprehensive plan calls for village mix use and some suburban neighborhood in this specific location. It was rezoned with the support of the Decatur Township Civic Council in 2020 to a technology park to bring in those thousands of of good paying jobs of of careers for for folks in the the township. So, at that point, the there was in the critical area text. It anticipated the potential for a light industrial use being put on that spot. If it goes in, though, the height needs to be down to be more congenial with the neighbors, or more compatible, if you will.

And let's see what the where is it? The height and oh, and the square footage of the buildings themselves should be less than 200,000 square feet. They're talking about 500,000 square footer and right now, they're talking about a total of over a million square feet on on two buildings.

Since it's thank you. Since it's zoned thank you. Industrial now. Mhmm. Is the term mixed use still applicable really for an industrial area?

Village mixed use has its own description, and the I2 is different than that description. But, again, in the critical area, it describes what should happen if it becomes a light industrial use. And that, again, limits the building's size, both height and footprint. And, it also calls, in the text of the critical area, it calls for this area to generate a diversity of economic development opportunities in Decatur Township. This will not do that.

75 jobs doesn't cut it. That's the critical area. The Texas in there and it applies to the zoning because on the ground now. So.

Okay, thank you. Another question please if I might. The project that terminates at its western boundary just north of this plot, the Greenway. The Greenway project the Greenway project which is directly north of this project.

I think you might have the wrong spot in mind.

No. I've got maps here. There's a there's a Greenway project. It's the Parkway through Decatur Township that was

the the extension of Miraplex Parkway.

Yes.

That's to the east.

It goes to the east. It terminates at Kentucky Avenue Mhmm. Just north of this Northeast. Project. And in fact, the land that is adjacent to this parcel is designated on that project as light industrial. If there is a ripple effect.

The comprehensive plan in this area, this broader area. Now, to go to the east and include where Ameriplex Parkway would be extended into the block south on the south side of Kentucky Avenue. Calls for village mixed use which can have components of commercial. It can have components of residential. There's a component that it should be a walkable area.

You know, that that tone of of residential development. So, that doesn't include industrial. It was the critical area that said in this spot, there could be a light industrial after five years past the adoption of the comp plan and that did happen. Light industrial in this spot did come in but again, the critical area went on to say, if you do do the light industrial, these are the facets that need to be considered and employed.

I have a map, and I guess I don't know how to insert it into the record. But let me just suffice it to ask please, if there's a ripple effect and Decatur is able to attract high-tech industry as they as was desired with the 2020 plan, would that bring the needed or desired jobs that the data center has said to displace?

The data centers attract data centers. That's the technology. They don't attract other types of technology. We're not so there's many many many types of jobs that are already planned for this ground. They're already zoned for in this ground.

They're already promised by this the zoning on this ground. The zoning that you all, well, not everybody on here but some of you on here in 2020 congratulated the community on. So, you know, and and we hold dear this possibility for our township and its residents and its future. But technology expecting technology from a data center is off. They only attract more data centers, because why they want to build here.

It's cheaper here. So, would be cheaper to connect the next one. So, it's not going to attract something to substitute for what we would lose if you approve this.

Thank you.

May I?

No, you may not. All questions, but do you have another question?

Oh, I'm sorry. I was gonna answer. He had asked both.

I'm sorry?

I was gonna answer. He had asked both of us.

I can't hear you, counselor.

He he had asked both of us about the light industrial application of the ground.

I thought Pat answered the question.

So you don't want hear my answer?

Well if you have a to the point answer, go ahead.

Strict application of the ordinance actually prohibits the use as it does not list a data center as permitted in the light industrial zone. The staff report provides that the ordinance does not expressly list data centers as a permitted use. So once again, the variance that they are requesting here is because data centers do not belong in light industrial zones.

Thank you, counselor. Any other questions or demonstrators?

I do, President Dillon. So Pat, just one little specificity on what you were saying about being shovel ready for a park. Are you talking about this site? Yes. The entire site?

Yes. Okay. Under 32 acres shovel ready for R and D, the targeted industries.

I got it. But my question on that is, how does a park create new jobs?

Oh, I'm sorry, a technology park.

Okay. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. It is is in the terms of the commitments, it should be called Decatur Technology Park.

I got it. Okay.

Other questions? That concludes the demonstrators' testimony. Quietly, with all the demonstrators who are here today supporting against this petition, stand quietly. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Next, counselor, district twenty one, counselor Bain.

Thank you, mister president. May be sworn in?

Do you swear or affirm that the penalties of perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do. Thank you. Dillon. Chancellor, welcome. Thank you. Thank you, president Dillon, members of the Metropolitan Development Commission. I I wanna begin by saying how much respect I have for the role each of you play in the rezoning process and the work you do for our city. Every time I've addressed this body in the past, I've usually started by saying something along the lines of, I'll be brief. Today, I won't mislead you with that. There are a lot of things that I wanna cover, and I'll do my best to take off fast and land quickly.

From the onset, I wanna be very clear about one thing. I would never support or even remain neutral on a petition if I believed there is real evidence that would harm my community. I wanna walk through a few things when I first learned about the project, what I did in the early stages of the process, the ways I worked to advocate for my community, one that my family helped establish and continue to serve to this very day. Finally, And some of the speculation and misinformation that has unfortunately spread on social media. I first heard about the possibility of a data center coming to Decatur Township sometime late last summer when representatives of SABE asked to meet with me.

From what I recall, there were no site drawings presented at that meeting, very few specifics were discussed. The one thing I do remember clearly is that the first thing they told me was quote, Josh, we're not going to ask you to sign any NDAs. That was a good thing because I wouldn't have signed one anyway. I also wanted to be clear in those early conversations that if this project move forward, I expected there to be an open house for the public before any official hearings occurred. I'm unaware of any other data center hosting an open house that early in the process.

Later in those discussions, Sabie indicated that they could pursue a modification of commitments rather than a full rezoning case that could ultimately be called down by the full city county council. On or around September 30, I contacted the Department of Metropolitan Development and asked that they be required to do a full rezoning petition instead. That ultimately didn't happen. Because of that, my formal role as a district councilor in this process was somewhat limited under the modification of commitments and variance process. Given that reality, I focused my efforts on securing as many protections and commitments for my community as possible.

There have been some vocal critics on social media who wish I hadn't have done that. I'm not entirely sure why. Perhaps they feared that improving the commitments on this petition might make the project more acceptable to the MDC or the residents in in the community by standby the work I've done. It started with the open house I asked Sabee to host last November. Honestly, feels like it happened years ago at this point.

As several news outlets reported, I stood at the doorway and greeted every single person who attended There were close to 400. I also had a printed survey they asked people to fill out as they left. I still have those survey results here and I go through them often. Unfortunately, that meeting became chaotic fairly quickly after a few very loud voices made it difficult for others to participate. Some of those individuals from what I understand were not even residents of Decatur Township.

That's fine. It was a public meeting. Anyone has the right to attend that, but it's worth noting. Despite that, I took the feedback from the surveys, which I later posted the survey online for more people to fill out and use it as a guiding force in advocating for the protections and commitments that are now existent in this petition. Since then, I've attended every public meeting on this topic in Decatur Township.

I've given out my personal cell phone number. I'm sure I may have missed some of them, but I responded to probably hundreds of calls, texts, and emails over the past months. And then asking for praise for that, that's simply the job of a counselor. For my previous day job, I actually worked for an energy nonprofit. So I had at least some familiarity with how data centers operate.

Because of that background, one of the very first commitments I asked for was to say we use a closed loop cooling system. That means the system is filled initially then recirculates the same water, does not consume millions of gallons of water a day as some have suggested. Once the system has its initial fill, it recirculates. I also ask for a commitment to say we be responsible for 100% of energy costs associated with this project, including any generation, infrastructure, and transmission improvements. No local ratepayer will be responsible for a dime of this project's energy costs, not a dime.

Someone tells you otherwise, they're either misinformed or intentionally spreading misinformation. Now I also wanna address something that's I know at least top of mind for me, many of my constituents, but also not just top of mind for people in Decatur Township but for families all across Indiana. That's utility rates. Energy costs matter. They're at the heart of household budgets and people are right to be paying attention to them.

But it's important that we look at real data from here in Indiana, not speculation online. Just recently, Indiana Michigan Power, arguably the second or third largest give or take a couple thousand households. Second or third largest utility here in the state. And they announced that they would be petitioning the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission for a rate decrease, not an increase. And they specifically credited large customers including data centers as the key reason why to quote directly from their February 24 press release, quote, at a time when many Hoosiers are worried about rising energy costs, Indiana Michigan Power announced today that it will file to reduce rates.

It goes on to say, this rate decrease is made possible by the load growth and increased revenue is experiencing from large customers including data centers. That's important for the public to understand. Regulated utilities have fixed costs, the infrastructure, the grid, the maintenance. They all have to be paid for regardless. When you bring in large users like data centers who are paying their own way, like this one and not every data center is the same, those fixed costs are spread across a larger base.

And when that happens, it can actually relieve pressure on residential ratepayers, not increase it. So again, this project is not shifting costs on the local families. If anything, the real world example we're seeing in Indiana shows the opposite can actually be true. Other commitments came directly from community feedback. For example, ensuring the previous rezoning commitment prohibiting access from Camby Road remains in place, ensuring that any generator testing be done between the hours of 7AM and 5PM on weekdays only and not on major holidays, requiring the facility to use municipal water rather than wells.

For residents on wells near this property, this project will have no impact on your well. I live close to this project myself, very close. My family is on a well. That well supplies water to my family. I would never do anything that would cause harm to my children, then I use that water to mix formula for my infants.

We also secured commitments addressing emergency scenarios. In the extremely rare case, this closed loop system has to be drained. That water would be hauled away from the site and properly disposed of, not just charged at the nearby waterways or the municipal sewer system. That's both the state requirement and spelled out as a commitment on this petition should that state law ever change. Another concern raised was whether a small modular nuclear reactor, sometimes referred to as an SMR, could be installed on this property to power the data center.

I asked Sebi directly for a commitment prohibiting that and they agreed. At one point, I even took a day off of work and traveled to Round Rock, Texas to tour the existing Sebi data center down there and meet with local officials. I asked them what their experience had been with Seby and what they wish they had known during their own rezoning process. From that visit came many additional commitments that are now part of this petition. For example, Seby would be responsible for conducting annual sound testing once the facility is operational and report the results to the city administrator as well to the district councilor.

All backup generators will be housed in insulated containers and also preservation of trees that are currently on the site. I know I have to be careful even when saying this, the next part because simply sharing what I experienced in Texas could even lead to some people accusing me of somehow being a shill for the data center. But I'm simply telling you what I observed. When I toured the facility, I didn't hear any constant didn't hear or feel any vibrations. Toured every square inch of that facility.

Asked them to even take me to the roof, into the utility yard, into the insulated containers where the generators are. I even asked them to run the backup generators while I was there. Once you step 25, twenty, twenty five feet outside the utility yard, I couldn't hear them. That's not advocacy. That's just me sharing my firsthand experience.

We also secured commitments requiring downward facing lighting and motion sensors to reduce light pollution for nearby property owners. Those aren't all commitments I thought of myself that come directly from residents. There are many additional commitments included in the petition. I know you probably read them so I won't go through every single one. We also spent considerable amount of time meeting directly with neighbors, HOAs and residents.

I worked with the petitioner to produce a visual renderings of what the site would actually look like once the burning and screening requirements are implemented. To many people's surprise, including my own, those renderings showed a vast majority of homes along Canby Road would not see the data center at all from their properties. There are a few locations where if you zoomed in real close, you might see a small corner of the building. But for most residents along Canby Road, facility will be completely screened from view. Again, that's not advocacy, that's just stating the facts.

I'd also like to address a few specific concerns that came up. First is Damar located north of this site across Kentucky Avenue. There are many claims online suggesting the project would negatively impact Damar and the individuals they serve. Because of that, I personally met with Damar leadership and helped coordinate a meeting between them and Sebe so that Daymar could ask them questions directly. I certainly won't speak on Daymar's behalf, but as of those conversations and to my knowledge still today, Daymar leadership has indicated they do not believe this project would have any negative impact on their residents.

In fact, they expressed frustration to me that some individuals were speaking on their behalf online and using them as a political talking point. Another concern I've heard relates to noise. From my research, the types of persistent noise issues sometimes associated with data centers typically occur at facilities used for cryptocurrency mining. This petition includes a commitment prohibiting cryptocurrency mining. Now I also want to acknowledge that there are some no win sort of concerns or situations around this project.

Heard from residents who oppose the project because it doesn't bring enough jobs. I've also heard from residents who support it precisely because it brings less traffic and less disruptions than other types of developments like the current tech park or single family homes. Some have said they prefer something else entirely, but the reality is the land is already zoned for significant development. Compared to the previous rezoning or the possibility of large scale residential subdivisions, many residents have told me they believe this proposal would have a smaller impact on traffic in their daily life. That's just the feedback I've heard.

There's also the fiscal side of this conversation. Today, that land produces roughly $16,000 a year in property taxes. 130 acres, 16,000 a year. With this project, that number would increase to $22,000,000 annually. This at a time when our school district is gearing up for another referendum next year and our fire department is working to figure out how they will pay for a new fire station.

At a recent Civic Council meeting, our trustee even mentioned doing a referendum to pay for that. Now I know today's hearing is not about tax abatements but it would be disingenuous for me to not at least acknowledge that conversation given how many people came here today. I have not had extensive discussions on that topic yet, but my position is simple. If any tax abatement were to occur, then that revenue generated from this project has to stay in Decatur Township. To explain briefly, the project generates $22,000,000 in taxes.

Those funds will go through a formula and the city share goes directly into the general fund. That formula also distributes that to our school, our civil township government and libraries, our county health and hospital corporation often just referred to as Eskenazi Hospital. But if for example, there were 50% tax abatement as AV has mentioned a few times in their public discussions indicator, the project would still generate $11,000,000 a year and the district councilor would have significantly more ability to advocate for where those dollars go than if it just goes directly into the general fund. Some say there should never be a tax abatement and they shouldn't have to pay their fair share in taxes. As a very limited government conservative, that tugs at my heartstrings and why my default position has always been no on tax abatements unless someone can show me how the impacted community could benefit from one.

That's how I approach this development as well. The constant phrase I hear is that, businesses should always have to pay their fair share in taxes like I do. But I don't know about anyone else but I take every tax deduction I can, including a homestead tax deduction that allows me to write off 60% of my home's value on property taxes. That's a deduction anyone with a mortgage can take. That's a conversation we can have later depending on the outcome of this hearing.

Finally, want to say something about the broader tone surrounding this petition and data centers around the state. There's been a tremendous amount of misinformation online. Social media today is full of truths, speculation, even deep fake videos. If people truly want accurate information around projects like this, social media is often the worst place to find it. Even more troubling has been the escalation of rhetoric.

There have been threats of political violence including a pipe bomb threat against me, death threats directed at the petitioner's attorney. Please know that the only people responsible for those threats and violent actions are those that make them. But when fringe groups like More Perfect Union and Citizens Action Coalition and who at CAC I have many friends that work there and they know this isn't directed at them personally. But when you keep stoking up unfounded claims and ginning up fear of a data center like this one, you can't be surprised with the outcome. Maybe they want that kind of outcome, but organizations like that need help with lowering the temperature.

It also discourages good people from stepping forward to serve. For many years, I've heard from people in the district that we need more individuals with ties to the Gator Township serving on boards and commissions. I agree with that. Which is why when the position on this commission became available, arguably the most important board in our city, I worked with my Republican caucus on the council to appoint someone who has been a long time resident indicator, a small business owner, and a community volunteer. Fortunately, because he had previously supported my campaign, some individuals have now attempted to drag his family business through the mud because of it.

If we want good people to serve, we can't treat them like that when they simply support candidates we disagree with. We can't be part of a society where we're only friends with or work with people if they agree with us politically. So I'll close the same way I begin. Mister president and members of the commission, I would never support or remain neutral on a project if I believed it would harm my community or if I'd ever seen even a shred of evidence that it would. I've spent months listening to residents, asking difficult questions, traveling to see these facilities first hands, and negotiating commitments designed to protect the people I represent.

To those that oppose this project and have sent me your feedback, I say thank you. I've done my best to read every email that you've sent me. Thank you for taking time to reach out to me, express your concerns. Your monsters to this project has made it significantly better and has had a positive impact on our community. Directly to the opposition, I'm sorry if I've let you down. In some way, I hope you can see that my attentions throughout this entire process have been pure. May not always agree on the best way to approach it, but I want you to know I've done my best to advocate for our community with a pure heart. Thank you for your time and God bless.

Counselor, thank you for being here. Are there any questions for counselor Bain? Excellent presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's enough. That's enough, please. Thank you. Bryce, you're on. Staff.

Thank you, president Dillon and members of the commission. Bryce Patz, administrator of current planning. Before you, we have a companion petition that's presenting two primary requests. The first is a modification of existing commitments that were approved through the zoning petition twenty twenty CZN eight thirty four, which was a rezone petition to the subject site to I2 with commitments that was approved by the Metropolitan Development Commission in December 2020 and certified by City County Council in January 2021. The second request that's being presented is a variance of use to allow for a data center technology park, which is not listed in the D Re Zone.

There's associated variances of development standards tied specifically to that proposed variance of use. And if that variance of use is not approved today, those variances would not be applicable. At the top of the staff agenda, our staff report, we've added an addendum to help clarify updated documents that were submitted by the petitioner. First is that there is an appeal to the hearing examiner's recommendation that was filed timely and properly on 02/27/2026. Therefore, the modifications of existing commitments and the variance of use is before the commission today.

Secondly, there's a clarification on the modification of existing commitments. Within the staff report, there's additional principal changes that were indicated that would occur if the variance of use is approved. In the addendum, we made clarifying statements to show what the actual modification of existing commitments are today. That is Exhibit K in the staff report, which was also provided to the hearing examiner on February 26 for her review. Also in the addendum, we listed there is an updated plan of operation that was submitted on 03/11/2026.

This updated plan of operations reflects the reduction of overall numbers of generators, specification commitments that was proposed as well as a scaled time frame of when generators be brought online. On 03/11/2026, there was a formal withdrawal for one of the variance requests of development standards for building heights over 50 feet with an airspace overlay. So moving forward today, that variance of development standards is not before you for request. Due to the update of the plan of operation and the reduction of the variance of development standards, there's an updated finding of facts for both the variance of use and development standards that were submitted on 03/11/2026, which reflects these two updated documents. And then lastly in the addendum, due to an additional exhibit now labeled Exhibit A, the addendum provides clarity on the exhibit labels throughout the staff report.

Next, I would like to talk about the modification of existing commitments. As indicated in the addendum, there are principal changes that are being proposed. First is the removal of an alternative site plan, so there would be one site plan tied to that development. There would be a removal of the retail village component and it would allow for the southwest corner of the property to develop uses. However, to be clear, there is retention of the transitional yard buffering as well as berms and evergreen plantings and retention of sidewalk commitments and right of way dedications.

Staff finds that the modifications simplify the administration of the existing commitments to have one single site plan while retaining the protections in the current commitments and staff sees no objections to those proposed modifications. Secondly, for the variance of use, I would like to briefly walk through what staff's framework was to evaluate this variance of use. First, under Indy Rezone Section seven forty three-two 100, there is a provision that if an unlisted use is identified, a petitioner can request an administrator's interpretation for that use. In October 2025, the administrator during that time issued a formal interpretation concluding that data centers are not listed in the D. Rezone and due to this the petitioner has two options.

First is to rezone to a CS or seek a variance of use. For you today the petitioner chose to do variance of use. With variance of uses, just like any other variance, staff reviews the state code on whether the proposal meets the threshold for that relief. As indicated, the proposed development consists of two data center buildings associated with utility outdoor operational yards, cooling infrastructures, generators, stormwater ponds and reserved acreage for utility substation. Operationally, the property is functioning as a campus similar to a light industrial or technology park with large buildings, limited employees, controlled access and substantial utility infrastructure.

STEF has proposed enforceable commitments that directly regulate the operations of a data center, which include a minimum of 200 foot transitional yard on the south and east sides of the subject site, a minimum of eight foot berms with double staggered evergreen plantings and fencing, a requirement that a noise sound study be submitted to the administrator prior to IPL has been issued to determine that 65 decibel noise limit will be at the property line. There's additional commitments of no generator testing between 5PM and 7AM. There's additional commitments of 10 foot screening walls around the utility yards per I2 development standards and that a closed loop air cooling system be part of this development. The petitioner throughout the process have added additional commitments that are made through the community process and as listed in the staff report. These commitments directly regulate the noise, screening, lighting, traffic and operations of this use.

Staff finds that as proposed with the commitments, the use does not create impacts beyond what is contemplated in I-two zoning districts And those commitments further regulate the use of a data center. Looking further into the criteria of variance of use, looking at the hardship test there, The strict application of India rezone would prohibit the use solely because it's not listed. Furthermore, the use or the issue is not created by the petitioner or staff but rather technological advancements of this type of use. This is not to imply that the terminology of a data center did not exist, but rather in terms of zoning, there was no contemplation of the size and scale of data centers to degree of what we're seeing presented today. Staff finds that the hardship arises from the absence of the listed use classification and development standards, not necessarily from the petitioner's actions.

For the comp plan, the property is currently zoned I-two and was rezoned in 2022 I-two with commitments. The variance does not create a new zoning district with this process and it continues to develop as an industrial campus consistent with prior zoning approvals and I-two development standards. Staff finds that the use does not materially conflict with the comprehensive plan beyond what was already previously approved by this commission and City County Council. For the associated variances of development standards, one of those is reduction of parking. The petitioner has indicated 200 parking spots are proposed where over 700 would be required.

Per the plan of operations, the proposed data center technology park would operate to with a reduction of staffing and traffic use. Reducing of the parking would decrease impervious services, runoff and unnecessary paving, and staff does not have objection to this reduction of parking. For the utility yards and outdoor operations, as currently proposed, the outdoor operational yards exceed 25% of the gross floor area for each building. For the plan of operations, these areas hold the emergency and redundancy required through the generators, cooling system and water storage tanks and generators. The triangular configuration of the site with stormwater ponds transmission easements as well as the dedicated acreage for the utility substation does provide some limitations on where development could occur and staff finds that deviation reflects the functional operation requirements as well as the commitments that we've made.

With that, staff is recommending approval of the modifications of commitments, variance of use and associated development standards subject to the proposed commitments, submitted site plans and plan of operation that was filed on 03/11/2026. I also want to indicate that with this petition, we've received a lot of communication and correspondence from the community. From emails, I have over 400 emails for this petition that we have cataloged and provide to you in advance. We've also received letters of support and emails of support which we also provided to you in advance. There were two documents that we did print off and provide to you as well.

The first one is from Protect Decatur Township. There was an update to their petition that they have been collecting and so you have before you from signatures that were collected per their email from 02/18/2026 where an additional 64 signatures were provided to that petition. There was also submitted this morning and presented to you as well. There is a letter of support that was submitted from the Indy Economic Development and that letter indicated that there was an interest for a representative from IEDI to speak on this. I don't know if or when that would be most appropriate view. President Dillon.

Councilor Brown has just stood up. Would you please come to the podium? Please introduce yourself and your position.

Thank you, mister president. Doug Brown, 111 Monument Circle, Indianapolis 46204. It is my privilege to serve as outside general counsel to India Economic Development Inc, which asked me to come read this letter on their behalf today. It stated yesterday, states the following, Dear esteemed commissioners, India Economic Development Inc. Is responsible for attracting high growth, long term businesses and industries to the city of Indianapolis.

Our work focuses on strengthening the city's tax base, supporting the creation of high paying and future resilient jobs and building a best in class economic ecosystem while ensuring that communities directly benefit from the growth occurring around them. As part of our standard process, we evaluate each project across a range of factors, including its economic impact, infrastructure demands, workforce implications and alignment with target industries. This due diligence occurs as projects seek to confirm their land use status. We respect this process and are prepared to provide a comprehensive and well researched assessment in partnership with the Department of Metropolitan Development should a project move forward in pursuit of city incentives. In the case of Sebe Data Center project, IDI has conducted preliminary evaluations of anticipated tax benefits, utility and infrastructure impacts, workforce considerations, projected community benefits and alignment with city and state incentive criteria.

This has also included a site visit to a comparable facility built and operated by Sebi. Based on this initial evaluation of the company, meeting these economic development standards, IDI has issued preliminary terms with estimates currently being refined. Throughout the due diligence process, the company has demonstrated responsiveness and a willingness to engage constructively. Should this project move forward, these terms will be shared and considered through the standard public approval process. IEDCs or IEDI's decision to extend an incentive offer was based on several key factors: one, a high projected assessed value resulting in significant potential increase in tax revenue of the site two, strong project viability supported by substantial financial investment and access to near term power resources.

Three, a corporate approach focused on harnessing current industrial or commerce focused sites. Four, a commitment to utilizing a local workforce and providing high wages. Five, a commitment to covering all related infrastructure project costs, including power costs. Six, a demonstrated commitment to meet and discuss the project with city and township stakeholders. And seven, a commitment to meeting and exceeding inclusivity standards for community projects.

As always, the granting of incentives remains contingent upon the approval of appropriate land use designations. As the development process continues, IEDI looks forward to participating in the Metropolitan Development Commission incentive review process, where additional information will be shared and discussed. We remain committed to working closely with our city partners to ensure that any company receiving city support makes good on its commitments in a way that is measurable, enforceable and beneficial to the surrounding community. We look forward to continued engagement with the community, project stakeholders and city leadership as this project advances, Respectfully, in the Economic Development Inc.

Thank you, counsel. Stay close. Thank you. Questions for staff?

Sir. Commissioner Lyle. Thank you very much, president Dillon. Can you clarify what the incentives are?

What I can do is speak for from the SAP perspective. What we do is we look at the land use petition itself. So, as a planner, we're not involved with the incentive component. Our job is to be unbiased and take what the petition is asking, run that against our zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan to provide our recommendation. So beyond that component, staff doesn't see from a planner perspective what those incentives are.

Thank you.

Other questions for staff?

Yes, sir. Commissioner Lyle. Does the ordinance distinguish between different intensities of I2 uses or are all uses within that district kind of treated similarly regardless of scale or infrastructure demand?

Thank you for that. In terms of uses that are allowable in I2, general framework is that those uses would generally fall into the same way to regulate. So we have following development standards that go with those uses in I2 and so that is the mindset when we add any new uses to any zoning district those are the frameworks that we look at.

Okay. Separately, can you walk us through how staff evaluated the injury to adjacent properties at the standard in this particular case?

Yes. This is for the variance of use. So what we do is, again, we look at how can you regulate that use. That's for any type of use that comes through from a car dealership to this high level. And so is there a way to regulate either through the development standards or commitments that would reduce the impact and if that's where we would find that analysis to where it could be supportive. If there's no sort of regulation or commitments that could impose on that use, that would be where we would take that stance of it would be not supportable.

Okay. And then finally, can you clarify whether the staff recommendation is based on like specifically on compliance with the zoning ordinance or does it also incorporate any sort of qualitative impacts like long term community compatibility?

Thank you for that. So, the in terms of what we do and look for the, let's say, variance of use, we look at strictly what is provided to us for that petition. And then we look towards first step is our zoning ordinance. So because it's not a listed use, but the direction was a variance of use is allowable, it's a vehicle. Next what we do is look at I2 and those uses and development standards.

And so from there that's where we look at in terms of what is compatible in terms of can this scale be occurring in i2. And we found that, yes, based off of those uses, a building structure of that size could occur in i2. So those development standards could apply. And then what next step is what we do is we look at past land use petitions. So what has occurred on the site in the past either through those commitments or previous testimonies to where that would help guide whether or not that this proposal can move forward if it goes against any of those development standards.

And then lastly, we use the comprehensive plan, which is in a visionary document that helps provide direction long term for for development. So, as a planner, that's what we do. We take a look at very comprehensively those components to meet to our recommendation.

Thank you.

Other questions from staff?

I have a question. President Dillon. Commissioner Murphy. In the Councilor White's materials and remonstrance, One of the statements, it's on page 19 says, this singling out of a small parcel of land for a use classification different from the surrounding area is the very definition of spot zoning. But correct me if I'm wrong, this isn't being rezoned.

Yes, thank you. No, this is not being a rezone. This is a variance of use.

And therefore it couldn't fall under the definition of spot zoning because it's not being rezoned?

In this context, yes. This would not be a spot rezoning because we're not rezoning to a different district.

Thank you.

Final questions for staff? Hearing none. Petitioner, you have five minutes on the clock for rebuttal, and then I will go to Pat to you for five minutes for rebuttal for demonstrators.

Thank you, members of the commission. We appreciate the work of the district councilor and the over 450 supporters of this project that fought through the noise to understand the project, get their questions answered, and understand how meaningful the commitments are. Sabi and its team have submitted an extraordinary amount of independent expert analysis that's site specific, which includes environmental impacts, land use compatibility, infrastructure, acoustics, and economic impact showing we've met the criteria. Our over 18 pages of findings of fact in tab five and the four inch exhibit binder overwhelmingly show we meet the criteria. There is no way I have time to go through each of these in detail, but we've shown we're not injurious with site specific expert opinions.

We've shown we will not affect the property values in a substantially adverse manner with expert opinions specific for this site. We've shown the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property with the substation across the street, the transmission line through the property, near fiber connectivity, the location, the acreage for buffering, etcetera. We've shown the strict application for the zoning ordinance creates an unusual and unnecessary hardship because datas are an unlisted use in every zoning district, and without relief, we're unable to bring a technology use to a technology park. We've shown the variance does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan for many reasons, including the fact that the MDC previously rezoned this property to I 2 showing that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan at that time, and that decision was not appealed. The I two zone rezone also happened after the comprehensive plan was approved.

The critical area also repr recommends some light industrial uses and has a goal of increasing economic diversity, which the IU report found this project will absolutely do. We've shown a practical difficulty exists because there are no feasible alternatives to achieve the goal of a data center. My review here is not meant to be exhaustive. The planning staff has reviewed the evidence and found we met the criteria. The hearing examiner reviewed the evidence and found we met the criteria.

And the record reflects months of analysis, public meetings, community engagement, and transparency. We were answering emails and adding to the site specific website all the way up to this hearing, and that's exactly how this process is supposed to work. We've seen statements suggesting this project will harm public health, contaminate water, and endanger the community. Those claims have all been carefully reviewed and directly addressed with independent experts in this record. This is a less intense use.

The structure point memo shows 92% less admissions, and the the numbers the demonstrators gave during their testimony are are incorrect. We've addressed the statement on jobs. This project is much better than the previously approved 259 jobs at just $18 an hour. The land was rezoned to I two in 2021. This project has 80% less truck traffic at peaks. We've addressed the question on noise. Sabie operates six facilities around the country. They know their designs and operation. Operation. They have good relationships with local government.

The fire in Austin was an isolated construction fire. It was not a data center fire, and that type of battery is not used anymore. There isn't a single issue that I can think of that we haven't addressed or mitigated. And, again, we appreciate all the hard work of councilor Bain and the community members that dug in to provide meaningful commitments. We appreciate the unions, elected officials, the Indy Chamber, the tech community, Hoosier workers, and neighbors in Decatur who stand ready to be partners in this project.

This site is already zoned industrial technology park, and denial would not eliminate development. It simply opens the door for other development that could have higher traffic, greater emissions, and more intense industrial activity. Considering the record of this petition, which includes the staff report, the hearing examiner's recommendation, and extensive expert analysis, it demonstrates that the criteria have satisfied, and this project will bring significant long term benefits to the community. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your approval. All of our experts stand ready to answer any questions that you have. Thank you so much.

Final questions for the petitioner?

Yes, president Dillon.

Commissioner Schumacher, are you ready to go? I'll come back to you.

Great.

Councilor, if if if a vote goes your way today, does this project go forward if if you don't get the city tax abatements?

We are working with IEDI on the tax abatement process and it's to be determined. But I can tell you that we are committed to this project and the billions of dollars that we will bring to the project. The answer is yes.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, you've been very professional to this point. Stay there. Other questions? Commissioner Lyle.

Yeah. One, I think, quick one. Can you maybe articulate if any portion of the infrastructure required for this project, be it electricity generation, transmission, distribution will sort of ultimately be borne by taxpayers or residences nearby at any point?

No. The commitment talks about infrastructure, generation, transmission and distribution. So I can't think of a single bucket that's outside of those four areas that would be borne by customers.

Can you imagine a scenario where with the impending AES BlackRock situation that that may or may not change in the future? Are there any commitments or teeth in that proposal for that possibility going forward?

Yeah. That's a that's a great question. We actually had that come up just on March 11. We received a question from staff after they received an inquiry about that. And we made a commitment right on the spot that we would update our written commitment language. So the language now reads that it is a commitment with the local electric utility. And so that is very clear from a legal perspective that that would be whoever serves Indianapolis.

Okay. And then lastly, on building height, has the Sabie team referenced the Neighborhoods Pattern Book at all to see kind of what the standard bearing situation is there and how the project may be oppositional to that?

Yes. We actually did a pretty thorough review of that. It's in tab five. Again, mentioned our findings factor over 18 pages long, and there's a lot of legal research in there talking about the alignment with the with the comp plan. So the comp plan recommendation happened first.

What followed was the recommendation for the rezone. And as part of the legal guidelines for that rezone to happen, there has to be compatibility with the comp plan that is found. And so that rezone happened after the recommendation. And then that decision was not appealed. So that decision stands and is in good good legal standing that the MDC found compatibility with the comp plan at that time.

And then this site is currently zoned I two. And as I mentioned, there are other I two uses. The data center variance is we're here because it's not a listed use anywhere in the in the code. We also looked at the critical overlay, which calls for some light industrial uses, and then the economic impact, which is thoroughly reviewed in that IU, Kelly School of Business report as well. So we do think it the commitment is that it can't interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan, and we've done a thorough review of that and believe that we meet the criteria.

Sure. I I was more questioning about the pattern book that was illustrated by the remonstrants earlier. Being that the community has organized to the point to have a pattern book at all, I think would be pretty incumbent to to review refer to that. And in the quest of wanting to be a good neighbor to make sure that there is some parallel to what is being requested to what's already been sort of asked for.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Final questions for the petitioner? Thank you. Pat, five minutes rebuttal for the demonstrators.

Thanks. Okay. A couple of quick comments, please. Compatibility is an important issue. It's a central issue here.

They are asking for variances for heavy industrial development standards. That is not compatible with light industrial. The Round Rock facility that has been mentioned a couple of times today, they have one building up. If it is at complete capacity, it is all of 30 megawatts, one eighth the size of what we're discussing today. I think that should be considered in there.

And thirdly, the generators that they are proposing to use put the chimney smokestacks of the diesel exhaust 22 feet in the air. Are noises coming from HVAC systems and fans on the roofs, stuff on the ground. There's a huge section where power towers do go through that cannot have a berm. So, these things on the ground need to be recognized in the evaluation. Let's see here.

I'm going to scroll through here. I need to point this out in graphic form. Uh-oh. There we go. In 2020, SABE applied for 25 additional net generators of lower power than they proposed here in Quincy, Washington.

Washington State required them to do a modeling on the health effects of that diesel combustion, which is known scientifically to be a hazard to health, exacerbating certain health conditions like asthma and COPD, and the worst case being actually promoting cancer because of the particulates that are part of the combustion smoke. They asked for a power of 58 megawatts in generator power. I will amend this. I was doing quick math in my seat. The four thirty four is for the 120, and they've reduced that.

So, that would be two sixty megawatts being proposed today, instead of 58. Their study found that at the 58 megawatts in Quincy, that it would increase the cancer rate at three quarters of a mile by five point six in a million. Washington State only allows them to go to 10. Quick math again on the other side. That would be extrapolated in this spot to an increased cancer incidence of twenty eight in a million.

That is twice or three times the level that would be allowed in Washington State. Here is the plume. It is was it 3.6 miles wide at the top? It's 7.3 miles deep. It extends well into Morgan County, and it just hits into Hendricks County, the interchange of I-seventy and Ameriplex Parkway.

They were required to notify folks who lived within a quarter of a mile of the effects of diesel combustion. And that is the orange square, a quarter of a mile from this site. The green one is three quarters of a mile where that incidence of cancer was modeled. What is the incidence of cancer at this site with this level of generator power in this community? It does not belong.

They cannot say that they will not harm the health and welfare of my community. They cannot prove that in their findings of fact. The fact that they were offered a variance of use on 132 acres that would totally subsume zoning on the ground with one use is essentially being rezoned. We have been denied our right to go to the city council and have a hearing there. This site is shovel ready for what the state is looking to entice to our area.

And one more quick thing I have to say, I keep running into this and I do not understand it. Property taxes don't work this way. They pay $22,000,000 or $100,000,000 in property taxes. It doesn't add a penny to any taxing unit's levy. It decreases the rate.

With the rate caps, the only people who are going to see a benefit from their investment is going to be industrial and commercial properties. It won't be the homeowners nearby who are now going to have to fight properties. And their property I'm running out. Please stand if you oppose this. There are over 1,300 people who signed a petition. Our Township Trustee and the district person and our board opposes this. We all ask you do the right thing here today. It doesn't belong here.

Thank you for your rebuttal.

Thank you.

Final questions for the demonstrators. Thank you. Couple comments. For the record, to the demonstrators, thank you for being here today. Thank you for your professional conduct.

To the to the petitioners, I also thank you for being here today and your professional conduct. We understand clearly this is a difficult situation. For the record, I have traveled to Southern Indiana and I have visited from a educational standpoint a data center that is being built. I've also toured a data center in Central Indiana that is already operating so I could get a feel for the issues of concern. The MDC commission has heard and reviewed the issues of concern by the remonstrators.

The MDC commission has heard and reviewed the petitions and commitments and reviewed the expert testimony documents on the issue. The MDC has read and heard the position of the DMD staff. Thank you all for your hard work. Commissioners, you have two ballots. Go to your ballots, please.

A yes passes the petition. A no defeats the petition.

Thank you for your patience. For 2025, CAP eight fifty six Sabee Data Center PropertiesLL6. There were eight ballots cast. There were seven yes votes and one no vote. For 2025 CVR eight fifty six amended, Sebe Data Centers Properties LLC. There were eight ballots cast. There were six yes votes and two no votes. Both petitions have been approved.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We are now adjourned.