Metropolitan Development Commission - Regular Meeting

Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention, please? The Metropolitan Development Commission public meeting of 04/01/2026 will now come to order. Would all rise and join me with the pledge of allegiance? Ladies and gentlemen, we will be running a professional, polite, factual meeting today. Your cooperation is appreciated moving forward.

On our first on our agenda is a review of the minutes from the 03/18/2026 meeting. Commissioner Moriarty will recuse himself as he was not there. Are there any additions and deletions to the or deletions to those minutes? Hearing none. Commissioner Garver, I'll accept the motion to approve.

So move.

Commissioner Schumacher, I'll take a second. Second. Let me call the roll. Garver.

Garver, yes.

Lyle? Lyle, yes. Murphy? Murphy, yes. Robinson?

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher? Schumacher, yes.

Dillon is a yes. The minutes pass, seven two zero with one recusal. Moving forward, are there any continuance, withdraws, or special requests? Kathleen, you've got some continuances?

Yes. Thank you, president Dillon. Members of the commission staff withdraw your attention to two items on the agenda item number six and seven, but we'll start with six. Twenty twenty five MOD zero two six located at 4201 Mueller Road. This will need to be continued to your meeting on April 15 pending receipt of of executed commitments. And this would require a motion and a vote.

Thank you. Anybody else want to comment on that continuance request? Seeing none, we have a continuance request for 2025 MOD twenty six. Can I get a motion commissioner West to approve? So moved. Commissioner Robinson, can I get a second? Second. Call the roll. Garver.

Garver, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes. Moriarty. Moriarty, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson,

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West.

West, yes.

Dylan is a yes. Kathleen, you've got your continuance. 2025MODO26 to April 15. You have another one.

Yes. Thank you. 2025ZON. That's item number seven. 2025Z o n one one zero amended located at 10302 East 38th Street. Again, a similar request that this be continued to April 15 pending receipt of executed commitments.

Thank you. Anybody else have a comment on this continuance? Seeing none, can I get a motion from commissioner Murphy to continue twenty twenty five z o n one one zero to April 15?

So moved.

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

Garver. Yes.

Lyle. Lyle. Yes.

Moriarty. Moriarty. Yes. Murphy.

Murphy. Yes. Robinson.

Robinson. Yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher. Yes. West. West. Yes.

Dylan is a yes. It also passes eight to zero and will be heard on April 15.

Thank you.

Other continuances? Yes, sir.

Good afternoon, president Dillon and commission members. I'd like to draw your attention to 2025ZON084 for property located at 4001 South Keystone Avenue. We'd like to request a continuance on this to the May 6 MDC hearing. I've spoken with opposing counsel. The state works for him. He's in agreement. We've talked with staff ahead of time. I'll let staff Help me on the agenda item, please. Sorry. It's number 14.

Got it. Thank you. And your request is to go to May 6?

Yes, president Delman.

Does anybody else have a comment on this continuance request from May 6? Members of the commission. Hearing none, commissioner Schumacher, can I get a motion to approve a continuance of 2025 ZON '84 to 05/06/2026?

So moved.

Commissioner West, can I get a second? Second. May I call the roll? Garver?

Garver, yes.

Lyle? Lyle, yes. Morality? Morality, yes. Murphy? Murphy, yes. Robinson?

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher? Schumacher, yes.

West? West, yes. Dillon is a yes. Counselor, you've got your continuance by an eight zero. Count to May 6. Other continuance? Yes, sir.

Hello. Good afternoon, counsel. My name is Jay Sandifer, requesting a continuance, final continuance for number 13 and number 15. We are currently, in discussions with community groups, some of the neighbors, and, reaching out to count or, council member, to finalize some items.

I I missed your name, sir.

Jay Sandifer.

And you're representing Jade Investments of Indy? Correct. Does anybody else have a comment on this continuance request? Members of the commission, any questions on this? Jay, this thing has been continued forever. I'm sorry? I'm sorry, sir. Did you have a comment? Please come forward, sir. Introduce yourself.

My name's Dale Raver. 5626 Laurel Street, Indianapolis. Hi, Dale. I know that last time when we were in here, you said for this case to be ready and be heard today, and you told Jay here that you better be ready on April 1. So, you know, there's been many continuances here. So, you know, this goes it stems back all the way to November. Thanks.

Dale? I did say that, and I agree with you. We've had this thing's gone on forever. Does staff have comments about this?

Kathleen? Thank you, president Dale, members of the commission. Staff would not object to a continue, but staff is ready to go forward today on this and would leave it up to the commission to make a decision.

You said opposing counsel. Was that your comments on on this or not? You're dealing with community was your comment?

Yep.

What does that mean, sir? Who are you dealing with? Can you come to the microphone?

They had previously sent a letter in with this agreement with our plan. We've had discussions and I believe they will change their decision on that. We're also working to clarify. The plan the landscaping plan with the city what is exactly required we've already done the work we need to up to that point and then we're also reaching out to council.

And your request for May 6, is that your request?

Yes. May 6 on thirteen and May 20 for fifteen. We wanna focus on one. We originally had a an attorney previously that was let go, did not do what we had requested. So that's why we're moving forward. My sister and I are doing this ourself and trying to understand the process. I think we have requested one continuance and this would, if I'm not mistaken, be our second.

Dale, you got a good point. Jay, I'm gonna make a a recommendation and a motion that both twenty twenty five MOD o two four and twenty twenty five z o n one three two, both be heard on May 6. Can I get a second, please? One more thing. Yes, sir.

This case here stems all the way back to 2015 for modification. When somebody raises their hand and swears under oath to obey the commitments that set forth to get the zoning through, they should stick to it. And all they're trying to do is modify and take away the commitments that they didn't do in 2015. And, you know, basically, I think that this case should be heard because, you know, you raise your hand and swear that there's commitments that you're going to do it, this is rezoned, you know, commercial that, you know, like landscaping, removing a mobile site, you know, that's a trailer and that. They don't do it and we're here eleven years later and it's still not done, I think it should be heard. We shouldn't

Dale, those are the merits of the case that we'll hear during the case, but I'm gonna make my point to Jay on this. I am making a motion who is the second? I'm sorry. Commissioner Schumacher, we have a motion and a second to move both petitions to May 6. If you're not ready May 6, they're withdrawn. Understood. We have a motion on the table. We have a second on the table. Dale, you've made your point. Thank you. Let me call the roll. Garver, For the motion to continue.

Garver, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes.

Moriarty. Moriarty, no. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher. Schumacher, yes. West.

West, no.

Dillon is a yes. It passes six to two. Jay, we're going to withdraw if you're not ready to

go. Understood.

Gentleman's points are well taken.

Some of them, yes.

All of them were well taken. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other any other motions to dismiss? Continuances. Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. Introduce yourself. Evelyn I'm sorry. Couldn't hear you.

Evelyn Keaton. I'm an attorney. I filed a motion to dismiss. This relating to number 16 the metro box. Petition. For the twenty fifth and. Station proposed data center site. And you all should have little green pieces of paper.

We got it.

Okay. Basically in Indiana common law, it states that an applicant for variance must have standing. He must have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application so that he will actually be injured by the governmental action or perspective action to enforce the zoning ordinance. This is from Bowen versus Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals. It's an Indiana appeals court case.

It dates back to 1974. I have the site here on the paper. Basically, Metro blocks in all of its public statements, and this is like what I saw online, it indicates that it's an exclusivity with the owner of the property. Exclusivity, as far as I could tell by research, is not a property right. It's not a legal right.

It's a contractual term. I wrote and I had this prepared for the last time, but it got continued. I know in my own family, there was a situation where someone wanted to buy my parents' commercial corner in Martindale Brightwood, and rather than saying we wanna lease the property or we wanna buy the property, they did some type of option, which I think is equivalent of exclusivity. They ended up building elsewhere, but in this particular situation, they're coming here, they're asking for zoning changes. They're asking for something to go from its current zoning to heavy industrial, and they're also asking for get a special variance.

And it clearly says in the Indiana law that you have to have something at risk. There's not a sufficient interest at risk. Now, in my other writing that I think has been submitted to you all, it indicated that this particular property is still publicly for lease. So that means that whatever is going on, they're not leasing the entire property. They might not be leasing any of it, but are they at risk?

On the backside of this our comments that the CEO of Metrobox made in his LinkedIn profile. And I exerted what was relevant here at the bottom of the page. Basically, it says a little about our sites. All our sites have strong downside risk protection, strong alternate use value because we contract them at or near industrial protection I'm sorry, strong alternate use value because we contract them at or near industrial value in desirable urban metro markets important to our investors. If for whatever reason we don't succeed in developing data centers, all sites have a healthy multiple on invested capital.

And then if you jump down to number three, it says, we plan on closing on sites when power and permit is in hand confirmed. Quasi fully derisked. So basically, this company has a business model where they're never at risk. And the Indiana common law is saying that you have to be at risk. And there's not a legal relationship between them and the land or anything like that that's putting them at risk.

I know that like when I looked at their visuals for the area, it looked like if it did work out then they would maybe lease out power because there would be a mini power station there. And who knows if it is gonna work out because if you've kept up with the news a lot of major corporations have backed out of data center deals. There's one that happened here in Indianapolis.

Evelyn, you're going to the merits of the case.

Okay. Well, that's that's basically what standing. Standing means like.

Counselor has asked us to consider dismissal of let me make sure I've got the right right number.

Number 16 on your papers.

Of 2025ZON124 and 2025VARO12. Jeff, can you put the consent form up on the board, please? If members of the commission can see the consent form, you'd run through it, Jeff. Will you please turn off the cell phones? Mhmm. That has been signed and was filed as part of the record?

Yes. I am aware. But just because the owner signed

which defeats part of your a large part of your argument

I know but just because an owner signs a consent form doesn't mean that the party is at risk.

Understood. Although the consent form is is pretty strong. So counselor has come forward and asked us to consider a motion to dismiss. Is there a motion in the commission to dismiss this case? So moved. We have a motion to dismiss. Do I have a second? Counsel, the motion dies for lack of a second. We will be hearing the case today.

Okay.

Thank you for coming forward. Moving forward, are there any other continuances, withdraws, special request? Nancy, can you read the resolutions into the minutes?

Thank you, President Dillon and commissioners. 2026 R 010 declares the need for emergency roof repairs at Union Station and authorizes necessary contracts in an amount not to exceed $345,000.865. Twenty twenty six R011 authorizes the Department of Metropolitan Development to convey title or an option to purchase title of property to transferee as approved by the vacant to vibrant review committee for the purpose of providing development that will best serve the interests of the city. Twenty twenty six A-seven for public hearing authorizes amendment to the 2024 real property tax abatement approved by resolution number 2024A zero two seven at 412 West McCarty Street including 717 And 721 Chadwick Street Council District 18 Center Township. And lastly twenty twenty six P003 authorizes an appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals Division one of the Metropolitan Development Commission.

This ends the reading of the resolutions.

Thank you, Nancy. We have before us three policy resolutions that are not scheduled for a public hearing, twenty twenty six r o one o, twenty twenty six r o one one, twenty twenty six p o o three. Commissioner Moriarty, can I get a motion to approve those three resolutions? So moved. Commissioner Murphy, can I get a second? Second. Let me call the roll. Garver.

Garver, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, Morarity. Morarity, yes. Murphy.

Murphy is a yes with the exception of 2026 r zero one one for which I recuse.

Thank you. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

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

Dillon is a yes. So the three policy resolutions that did not stand for a public hearing pass eight to zero with the exception of 2026 r o one one, which passes seven to zero with one recusal. I will then go to the public hearing of the resolution twenty twenty six a o o seven. Leticia, are you here? Thank you.

Good afternoon, president Dillon and members of the commission. My name is Leticia Ramsey. This is resolution twenty twenty six a zero zero seven is requesting an amendment to the twenty twenty twenty twenty four real property tax abatement approved by resolution twenty twenty four A zero two seven at 412 West McCarty Street including 717721 Chadwick Street located in Castle District 18 Center Township. This is for a 200 and unit multi family residential development with 15% of the units for designated for affordable housing for families with low income at 7070% AMI. The 2024 real property tax abatement authorized an amendment up to ten years.

TWG, the developer, has requested for extension of the investment period due to delays in securing financing. The resolution now before you would extend the ERA and the terms of the agreement related to the commitments to extend it to 12/31/2029. Only the timeline would change, the dollar value of the investment, and the number of jobs will remain the same. There should be someone from TWG in the audience for further questions.

Commissioners, any questions? Is there anyone else here today who would like to speak on this matter? Seeing none, we have before us 2026 A007 for public hearing. Appreciate your presentation. Thank you. Commissioner Schumacher, can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Commissioner West, can I get a second? Second. Let me call the roll. Garver. Garver, yes. Lyle. Lyle, yes. Morarty. Morarty, Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson?

Robinson, yes.

Schumacher? Schumacher, yes. West?

West, yes.

Dillon is a yes. It passes eight to zero. Nancy, can you read the petitions of no appeal into the record?

Thank you again, president Dillon and commissioners. Petitions of no appeal recommended for approval by the hearing examiner. 2026 APP one at 8707 Shelby Street, Perry Township, Council District 23. 2026ZON008 at 9031 East 16th Street Warren Township Council District 14. 2026 Z 0 N 009 at 4500 Blackstone Drive Perry Township Council District 242026 Z 0 N 010 at 11700 East 30th Street Warren Township Council District fifteen.

2026 ZON 011 at 10702 East 25th Street 10710 East 30th Street, 3510, that's 3510 North German Church Road, and 10003 And 14 Maumee Drive, Warren Township Council District 15. 2026 C Z N 804 at 3616 North Chadeland Avenue Warren Township Council District nine this ends the reading of no appeal stock had recommended for approval

Thank you, Nancy. I'm gonna pull out 2026ZONO1O. Robert, do you have a tree prep presentation?

We have a thank you, president Dillon.

There is a commitment for tree preservation on the site. Preservation. Excuse me. The commitments have been signed by the petitioner and are in the file. Thank you.

I just wanted that stated for the record. Thank you. We have before us six petitions of no appeal. 2026 APP o o one, '20 20 '6 z o n o o 8, twenty 20 6 z 0 N 00 9, 20 26 0010, 2026 Z 0011, and 2026CZNO4. I'd like to take that group as a whole. Commissioner West, can I get a motion to approve? So moved. Thank you. Commissioner Garver, can I get a second?

Second.

Let me call the roll. Garver.

Garver, yes.

Lyle. Lyle, yes.

Morarity. Morarity, yes. Murphy. Murphy, yes. Robinson.

Robinson, yes.

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

Dillon is a yes. All six pass by a count of eight to zero. That concludes our petitions of no appeal. Moving forward on your agenda, it will show agenda item 13, which was continued. It will show continue item 14, which was continued. It will show agenda item 15, which was continued, leading us to agenda item 16. Nancy, can you read that into the record?

Thank you, president Dillon and commissioners. We have companion petitions recommended for approval by the hearing examiner appeal filed by remonstrator. Petitions 2025ZON124 2025VAR012 at 2505 North Sherman Drive, Center Township Council District 8. Petitioners Metro Blocks LLC by Tyler Oaks requesting rezoning of 13.68 acres from the I-two District to the CS District to provide for a data center, business, professional or government offices, and all uses in the I-two zoning classification. Also requesting a variance of development standards of the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance to provide for a 70 foot tall building height, maximum of 38 foot building height permitted.

No maximum front yard setback, maximum of 65 foot front setback permitted to provide for 60 parking spaces minimum one parking space for each 1,500 square feet floor area required. Will all those I'm gonna leave it there. Thank

you, Nancy. I'll take it from here. Would all the individuals who are testifying for the petitioner please come up to the left of the podium? Would all the remonstrators who are testifying on behalf of remonstrators please come forward and stand on the right side of the podium. Thank you. Counselor, I'll let you start. Please introduce yourself. Nancy, you'll be swearing in. Counselor Gibson. Introduce yourself. Raise your right hand.

I'm Ron Gibson.

City County Councilor.

Councilman, District 8. Thank you.

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

I do. Thank you.

Thank you. Next petitioner, please come forward, introduce yourself, raise your right hand.

Ernest Popescu, CEO of Metro Blocs.

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

I do. Next. I'll explain it to you.

Tyler Oaks, counsel for petitioner.

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

I do.

Hope Martin Engineering Metro Blocks.

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.

Doug Brown, 111 Monument Circle Suite 2700 Indianapolis 46204.

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

I do.

Thank you.

Brad Sugarman, environmental counsel for Metro Blocks.

Please raise your right hand.

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

I do. All the petitioners have been sworn in under oath. Remind straters, please step forward, raise your right hand, introduce yourself. Vernon Compton at 227 E North Partner Parker in the town of Brightwood.

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

I do. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Please raise your right hand.

Sierra Johnson. 2727 North Denny. I'm a resident Martindale Brightwood.

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

Thank you. Next, sir.

Emmanuel Ivy, one voice board member. 2605 East 25th Street, 46218.

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.

Pastor, welcome.

Reverend Fitzhugh Lyons Junior, pastor of Galley Missionary Baptist Church, 2624 East 25th Street. 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.

Reverend Anetra Jones, senior pastor of Scott United Methodist Church in

Please raise your right hand. Thank you. Do

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

I do.

Thank you.

Jacqueline McMillan Gunn, resident of Martindale Brightwood, chairperson for co compliance and land use.

Please raise your right hand. Thank you.

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.

Counselor, please raise your right hand.

Evelyn Leisha Keaton, attorney Martindale Brightwood resident, and also hear from my mother who's back there.

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

I do. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Belinda Drake, resident in Mapleton Fall Creek, member of Broadway United Methodist Church, and also a member of One Voice.

Please raise your right hand.

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

I do. Thank

you. I need their mailing address.

Dave Baker, 1917 South Centennial Avenue in New Palestine. 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.

Paula Brooks, Voting Environmental Council, thirty nine fifty one, law firm Meridian.

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

Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon. Kiara Kamara. 3916 Roundwood Avenue. I'm a former Wrightwood Martindale resident. Your address? 396 3916 Roundwood Avenue.

Do you swear or affirm that the penalties are purged to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I do.

I do. Thank you.

Representative, welcome. Thank you, sir. Representative Gregory w Porter, 3614 North Pennsylvania Street, representing the Martindale Bridal area. Thank you.

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

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you representative.

Hello. Jesse Brown, city county councilor of our District 13 which includes portions of Arndell Brightwood and the Near North and Near East Side. I reside at 2022 North Riley Avenue, Indianapolis 46218.

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.

Josh Riddick, organizer with the Black Church Coalition, 619 North Hamilton Avenue, 46201.

Please raise your right hand.

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

Good afternoon. Taylor Feinstein, director of Health Communities representing Health by Design. 615 North Alabama Street, Suite 119, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.

Do you swear or affirm an appellate the perjury to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Say I do.

I do.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Harold Sanjeev Neal representing the Brightwood Martindale area met 2417 North Kenwood Indianapolis, Indiana.

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

I do.

Thank you, sir. You're welcome. Pastor, welcome. Welcome. Good to be here.

State your and address. Sorry.

It's awkward pause there. Danielle Howard, 2338 Holy Street. Alright.

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.

Thank you.

Eric Simmons, Martindale, Brightwood Area, 2861 North Albany.

Please raise your right hand. Thank you.

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

I do. Thank you. Thank you. Who is the lead for the remonstrators? Now you had quite a few sworn in, and I'm gonna walk through the rules of engagement, and so you'll know the timing of your presentation. So you'll have to make sure you're you're I don't know that we can get all those people in the in the time of the deal, but I'll let you I'll let you handle it. So I'll come to you if there's any question on that. Okay. Thank you. Alright.

Rules of engagement for everybody in the room. We're gonna conduct a professional orderly hearing. I'm gonna go to the petitioners. They're gonna have fifteen minutes to present their case. I will then go to the remonstrators. They will have fifteen minutes to present their case. I saw councilman Gibson. I will then come to you for comments. I think we had another city councilman in the room, if I'm not mistaken. Do you plan on commenting?

Sir. Okay. Then I'll come to you second, councilor Brown. I will then go to staff. State representative has to fit into the Remod Straiters' timeline. The only outside of that is under the rules are city council city and city council people. And that's all due respect to representative Porter, and he's been through this with me before. I will then go to staff for your presentation. In in conclusion, I will then go back to the petitioner. You will have five minutes rebuttal, and then I'll come back to the demonstrators for five minutes rebuttal, and then we will vote the matter.

Who's the lead for the petitioner? Please come forward. You've been duly sworn. You're on the clock. Petitioner has fifteen minutes. Go.

Good afternoon, president Dillon and commission members. For the record, Tyler Oaks, Bose McKinney, and Evans. Offices at 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700, Indianapolis, Indiana. Here today on behalf of the petitioner, Metro Blocks LLC. With me today is Ernest Popescu, CEO of Metro Blocks, Hope Martin, head of design and engineering, as well as Brad Sugarman, who's the head of our environmental group at Bose.

So we're here today regarding property at 2505 North Sherman Drive, and our request today is to allow a rezoning that would allow a small scale urban data center to go onto the property. We're also asking for three variances as well that we'll get into. Real quickly, just a quick why are we here? The data center is not an enumerated use in the city county zoning ordinance. We met with staff back in July, and this was the route that we came to of best route to go forward was this rezoning to CS.

So the property is currently in I 2. Staff requested that for a data center use, we go to a CS, and that's why we're in front of you today regarding the rezone. Quickly, I wanna go into site intro. So as you can see on the map provided, it's a zoning map. The star with is where the property is located. Directly to the North, you have C 7. To the West, you have C 4. To the South, you have C 7 and I 4, which is FedEx. To the Northeast, you've got I 2 into I 3, with some pockets to the South of C 7. This is a heavy industrial area with the I 4 taking a significant amount of portion to the South, and there's heavy commercial both to the North and to the West.

I've also provided the lay or comprehensive plan. Excuse me. As you can see from comprehensive plan, again, Star represents the current property we're talking about. It is light purple, which is a light industrial area as the recommendation from the comprehensive plan. To the South and to the Northeast with a small pocket to the North, you see heavy industrial predominantly dominates the area. And then to the West, you see some small part pockets of heavy commercial. So this is a pretty significant industrial area. On top of that, if you kinda squint, it's a little bit hard to see. It's easier on the dark purple to see, but there is a industrial reserve overlay. That industrial reserve overlay, for those unfamiliar, essentially is in the comp plan that says we're earmarking this property for industrial use.

It has special characteristics to it that make it suitable for industrial projects. So we feel that a data center certainly fits that mold of an industrial project, and that's why we're here today asking for it to go into this area, an industrial currently industrial zoned area with a comp plan recommendation for industrial in that overlay. We're asking for three variances and six commitments. I'll just go over them fairly briefly. So on the variance front, we're asking for a height variance that would go to 70 feet.

We're asking for no maximum front yard setback, which is currently 65, and we're asking for parking spaces to be reduced down to 60. I'll get into those a little bit later. From the commitment standpoint, we're asking for six of them. We've worked with staff through this process. The first one deals I'm not gonna read them out, but the first one deals with noise and noise attenuation.

The second one deals with screening from the public, particularly Sherman Drive. The third one is hours of testing for the generators. The fourth one is development according to a letter my client submitted to the community on October 1. The fifth one is before an ILP is issued, my client has to have methodology for how to test noise and stay in compliance. And the last one is that all landscape and final plans need to be approved by the administrator prior to the ILP. So about the data centers, particularly MetroBlock's data centers, a lot of misnomers out there that we want to address. First off, this is a small scale data center with a small company. You're seeing about 25% of the MetroBlock's team here. This is not big tech. It is a small, small shop.

And with these data centers, a lot of the ones we're more familiar with are these hyperscale data centers. This is not that. These are intended to be multi tenanted. It can be multiple uses. In that, we see users that could be anywhere from schools to hospitals to banks to everyday businesses, and they are using it for everyday needs in in technology, anything from email storage, cloud servers.

AI could be a proponent of that, but it's not all it's not gonna be the only thing it is. It's gonna be multiple uses serving these local businesses in their day to day technology operations. I've put up a chart, and in your packet, there's a chart that shows kind of the side by side with a hyperscale as our project, just to show a little bit comparison. I know we're all pretty familiar with some of the hyperscale projects that have been in Indianapolis and the state of Indiana. On the left there, we've seen some hyperscale projects, 400 acres, 500, 600 acres.

The one we're proposing is 15, one-five. So that's about onethirty of the size of those. Obviously, with that comes way less power usage that we're seeing on those bigger hyperscale projects, and water usage is probably the biggest difference. Some of those hyperscalers obviously can use millions of gallons of water at a time or per day, excuse me. That's not the case here. This will be a closed loop water system. It will be filled initially with roughly 60,000 gallons. From that point forward, you are just refilling evaporation, which we estimate to be about 5,000 gallons a year. No groundwater is going to be pulled for that for that fill on-site. And then lastly, just briefly, the appearance we think is a massive difference.

These are not giant warehouses like you see on the hyperscaled. We think they fit and integrate into the community and look much more like office buildings and all of renderings to show that.

Come on.

So here's the renderings I talked about. In the top left, you have the bird's eye view. In the or top right is if you were on the campus. In the bottom left, you have the view if you were standing on Sherman Drive. And then the bottom right across the railroad tracks. This property does border that railroad track along Mass Ave. You'd see if you were driving on Mass Ave, what it would look like. So we hope you'd agree that that looks significantly more like an office building and less like the warehouses that we've seen in some other projects. Building elevations are provided in regards to the variance that's requested. We've requested a 70 foot building height variance.

There is a 50 foot allowance in an industrial zone, so currently 50. And then 38 is what is allowed for a CS. The reason for our seventies, you can see, and I apologize, the numbers are a little small. But the reason we're asking for that, the building roof itself from ground elevation is 50 feet. On top of that, from the 50 foot to 55 feet is a parapet that's going to help with a safety, but also help with screening and noise.

And then from 55 to 67 feet, you're gonna see dunnage screening. And that screening is, a, as a commitment we've we've already committed to, it's going to screen some of the things that are on top of the building or all the things on top of the building from public view if you're on Sherman. And additionally, maybe more importantly, it's going to assist with noise attenuation. So noise levels aren't exceeding the regulations that we've promised we would meet. And then just real quick, here's a site layout.

You can see two data halls, two data centers with multi tenanted ability in both, a substation on adjacent property to the Northeast, two retentions ponds, and then a pocket park, which is acting as a landscaping buffer in between the data center and North Sherman Drive. Next, I want to get into the benefits and impacts of this project. So first off, big one we wanna address is revitalization. This property has been roughly vacant for forty three years. It was last used notably as a drive in theater in the eighties.

In recent years, it's been used for truck school, teaching people how to drive semis. It's become overgrown. There's been trash. My clients in this project will come in and clean the property up. There'll be enhanced landscaping. The buildings that we submitted on the rendering will go up. We think it'll be a massive facelift to a very prominent area very prominent intersection. Excuse me. And then it's gonna turn a very long dormant parcel into a very productive asset generating for the community. So, it's going to be, know, this kind of sustained economic benefit.

It's also a high capital investment. My client is projecting the investment to be roughly $500,000,000 So, with that is obviously an increased tax base, but we'll get into. It's going to bring long term infrastructure upgrades both for the project itself and then outside the fence of the property. It's a purpose built facility. So we we familiar with history where some some companies will come into Indianapolis and then get out quick. That's not the case here. This is built for long term. The infrastructure builds are there for long term. It's gonna benefit other businesses who are attracted to that kind of infrastructure as well. Lastly, my client has made a $2,500,000 pledge upon operation that will specifically go to affordable housing and infrastructure projects in the Martindale Brightwood neighborhood.

The intent of that is so that there's benefit from that tax base that stays in the Martindale Brightwood neighborhood. So there's direct benefit right outside of the fencing of the project. You're also going to see an increase in tax base. I think we're all fairly well versed in what you know, tax dollars go to, but just as a refresher, we would expect to see an increase in in the taxes that go to schools, public services, and general infrastructure, whether that's road, fire, police, things of that nature. So you're gonna see a direct increase to those services.

At the same time, a data center famously does not need or really use those services. It's not gonna impact schools. It's not gonna impact it doesn't need fire, police, that kind of thing. All in security is on-site. And then because we'll get into this later very low demand on traffic.

So there's not a lot of road usage of that. So you are bringing in a net benefit to these public services, and at the same time, you are not taxing them. Lastly, with constructions with the construction process and development, you're going to see a lot of construction coming through. That's direct local tax dollars to the area with an influx of workers and things of that nature, vendor partnerships that are going to add to that tax revenue base. Another benefit we want to address is the technological infrastructure improvements, which is a pretty big one and pretty notable data centers.

Two really big ones that stick out. The first one is fiber connectivity. That's going to be a requirement for any data center coming in is to expand that fiber network. That's a direct benefit to the community. You're going to see increased fiber reliability in that area, in that community in Indianapolis. As a result of that, my client will pay 100% of the cost for that upgrade. Additionally, you're going to see electrical infrastructure upgrades. We've worked with AES and are continuing to work with AES. So we will see electrical infrastructure upgrades to that site. It's already near substation, so it'll be ready to serve.

And and again, my client will pay for 100 percent of those electrical upgrades as well as any power that's used. With that, having that electrical infrastructure upgrade and the fiber upgrade, you are now signaling to outside companies that Indianapolis is technology ready is attractive to the community for business to come in and invest further in that area because they are able to then benefit off of those infrastructure upgrades. Regarding job creation, data centers aren't massive job creators. I'm not here to tell you otherwise, but there are benefits particularly in the short term. My client's really excited to partner with local unions on and regional suppliers regarding the construction and development of this project.

Specifically, we're excited to pair with Midwest Central Carpenters and Central Indiana Building and Trades Council. So they we're gonna have local residents, local unions who are gonna be doing the construction work for these projects. Should we ensure that these construction jobs are staying local to Indianapolis and to the community? Wanna address just the impact and the residents' concerns. This process has gone on for a very long time, and so we've obviously heard a lot.

Water, I think I've already kind of adequately addressed. It's gonna be the one time fill, and then it would just be evaporative from that point forward. It is a significantly less use than what you're gonna see on than what you're gonna see on any other industrial similar use that could go there currently. From a noise standpoint, we've submitted a noise study that shows that noise is not going to exceed noise at the boundary line is going to be compliant with both DMD standards, the city of Indianapolis standard, and US EPA guidelines. We have incorporated noise attenuation engineering to make sure that noise is kept to a relative minimum.

In terms of light light, we've submitted a photometric study as well that shows light's gonna be downward facing, and it's not gonna spill over into neighboring properties. Pollution, my client is going to be using tier four generators. They are state of the art generators. It is similar to what you'd see in a hospital, so it is highly efficient with low emissions. These are only going to run, absent an emergency twenty to thirty hours a year for testing.

They're tested once a month. That's when we would do the noise study to make sure that they're they're bodied by the noise and they're encapsulated in specifically engineered sound attenuation measures to ensure that sound is not exceeding the standards that we've set. From an environmental standpoint, we know there are concerns in September 2025, a phase one environmental site assessment identified no recognized environmental conditions. The property remains subject to twenty twelve environmental covenants that state there can be no residential use on the property and we cannot use the groundwater. That environmental remediation was done by the city of Indianapolis in 2012.

And again, we have no issue since. We did hire a local consultant, August Mac, to work with us for a soil management plan. So as construction's going, we're gonna ensure that testing continues and that if the if an environmental issue were to arise, we will address that. And I'm about out of time. So with that, again, we will respectfully request approval of our request from a I two to a CS as well as our three companion variances. Thank you.

Questions for the petitioner? I have some. Commissioner Murphy. One,

councilor, you mentioned about property tax. Can you tell me approximately what this property currently generates in property tax? And if you can't maybe you can research that and in rebuttal you can come back with that information?

Yeah.

Can you tell me approximately what post development it is projected to generate in property taxes?

Post development the expectation is roughly 10,000,000 a year.

And then on the pledge of $2,500,000 for affordable housing infrastructure improvements, can you give me details on that, how that works, who distributes it, who administrates that?

Yeah. So we've we've it's a great question. We've looked at different organizations. We've we've talked with councilor Gibson and other areas of the community to try to figure out where that best would go. The intent from my client was to find what issues were most important in Martindale Brightwood that we'd like to see that money go go towards. So, there's not a concrete plan at this point of exactly where that's gonna go. We've looked into two some organizations that support both affordable housing like we stated as well as working with the city since DPW would handle infrastructure upgrades. So working with the city regarding those DPW infrastructure upgrades and then working with different organizations in the Martindale Brightwood area to ensure that affordable housing projects stay in that area.

Okay. Maybe councilor Gibson when he testifies can eliminate that.

I

had one other question. I don't see my other question. I'll come back to it if I

Other questions from members of the commission?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. President Dillon.

Yes. No, sir. Then. Sir, you and the demonstrators, sir? You're with the demonstrators?

Yes, sir.

You'll give your testimony with the demonstrators. This is questions for the commission. No ask your questions during remonstrators. Thank you. Commissioner Law. Thank you, sir.

So if this project requires multiple variances even after rezoning, how should we interpret that fit within both the zoning framework as well as the comprehensive plan?

Yeah. So again, it's a little bit of a weird request because data center specifically is not enumerated in the current ordinance. And so, you know, typically, you'd see industrial zoning as an area where a data center would be able to to come into. But because of staff and wanting to go through the public hearing process, we've gone with CS. Because of that, those CS standards apply as opposed to the original ordinance.

And so or excuse me, as opposed to the original industrial standards. So those CS standards are much more stringent than those industrial standards are. I will note regarding the two two things. One, on the parking variance itself, that, again, because data center is not enumerated stat, it's left up to staff to decide what's a use that's close enough that we can kind of ballpark what parking should be. Staff ultimately came up with warehousing, which is only allowed in in significantly industrial areas.

With that, we talked with staff and disagreed wholeheartedly that, you know, the requirement for a warehouse is vastly different than what you need for a data center just because of how many employees you have. So that's why that request is there. The maximum setback, again, it sits in line with the Safeway. And so that to me, it was a little bit counterintuitive, but I understand from a walkability standpoint, you don't want these things pushed all the way back. But we felt it was more appropriate to have it pushed back, again, to stay in line, and then we're allowing landscaping buffering to be on that side, which is across the street from residential.

So the only variance to your to your original question that we that was kinda outside that norm is the height variance. And, again, it originally would have been at 50. It comes down to 38 because of the CS. The request for the 70, the roof itself stays at that 50 industrial standard. Everything on top of that is purely to accommodate noise and screening. So it was put in as an extra step just to make sure it's not impacting neighboring properties.

Thank you. So it really appears like this request is partially aligned with the the plans, but the employment intent kinda gives me pause because of that comprehensive plan and what the city would like to see more employment generated in Marion County in Indianapolis. But you guys are introducing really a different density and impact profile with this than what is currently in existence in the neighborhood context. So with that need for multiple variances on top, it shows me that it doesn't really cleanly fit within the zoning request and so the multiple variances on top of the zoning difference is a bit of a sticking point.

Do want me to address or

Reply.

Yeah. So I I completely understand variances obviously are are very common in land use. Every property is a little bit different. And then variances can be addressed in a lot of different ways. Like I said, I think the two in our conversations with staff, I think the two outside of the variance outside of the height variance are pretty standard, and I I would hope it makes sense. I'm happy to address those more in detail if needed. As a in terms of the height variance, I think we've expressed why we need those. With that, staff we've worked with staff, and that's why there's gonna be a requirement regarding that. One, pushing them back off the setback so they're farther back, which is gonna reduce the impact of the height. You're pushing it to the East and the Southeast, which is where FedEx in that heavy I four is.

So you're getting closer to that and farther away from those heavy commercial pockets as well as the residences on the Northwest Side. So because we're pushing it that way, it's gonna reduce the impact of that height. Additionally, we're using landscaping, berming, things of that nature to try to combat the height as well. So it's not gonna have an impact on those other neighborhoods. So we still feel based on the comprehensive plan that it calls for industrial. The fact that it's in an industrial reserve overlay, which specifically calls for industrial uses, we think this is more than an appropriate spot for it.

So why not stay I two?

Because staff had told us originally when we wanted to come into it because data center is not enumerated use. It doesn't have, like you have to, you know, we were told at that time you have to go through this process to rezone to a CS. CS is what the zoning administrator by Indiana Code can make that determination. The zoning administrator at the time was Eddie Honeo. When we talked with Eddie, he had said, you need to rezone to a CS for this to be an allowable, permittable use.

Thank you. Other questions, members of the commission? Just a point couple points of clarity. You said AES has a substation right there. What was your

Sorry. We can clarify. So when we can go into it, but when you like, when they're doing site selection, figuring out where to go, there has to be connectivity and have the ability for connectivity.

Understand.

And AES has connectivity to that area. So we've worked with AES to ensure that when the substation goes in there, it will have power.

Got it. Now, councilor, you're under oath. All utility costs associated with the data center will be paid by your client?

Correct.

All electrical utility upgrades will be fully funded by your client?

Correct.

No utility subsidiaries subsidies from the neighborhood will be necessary?

Correct.

And all fiber additions will be paid by your client? Correct. Thank you. Standby. Now to conclude the petitioner's testimony, demonstrators stay calm. You're gonna get your chance. If you are here today supporting the petitioners, quietly, please stand. Thank you. Remonstrators, you're on you're up. You have fifteen minutes. Please introduce yourself.

Good afternoon. My name is Sierra Johnson. I live at 2727 North Denny Street in Indianapolis, Indiana, approximately 500 feet from the proposed development. I am the president of One Voice Martindale Brightwood, the umbrella organization representing the four neighborhoods that make up Martindale Brightwood, Ralston, Hovie, Oak Hill, Hillside, and Brightwood, the location of the proposed data center. Our coalition includes residents, stakeholders, faith leaders, and business owners.

We have support from 52 neighborhood associations and community organizations across Indianapolis. We conducted outreach nearly 200 households closest to the site, and we understand that staff have received over 500 letters in opposition. We have hosted four public meetings, four community fellowship events, a walking site tour, and a rally. Based on this outreach, we have not identified meaningful resident support for the proposed Metro Blocks data center. I submit this testimony on behalf of Protect Martindale Brightwood Coalition, One Voice Martindale Brightwood, and myself to formally object to the rezoning and to preserve these issues for the administrative record.

The petitioner bears the burden of producing substantial evidence that the requested rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan, is compatible with surrounding land uses, will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of nearby residents. Based on the current record, the petitioner has not met that burden. Many material elements of the proposal remain conceptual rather than final. The petitioner retains broad discretion to modify the site plan and equipment. Because core operational and design details remain subject to change, the record does not contain sufficient information to evaluate whether the project will comply with applicable zoning and performance standards over time.

Approval under these conditions will require reliance on assumptions rather than concrete reviewable evidence. The petitioner characterizes this project as appropriate for I two light industrial, which is intended to be typically free from significant noise, dust, smoke, or odors. However, the proposed operations more closely resemble large scale industrial utility infrastructure, including 36 industrial generators with substantial physical footprint and on-site fuel storage, 72 industrial chillers and large scale HVAC systems operating continuously, Twenty four seven three sixty five operations supported by high voltage electrical infrastructure, and a 154,000 square foot continuously operating facility adjacent to residential and community uses. The Uptime Institute, which sets global industry standards, classifies any data center over 10,000 square feet or larger as large scale heavy industrial facility. The record does not demonstrate that this intensity of use is compatible with surrounding residential areas.

The submitted noise study indicates modeled sound levels of approximately 60.9 dBA at the northern residential property line during generator testing or outage scenarios exceeding the 55 DBA residential standard. The coalition notes that the record does not clearly demonstrate worst case cumulative noise modeling, simultaneous generator operation, nighttime ambient conditions, enforceable performance based limits, or low frequency d b c impacts typical of d diesel equipment. In addition, the study does not characterize uncertainty, meaning actual noise levels may exceed modeled results. Because nearby homes, a church, and a public library are located within several 100 feet, the absence of clearly bounded worst case analysis creates material uncertainty in the record. As a result, the commission lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the project will comply with applicable noise standards.

The proposed development includes 36 diesel generators approximately 300 to 800 feet from sensitive receptors. Diesel generators are recognized sources of nitrogen oxides, fine particle matter, and diesel particulate matter. Pollutants associated with adverse respiratory and cardiovascular effects. The coalition specifically notes that the record does not include project specific air dispersion modeling, analysis of cumulative emissions from generator testing cycles, evaluation of proximity to sensitive receptors, or consideration of existing background air quality conditions. In the absence of this analysis, the record does not contain substantial evidence demonstrating that the project will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare.

The petitioner relies on a draft phase one environmental site assessment to characterize the site as clean. However, that draft contains statements inconsistent with the April 2023 phase two limited report. The phase two report documents groundwater lead exceedances across sample locations, including one boring with concentrations significantly above regulatory screening levels. In addition, portions of the site were not sampled. Adjacent parcels require further investigation and the site has a high water table.

The record does not support a conclusion that environmental conditions have been fully characterized or resolved. The proposed reliance on a soil management plan reflects a contingent encounter based approach rather than completed remediation. The record does not identify enforceable mechanisms ensuring compliance. Given these conditions, the record does not contain substantial evidence demonstrating that the site is suitable for the proposed intensity of development or that contamination risks will not adversely affect surrounding properties. In closing, the issue before you is not whether a data center can exist somewhere in Indianapolis.

The question is whether this project on this site meets the legal standards required for approval. Based on the record, it does not. Key analyses are missing, including air dispersion modeling, a complete environmental assessment, and a traffic impact study. The plan remains conceptual, and the noise analysis does not demonstrate compliance under real world conditions or account for uncertainty, meaning actual impacts could exceed those presented. Documented contamination has not been fully resolved.

The record is incomplete and cannot support the required findings. Approval under these conditions would require reliance on assumptions rather than evidence, shifting risk from the partitioner to the community. The site is located near homes, day cares, and a public library. Sensitive uses in close proximity to the proposed development. The record does not demonstrate that excavation and construction activities will avoid mobilizing existing contamination or impacting surrounding properties.

Reliance on an incomplete environmental assessment and a contingent soil management plan introduces uncertainty regarding potential health impacts, particularly for sensitive populations. Taken together, the petitioner has not provided substantial evidence. This project is compatible with surrounding uses or that it will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of nearby residents. For these reasons, we respectfully request denial of this petition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please, sir. Introduce yourself and your address. You're gonna be running tight on time.

Emmanuel Ivy representing 1 Voice 2605 East 25th Street. Good afternoon. I'm a third generation born and raised in Martindale Brightwood, a property owner and board member of One Voice. I'm here today to clearly state that our community does not support a data center in Martindale Brightwood, only commercial corridor. Our neighborhood has a city certified quality of life plan created by residents for residents.

It outlines our priorities for sustainable development, affordable housing, public safety, environmental justice, and real economic development. A data center does not align with that vision. It does not provide accessible long term jobs for local residents nor does it support inclusive community centered growth. We want development that strengthens our neighborhood, projects that create fairways jobs, protect our soil, air, water, and invest in our youth and infrastructure. We are concerned about increased energy and infrastructure strain, higher utility cost, and minimal community benefit.

Representations regarding the temporary construction workforce and community benefits are voluntary and unenforceable, therefore, cannot be relied upon to satisfy rezoning criteria. Furthermore, the petitioner does not have the power to dictate employment practices or to its tenants or vendors or identify the community organization to do the commitments. We asked the Metropolitan Development Commission to honor our city certified quality of life plan. These objectives are sub, submitted to ensure they are preserved in administrative record. Thanks.

Thank you, sir. Next, please introduce yourself. My name

is Vernon Compton. I live at 2270 North Parker Avenue. I live in the town of Brightwood and I'm president of Brightwood concerned citizen and a memo of one voice. I'm here against the petitioner for the development of a 70 foot tall building. Height maximum is 36 feet.

The building height permitted. No maximum front yard and the maximum is 65 feet, but on page 78 of the staff report because of the three parks, Colorado Park, 29th Street, Brightwood Park, and Polls Run Nature Nature Park, the parts department has requested a earthen bound screening to be installed to emigate the impact of the height of the building tall. Post Run is South of I 70 Interstate. Noise in Martin D. Brightwood, we have background noise from that interstate.

Okay. Environmental study from METABLOX data center by McConne's engineering for METABLOX in the staff report, page ninety one and ninety three, it refers to three maps showing the sound penetration of the Brightwood Plaza and the Martin of Brightwood Library. Those maps were not in the staff report indicating that they are covering up that information. So with that request, my request that this be denied because of lack of transparency from them and them.

Thank you, Vernon. Pastor, please introduce yourself.

Good afternoon. I'm Irving Fitzhugh Lyons, pastor of Galilee Missionary Baptist Church. On March 26, we celebrated one hundred years in the ministry. For a century, our church has prayed for this community, buried his loved ones, baptized his children, married his couples, mentored his youth, and stood with families through every season through prosperity and hardship, through growth and decline. Brightwood is not vacant land. It is sacred land. It carries memories, sacrifice, and legacy. This conversation is not just about servers and square footage. It's about stewardship, justice, and more responsibility. A data center may promise investment, but we must ask investment for whom?

When the burden is local but the benefit is distant, that is not equitable development. The surrounding areas are not industrial zones, they are neighborhoods. They are homeowners who have invested their life savings. They are renters striving for stability. They are seniors with fixed incomes. They are children walking to school. They are working families trying to build a future. This neighborhood is homes to roughly 13,000 residents and approximately 3,800 households. Brightwood has already carried more than its share of industrial impact. Justice requires that we break cycles of environmental burden placed on working class and historically black communities.

On September 23, Metro Block's president told the community, if you don't want this data center, we will withdraw the petition. Today, we are making it clear this community does not want this project in its current form or the location they proposed. We say also further indicating that they say we're going to receive $2,500,000 for a community gift from Metro blocks. Now this is something compared to $500,000,000 project. The 2,500,000 is just half of 1% of the total investment.

For every 200 spent building this massive facility, only $1 is pledged for the neighborhood. The small gift does not offset the burdens, the diesel emissions, infrastructure, strain, continuous twenty four seven noise, increased utility cost, and the visual cultural disruption historically to this corridor. We say today, in other words, we ask you, please look at this situation. We respectfully access the petitioner has not met the burden for these variances. He we request that you deny this petition. Martin del Brightwood deserves development that protects health, preserves legacy, and ensures equitable benefit. Our air, our water, our homes, our children, our future are all are not negotiable. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, pastor. Please introduce yourself.

Reverend Anatra Jones, senior pastor of Scott UMC twenty one fifty three, doctor Andrew j Brown. I'm here today in clear opposition to this data center standing in agreement with the equitable and thoughtfully set boundaries for the Martindale Brightwood neighborhood city certified quality of life plan that was built in collaboration with neighbor with neighbors naming environmental justice, neighborhood stability, and community serving development as the core priorities for this area because elders, singles, and families are striving to build safe and stable lives. Placing an industrial scale data center in the middle of homes, a library where our children learn, and a grocery store where our elders shop simply does not line up with those priorities. It is a textbook case of dropping a regional scale, high impact use into a neighborhood serving context that was never planned for this kind of intensity. In simple terms, we're asking families who have already endured decades of environmental injustice to absorb even more risk and disruption.

Approving it would send a message that formally adopted planning documents created with residents over years are optional when a large project shows up rather than standards that actually guide your decisions and protect people on the ground.

Reverend, you've hit your timeline. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Counselor Rob, we're out of time. Remonstrators have hit their time. Thank you very much.

Alright. Hi. I'm Evelyn Keaton.

Reverend, we you're out of time. Remonstrators are done. Fifteen minutes. Time is over. Thank you.

Okay. Well

Thank you, reverend. Thank you. You're done.

Let me just reference.

You're done.

There is a I did have this, which should be

submitted We've to got

it. Okay.

Thank you

very much. Alright. Now, questions for demonstrators. Dieri, would you come up? We may have some questions for you.

And then I have a question for one of the demonstrators. Representative Porter, I've got a question for you if you'd come up please, sir. Questions for demonstrators? Yes. Commissioner West.

Yeah. Hi. Thanks. You had mentioned that a phase two test in the past had shown lead in the water. Is that right?

Yes. I'm gonna have miss Paula come up and give some answers.

Okay. If if that's right, if if a past phase two tested show lead in the water, has what the neighborhood done to work with that and and also how many people in the area are affected by that with well water for drinking?

No one's affected by well water for drinking but is the plume That's been there The there was a 2023 limited it was limited. Environmental assessment that did not cover the entire parcel the 2505 parcel only covered. The northern section of it. And I'm all fine well boring exceeded. The limit for lead there was one- well there that was 11 times the standard.

That and- I would just like to contradict what attorney- Oates said that twenty twenty twelve parcels never been remediated. And there's another parcel behind their 4002. Mass Avenue which will house the substation and it's never been remediated either it's used to be part of mobile all. On storage. On so. The entire parcels are are suspect in terms of contamination.

Thank you.

Thanks, mister Scott.

Any other questions for Mike? Ask representative Porter. We good? Representative Porter, thank you for being here. You're standing with the demonstrators, but I wanted to come back. Could you give us an explanation or help us what the legislature did this session on the data centers so we can understand it.

Was a little Yes.

Yes. Somewhat confusing. I think you would agree

with me.

Still confusing. They're making it up as they go as they're they're trying to do here. Mister president, commissioners, we had a lot of discussions in regards to the abatement for these data centers. The LEAP project is proceeding as it is. However, we will continue to have these these discussions by giving those tax abatements at fifty years, etcetera.

We did ask that those tax abatements that were given, if they had sales tax of 1%, some of that would go back to local communities. But mister mister president and other commissioners, this is ongoing discussions in regards to the data bay data centers here in the state of Indiana. And we will continue to work to look at that and look through it through the summer. And I'm quite sure we will have some study committees again looking at the data centers. These conversations started about two and a half years ago.

I it was I sit on ways and means as ranking member, and it came through at the last day of we were hearing last year here in the budget committee and did a special presentation on on these quote unquote data centers and they called it another word. So I said a lot, but I didn't say a whole lot because as I said, we are still trying to figure it out. It's all in regards to the tax abatements that just happened recently. I think I think the governor announced a billion dollars over the next ten years for in regards to businesses. So we're very concerned about it in our in our tax base.

Representative Porter, thank you, and thank you for being here. Other questions for the demonstrator?

Yes, president Dillon.

Go ahead.

So I'm trying to actually I I really appreciate the concerns first. I think they're really, really important, and you all mentioned the Martindale Brightwood quality of life plan and so I think it's really important that Oregon that neighborhoods are organized to the point to have a quality of life plan because I think that speaks to an organized voice of the folks that live there to help determine what they want to see in the place where they live and I think that matters a lot and they are like you said accepted by the city and they are part of the conversation that needs to go forward and I think staff understands, the commission understands, and a lot of the stakeholders there but my real question is I'm wrestling with the question of if there is a version of a project that works with the neighborhood and what the commitments have been proposed, if there are commitments that are missing that the community has determined that they would want to see but haven't had the opportunity to suggest or if this particular proposal as it is where it is is a moot point.

On okay. On behalf of our coalition, I would say that this project, as it stands right now, and the way that we've been approached, is moot. We have been when you look at the entire trajectory of the project, it has been a level of egregious disrespect, not only from the administrators, the staff, and the petitioner, but from our own counselor. We do not know this man. He acquaintance at banks. How do you hear

about AIG? Please answer the question. Just stay on the question.

No. We don't want this. No data centers here.

Thank you. Any other questions for the for my students? Hearing none. Hearing none, you will have five minutes for rebuttal. I'll call you back up.

Okay. Thank you

very much. Alright. I'm going to start with councilor Brown and then I will go to the sitting councilor Gibson second. Councilor Brown, you're on.

Thank you, chairman Dillon. Thank you, commissioners. Give me just a moment to pull my comments up. Good afternoon and thank you for hearing my testimony today. As I'm sure you've you've seen, I am emphatically opposed to this project. I'm requesting that you overturn the prior findings and instead deny all the requested variances and rezoning requests. I previously written to the hearing examiner to express my deep opposition to this project based on the needs and concerns of the people of Martindale Brightwood. All those concerns are still just as relevant today and I stand behind my previous comments. In particularly in particular, I wanted to reiterate my deep concerns about approving a project that so clearly violates the quality of life plan that the neighborhood works so hard to create. But today, I actually wanted to testify on behalf of the rest of my constituents.

NESCO, the Near East Side Community Organization, represents dozens of neighborhoods in Council District 13. At neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting across the Near East Side and Near North Side, NESCO leaders and I saw the same thing. Super majority level opposition to this project. That's why not only multiple individual neighborhoods, but NESCO itself has formally expressed opposition to this project. My constituents understand that we have one electric grid that we all share.

Even people who live miles away from the proposed data center would likely need to deal with increased cost for the increased generation capacity that data centers like this would require. And even if, as they indicated, the direct financial cost of the grid upgrades are borne by the developers, all Central Indiana residents will still pay the cost of additional generation capacity. According to the integrated resource plans that AES has provided, data center construction will require AES to develop more natural gas fueled power plants. This burning of carbon, fuel has substantial negative health impacts to all of us in Central Indiana, while it also locks our economy into outdated and backwards technology and slows down a green transition to clean energy. My constituents also see the rising inequality in this country, and they correctly understand that big tech is accelerating and exacerbating this inequality.

Billionaires and mega corporations control substantial portions of the economy. And if, as other counselors have commented, data centers are infrastructure, then why would we allow our infrastructure to be privately owned and operated? We can look at AES' sale to the consortium at BlackRock as a very clear indicator what private interest would do with public infrastructure. When a super majority of people from across the political spectrum hold such deep disagreement with the proposed development, why on earth would we let the development continue? Look around the room today.

People have been gathering in the hundreds month after month after month. We need to show constituents that their government is not bought and paid for by out of state developers. Allowing a deeply unpopular data center development to be forced through right next to a library, a grocery store, a community center, and residential homes sets a dangerous precedent that means data centers will be approved anywhere and everywhere in the county. What is the purpose of zoning under such a plan? I finally wanted to call into question the tax benefits that the petitioner mentioned.

Constituents and neighbors have calculated that the annual tax receipt will not be $10,000,000 after the incentives. It's gonna be closer to $1,160,000 for ten years and then $2,230,000 a year thereafter because so many taxes on equipment and energy are waived under state law. So on behalf of my constituents, I implore you to overturn the prior hearing examiner's decision and deny the rezoning and variances for this project. All power to

the people. Thank you, councilor. Councilor Gibson, please come forward and introduce yourself. You are the sitting district councilor. Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, we're not going for that. Councilor Gibson.

Well, good afternoon, mister president and members of the commission. I'm Ron Gibson, councilman for District 8. I rise this afternoon in support of the petition for $25.00 5 North Sherman Drive. This property sits at at a key intersection in my council district and has been inactive for many years. For a long time, it hasn't added to the neighborhood in a meaningful way.

When a site like this sits idle, years after year, the community feels it. People wanna know if something meaningful will happen there and if it will be done in a way that respects the people who lives there. That is why I have taken this position very seriously. I know there are concerns. I heard them, and I take them seriously.

Residents have every right to ask hard questions when a project of this scale is proposed. Those questions matter and they're fair. I would not support this petition if I believed that it would place unreasonable burdens on nearby homes, businesses, and community spaces.

Ladies and gentlemen, be respectful.

The commitments associated with this rezoning provide additional safeguard beyond what is allowed today. There are real benefits tied to this development. Construction is expected to support roughly 300 jobs over a three year period with apprenticeship opportunities to create pathways into trades for people who live in Council District 8. The project includes a minimum of $2,500,000 for affordable housing and infrastructure improvements, and I plan to stay involved to help make those sure those dollars are directed in ways that truly support the community, but this is not the end of the conversation. Early estimates show that at least another $20,000,000 in exclusivity planning could be directed towards Martin Dir Brightwood.

So, at a minimum, $22,000,000 will be invested in Martineer Brightwood for infrastructure needs and for more affordable housing, at a minimum, And it could be upwards to way more than that.

Ladies and gentlemen, please.

And I will continue pushing to make sure those final commitments are meaningful, measurable, and enforceable for the neighborhood. This project also represents a broader economic opportunity for the city. Initial negotiation points to the potential for significant new tax revenue over the next decade. Revenue that can support essential services, housing, infrastructure, schools, and other priorities. Those conversations are still ahead of us, but they matter of fact and I tend to stay engaged to make sure that both our city and this community see the benefits.

Finally, this petition allows this property to move from an inactivity to a productive use while remaining consistent with its industrial designation. I believe that it is an important step forward. For those reasons, I ask for your approval. At the end of the day, this comes down to a choice. We can allow this property to remain stagnant or we can move it towards productive use with stronger standards, clear commitments, and a real expectation of community benefit. For those reasons, mister chairman and members of the committee, I respectfully ask for your approval. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Gibson. Appreciate it. You may not. May I have your attention, please? At the you may not. At the end of the demonstrator's testimony, as I did with the petitioner, if you were here against the project, quietly stand up. Thank you very much. Quietly sit down. Thank you. We're gonna go to staff report. Kathleen.

Yes. Thank you, president Dillon, members of the commission. As you before you, there are two requests. One is for the rezoning, and the second one relates to the variances. Staff is recommending approval of both of these requests, primarily because staff believes that the use that is proposed is light industrial and is consistent with the comprehensive plan of light industrial.

In addition to that, there is an industrial overlay. And that's been explained by Mr. Oaks. But when identifying industrial overlays during the planning of the comprehensive plan, they looked at large parcel size, compatible uses, and or connection to the interstate. For these reasons, staff believes that both the light the comprehensive plan recommendation as well as the industrial overlay is met by this request.

Industrial overlays are also established to protect and reserve larger tracts of land that would enhance and provide competitive efforts for the city and encourage current residents and businesses to remain and bring new residents and businesses into the community. Again, staff believes that the rezoning would align with the recommendation of light industrial and the in and the overlay of industrial reserve. Talking about the variances, as has been noted, there are three. One talks about the height, the setback of the building, and the last is to reduce parking that is required. Staff believes that, as proposed, there would be some buffering for that height.

The petitioner's representative has indicated that that landscape plan would be submitted for administrator approval. It would include both evergreen screening and berms that would provide some buffering for from that height. The building setback. The reason for this is so that that building will align with the building to the north. What occurs in between that setback and Sherman Drive is a green area which serves as a buffer in addition to that additional space between the sidewalk along and Sherman Drive and where the building would be placed.

So staff believes that that setback is appropriate because it does offer some buffering. The last one would allow for reduced parking. We understand that these data centers do not require the parking requirements and the parking needs of an industrial use. And so for this reason, staff believes that the reduced parking request is appropriate and supports that. So in conclusion, again, staff believes it aligns with the comprehensive plan and the industrial overlay and that the variances that are requested are appropriate.

Now, again, I said I was in conclusion, but I will say this. There were some letters of support as well as as opposition. And the representative from IDDI, mister Brown, has asked if he could make some comments relative to their letter of support.

Thank you, Kathleen. Mister Brown, introduce yourself. Please introduce yourself.

Yes, sir, mister president, members of the commission and staff. Thank you. I'm Doug Brown, 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700. It's my privilege to represent Indianapolis Economic Development Inc, who submitted a letter, and I believe it's in your packet, mister president. They asked me to come read this letter on their behalf. It's dated 04/01/2026. It's Ladies

and gentlemen, this is part of the staff report. Thank you.

It says, 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 community 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 Metro Block's data center project, IEDI 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. Based on this initial evaluation of the company meeting these economic development standards, IEDI 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.

IEDI's decision to extend an incentive officer office was based on several key factors. One, a high projected assessed value resulting in significant potential increases in tax revenue for the site. Two, strong project viability supported by substantial financial investment and access to near term power resources. Three, a corporate approach focused on investing in sites that are prime for redevelopment or have been vacant or underutilized. This proposed site has been vacant for over forty years.

Four, a commitment to covering all related infrastructure project costs, including power costs. Five, a demonstrated commitment to meet and discuss the project with city and township stakeholders. Six, a commitment to meeting and exceeding inclusivity standards for community projects. Seven, Metro Block shared a commitment to use local workforce and form partnerships with local schools. As always, the granting of incentives remain contingent upon the approval of appropriate land use designations.

IEDI believes the Metro Block's proposed development and investment will be an extremely high economic driver for this area and the city of Indianapolis at large. 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 our company receiving 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 process advances. Respectfully, in the Economic Development Inc.

Thank you, councilor. Questions for staff, for members of the commission?

I have a question for mister Brown. Yes. Mr. Brown, talk about how it would be an economic driver. I think that might be interesting for people.

Well, I think the petitioner has discussed that in large measure, the jobs that are created in the construction process, etcetera. The tax incentives or tax revenues, my understanding by the way, we looked into that as a result of the question that was asked. I think the parcel is currently producing about $3,800 a year in taxes and would produce about 11,000,000.

That's before or after abatements?

Well, think the abatements would are in process of being determined. I So before? Yes, sir. Yeah.

Other questions for staff? I

wonder Kathleen.

Go ahead, please.

One of the things that was mentioned was the soil and and what might be in the soil and how that might be disrupted and what the impacts of that might be. What can you tell us about that?

As as been noted, this you know, there are some contaminations on this site, but those contaminations are handled by the state of Indiana, the IDEM department, and they have environmental management. When they start construction, they will need to contact and file with IDEM. And IDEM is the one that will issue permits after they have gone through a thorough investigation. They cannot move forward without the permits from IDEM. So they they and they would address some of those issues that has been raised.

Additional questions for staff?

Yes, sir. President Dillon. Two questions. The first is, with one of the petition issues, guidelines here being that conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction being something we consider. From what you all have seen with data centers as there are as representatives, you know, so artfully concluded, it is a discussion that is still in the works in large part across the country. So with that being true here with the negative press of data centers, how have you seen property values be affected by this type of conversation?

That's a very difficult question to answer, but I think putting a piece of property that has been vacant for many years into a better use would improve and increase those property values that are surrounding. And what you see to the North is a commercial use, a high intense C7. That's the highest commercial use. And to the South and to the East, you have industrial uses. Staff believes that when this comes if this is developed, it would again increase the value of that particular property as well as raise the surrounding to the north, the east, and the south, raise the value of those properties.

Okay. And on that point, the third one here is most desirable use for which the land in each district is adapted and it seems to be with the great degree of remonstrance that there is a less desirable position here and so my question being on that how do we square those two being that the proposed use is clearly not being desired from staff's recommendation to support this I'm kind of confused Oh and then sorry sorry sorry one more to add to that. One of the demonstrators brought up a trucking use so what is the nature of that business? Is it still active and how many people are educated and trained in how to drive semi trucks currently?

Okay. The for to address your first question related to the desirable use, There are going to be use limitations on this property because of the contamination. And when and I've and I'm not pretending to be an environmental engineer, but based upon what I have reviewed over the course of this petition, the industrial uses would be the most appropriate for this site just because of the contamination. You cannot put residential on here, and it's been noted that you cannot use the groundwater. So what you're left with is an industrial use.

And because this staff has determined that this is an industrial use, staff believes that this would be a desirable use based upon the history and the contamination of this site. And in terms of the trucking, I that actually was I think they came forward for a rezoning for that trucking operation. And in fact, if it is under the current ordinance, the trucking operation would be illegal because in order for having a truck parking operation, you would need a special exception, and you have to meet certain guidelines related to that special exception. So I don't think based upon and and probably the neighbors can answer this better, but it appeared that that operation was no longer there, that this land has remained vacant. Vacant.

Okay. But just for for the record, it hasn't been vacant and unused for forty years. It's been Right. Vacant. But I think we need some very specific clarity on that because if it does have an active use currently, I think that should be considered. And it doesn't sound like that's been

stated enough. I'm sorry to interrupt. I don't know what that active use is because when staff made the site visit there was no activity at all.

Thank you.

Additional questions for staff? Yes. Commissioner Garber.

So, Kathleen, in the paperwork it says it's a 70 foot tall building, but then the petitioner keeps saying 50 or just a little over 50. Do you how tall is this building supposed to be?

Well, I think as he explained, the building itself would be 50 feet, but then the 70 feet kicks in because they have that parapet around that to screen the the equipment that will be associated with this operation.

Final questions for staff?

I have some president Dillon. Commissioner And maybe the demonstrator can or the petitioner rather can speak to the question about current use. But my observation, my understanding is there is no current operation of any business on this property. But maybe the petitioner can speak to that and I think when it says the term vacant has been used I think maybe a more specific term is it's been unimproved. There hasn't been a building or an improvement on the property for forty years.

To my question on the comprehensive plan and this kind of ties back to most desirable use. The comprehensive plan takes into consideration most desirable use for areas and it designated this particular area for industrial. Is that correct? That's

correct. Yes.

And what year was a comprehensive plan promulgated approximately?

That was and in fact I can tell you when that was. Was and it's being currently is being updated But the comprehensive plan was I believe in 2019.

Okay. And the industrial overlay then is an overlay on the comprehensive plan and it once again designated the site as industrial, I think maybe light industrial

Uh-huh.

Specifically.

And industrial reserve. Yes.

Yeah. And when was that established?

That was at the same time with the comprehensive plan of Yes. '20

And can you just touch on the process just briefly on the comprehensive plan and then the industrial overlay as far as soliciting community and neighborhood input?

Well, I do know that there was a great deal of time spent putting the comprehensive plan together. And it's my understanding, I wasn't directly involved with that, but it was my understanding that they held community meetings in each of the nine townships. And that's when you look at the comprehensive plan that is that we currently use, it does identify each of those individual townships. But it was I I can't tell you the number of years that were spent on that, but it was a long discussion with the community.

It was a long process, which is standard procedure to implement a comprehensive plan that they solicit community input. Yes. And the ultimate decision that was made was industrial.

Yes.

And that's been in place for about seven years.

Yes it has.

And then there's been some questions about why do we need a variance for this. And I think you've touched on the answer is that the Marion County zoning ordinance does not specify data center as a use.

That is correct.

And so what the attempt is is to best fit it into the zoning ordinance which typically it would best fit with industrial but it still is going to require variances because it doesn't fit perfectly into that zoning ordinance because the zoning ordinance doesn't address data centers right

that is correct and

the day may

come that the Marion County zoning ordinance does include data centers which would fit comfortably into the zoning and not require a variance but that situation does not exist today

That is correct. Yes.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you.

Final questions for staff. Thank you. We will now go back to the petitioners for five minutes rebuttal, then I will come to the demonstrators for five minutes rebuttal. We'll start with the petitioners.

Good afternoon.

Please introduce yourself and your address.

My name is Brad Sugarman. I'm an environmental lawyer with both McKinney and Evans. I'm here on behalf of Metroblocks. I just wanted to take a few minutes to respond to some of the questions and comments here today on the environmental side of things. First of all, this property that we're talking about would qualify as brownfield property. Brownfield property is defined as underdeveloped or underutilized property because of either environmental contamination or the suspect suspected presence of environmental contamination. The property on which the data center is located is is unused. It has been unused for quite some time. Its earliest use was as associated with the rail line. It had a rail yard there for thirty or forty or fifty years.

That rail line was taken out of use. Then it was, filled with soil, and it became a drive in theater, and drive in theater went went under. Since that time, it's been unused. There's some other portions of this site, one which has been, used as a filling station, which did go through environmental remediation and got a no further action letter from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. And then there's another portion of this, project that's been discussed that is the substation area which I believe is where the former trucking parking lot was.

I don't know that that based on my review of the environmental documents is still in use. So, a few quest a few comments. The zoning part of this is just the beginning of the process from an environmental lawyer standpoint. After zoning is taken care of, that's when the environmental work starts. So I've worked with Metroblocks on developing a strategy for this site and one of the things that we will be doing is working with Indiana Brownfields to obtain a comfort letter or a site status letter for the project.

That gives us assurances that we won't be held liable for the historic contamination that's on the property that we did not cause. In order to to maintain that protection, we have to follow, reasonable steps that Indiana Brownfield puts together in that comfort letter. One of those reasonable steps will be a soil management plan. Now soil management plan is a formal document. It follows guidelines that have been adopted by IDEM, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

And there are there are several portions of that that include requirements for soil handling and disposal activities, for contaminant containment, for contingency plans, for worker protection, for water management, and storm water erosion control. So this will be the formal document that will guide Metroblocks on moving soil at the site. If we run into something that's a problem, we'll deal with it provided under the soil management plan. And the second comment I'd like to address is, air dispersion modeling that was, mentioned by the demonstrators. The one of the things that we will have to do before we construct and operate is obtain an air permit from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

There are various levels of air permitting that apply based emissions that come from the facility. The emissions here are associated with the emergency generators that do not operate full time. So we will work with IDEM and we will decide what level of permit that we apply for. If we are a significant or a major source, there will be air dispersion modeling that's required with that air permitting. And we will address those concerns with the agency when we get our permit. Thank you.

Again, for the record, Tyler Oaks on behalf of petitioner. Got about a minute twenty left, so we'll be quick here. Just wanna reiterate, we appreciate working with staff through this process. Obviously, the data center process is relatively new, and, given the ordinance, it's a little bit unknown, but we wanna reiterate just a couple things. One, this is an industrial area. It is heavy industrial to the south. There's heavy commercial around it, and it's currently zoned I two, which is light industrial. This is an industrial overlay area. It is specifically earmarked for industrial use. This represents a revitalization and reinvestment into this property that, call it whatever you'd like to, has not been productive for the community and for the city of Indianapolis in forty three years.

And so you're gonna come in with a roughly $500,000,000 investment. It's going to provide infrastructure upgrades that the community can benefit on as well as the city of Indianapolis. You're all the concerns we've heard, water, we've addressed. It's gonna be a closed loop system. Noise, we have commitments required to abide by that. And then you've obviously heard environmental. So this project represents reinvestment, and it puts Indianapolis in the community in a position for the future digital economy. And so, again, we would respectfully request your approval of of of this project. And, we thank you and and all for your time.

Final questions for the petitioner.

Yes, sir. Commissioner Lyle. Being that Martindale Brightwood, like I said earlier, is organized to the point to have a quality of life plan. How have you guys determined that you will interact with that and collaborate with the with the community on this proposed development and the fallout that everyone's speaking about today?

So this process has gone on for a really long time. Like I said, we started with staff back in July and then had a first community meeting in September. And a lot of concerns were voiced then, and the proposal at that time was vague. And so the concerns kind of what we've laid out here is there's been a lot of concerns about water, light, noise, environmental, safety, things of that nature. And so going forward, particularly on the environmental front, it's become a point to ensure that we're incorporating that into this development as we move forward.

You can see that in the commitments that we've issued. I think additionally, because you're going a CS route as opposed to an I two, a CS requires a CS statement, and so there are more stringent protections that exist on a CS than it would I two otherwise. So we've incorporated concerns. I I hope I've addressed them, particularly on, like I said, the waterfront. Brad, with the environmental that, you know, it's going to be going forward, we're going to address those concerns.

And the the commitment of $2,500,000 in community engagement, what does that look like, and what is the enforcement mechanism behind that?

So I I think is IEDI kind of already alluded to it that it would be kind of it is a requirement if they were to apply for for the abatement process. So there is enforceability on on that behalf of to get the abatement the abatement, excuse me. You'd have to go through that process. And then, again, we're working with councilor Gibson through that process to make sure that that money is spent in the right areas and that is directly benefiting Martindale Brightwood.

And then last question and if the the counselor would the environmental counselor would return, my question is actually about that and you mentioned to pursue whatever degree of documentation necessary in terms of the permitting that you'll have to have for future environmental surveys and the work that's going to be done there. So what commitment can you make to pursue the highest degree of environmental stringency for the outcomes of the project being that there are so many concerns about groundwater, disturbance of the soil, and what pollutants that brings during construction so that the site construction, should it proceed, goes above and beyond to address the community concerns about what disturbing the ground would do to the nearby companies, libraries, schools, etcetera.

Yeah. It all comes back down to the soil management plan and the soil management plan process. So, yeah, it's a 12 step process for the soil management plan where you the first few steps in the plan are going out and and sampling the site. So doing actual invasive testing at the site. To date, there's been a lot of phase one investigations which are kind of historical analyses of the property and there's been a few as the demonstrators mentioned limited subsurface investigations from prior perspective purchasers.

But to date there's no been no comprehensive soil sampling that's been done for a a development purpose. So, that's the first step that we would do. We go out to the site. We we take samples, that are recommended by our environmental consultant who's a local environmental consulting company and we'd either determine that the site is impacted or not impacted where we're where we're developing. So if we find impacts in the soil, then we have to we have to deal with those.

Right? We have to report it to, potentially report it to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and remediate it. And then we get to get closure assurances from IDEM and then move forward from there. So those are the kind of it's an iterative process we like to say in environmental law. So you go out to the site, you do your sampling, and then you address the contamination that you find and you move forward from there in conjunction with the Department of Environmental Management.

Sure understood. Process I understand. I'm actually asking about the commitment to pursue a higher degree of remediation than what is suggested because there already is a preliminary phase two that is that is out there. And so with you guys only having the phase one currently in your stead and there is a phase two that already exists knowing that the phase two suggests that there could be some potentially serious complications, I'm asking about what commitment you can make to address the known concerns until you find further evidence.

Well, that's a so there are two ways to answer that question. The first is for the metro blocks development phase one, there were no recognized environmental conditions that were found in the phase one. For the parcel of property where the substation is going, there were recognized conditions. So that's a term of art. That means there was a use of the property that could have resulted in a release of a hazardous substance that needs to be investigated.

So on the on the substation property, we know there has to be additional investigation. The MetroBox portion of the property, the recommendation from the environmental consultant was that there was no environmental investigation that needed to be done, but we're going to do that anyway. So we're going go out and do soil sampling on that property associated with the development. And then as far as if we run into environmental issues and we work with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management who sets cleanup standards based on the use of the property. This is a commercial industrial piece of property, so we'll be cleaning up to, investigating up to those commercial standards that have been established to protect human health and the environment for that use of the property.

And should the process proceed, level what of communication would you have outgoing as you run into milestones across the environmental concerns?

Well, all of the documents that we submit to the on behalf of the community, all of the all of the documents that we submit to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management are public records. So they'll be avail publicly available on the virtual file cabinet, the VFC that item maintains. Depending on the level of work that needs to be done, and the the interest in the community, there's often a community relations plan put in place. So there's open line of communication about what's going on in cleanup, that is monitored by the Department of Environmental Management.

So there's no set plan for the development or the developer itself to communicate outbound to the community? I

I I'd have to punt that one to Tyler. I'm just the environmental lawyer.

Sure. Sure. Sure. Thank you. You.

In terms of that question, obviously, I think it depends on how that process goes. Right now, we just have that phase one that tells us there's no recognized environmental conditions. If something were to arise and we work through IDEM, I think that's certainly something that we're hoping to is informing the community. I know there's a very vested interest in the environmental status of that property. So I think we're my client's certainly open to lines of communication regarding any issues that are found on that property. I think ultimately it's gonna be a net benefit for that property because we're going if there is an issue it's going to be found and it's going to be addressed and it's gonna be remediated.

Sure. So we were in this seat not too long ago with a completely different data center and one of the things that I liked about what that particular developer, not to be comparative, but they suggested the desire to be a good neighbor. They suggested the desire to be a good neighbor. I thought that was a pretty genuine approach and with that ideal I think for representative here it would be really nice to see as we figure out what developing data centers looks like going forward if that posture is the baseline and not the ceiling. I think that that makes a really good opportunity to quell down a lot of this type of fervor and I think it's incumbent on the developers to absorb that idea and be able to have a community portal where people can interact with you guys because you will be impacting their immediate vicinity.

And the idea of being good neighbors understanding that and acting in it.

Understood. And I think my clients here understands as well that through that process we'll make sure those lines are open. Assuming we get there obviously.

Final questions?

I have a couple President Dillon. So just to clear some things up that have been a little confusing or just for the commission. Is there or is there not a truck driver training operation currently on this property?

Our understanding is currently there has been I drove and put the site the signs up for notice. There were trucks parked on that property. Whether or not it's an extension of the 400, I think, 2 Mass Ave or not, I don't know.

So there's truck parking, but there's no commercial operation of driver training?

They they there have been signs. There was, a a trailer on the property. Again, to to Kathleen's point, I'm not sure if

that's It's it's not zoned. It's not zoned for that.

But there's no in there's no built improvement on the property.

Yeah. And then on tax, real estate property tax. So I think Mr. Brown testified currently it generates I think he said $3,800 or something like that. And then my understanding is the petitioner has not applied for a tax abatement.

Ernest

O'Prescu Metro Blocks, we have applied for tax abatement.

Have you been granted tax abatement?

We have not, we received an offer letter which we're working through right now.

Okay.

And and absent an abatement, the real estate property tax that it would pay into the county would be approximately how much per year?

I I believe it was over $11,000,000 per year.

So 10 to $11,000,000 per year? Yes, sir. Not 10 to $11,000,000 over ten years. Correct. But per year? Correct. Okay. And then back to councilor Oakes.

And sir, just one one quick question if I can. The commitment and you've heard councilor Gibson make it as well I think the initial commitment that we made was of 2,500,000 since and as part of the negotiation with IEDI and councilor Gibson that commitment since increased to 20,000,000.

So you're testifying that the 2,500,000 give back to the community is now 20,000,000 or will be. Wait. Let me finish.

Yes, sir.

Subject to Ladies and gentlemen, let the question and answers.

Subject to the subject to approval of a tax abatement as it's currently been requested or structured, the amount given back to the community, the commitment is approximately 20,000,000.

That's correct, sir. The inclusivity amount that we're ready and willing to commit to based on the ongoing negotiations is closer to 20,000,000.

And is that a lump sum or is that paid out over the life of the abatement? It'll be paid over the

life of the abatement. Again to to be negotiated we haven't worked through those details.

And typically it would be a ten year time frame?

Correct. There are two abatements.

So approximately 20 or 2,000,000 per year.

That's roughly correct. Yeah. The 2.5 would be upfront and the balance Yes. Yes.

That's good information. Thank you. And then councilor Oakes on noise. So the demonstrator brought up concerns about the noise study and that it looked like there were areas where it was more than the 55 decibels maybe up to 60.9 decibels. But irrespective of that, am I correct that the operation would be required to abide by the Marion County noise ordinance and not let excessive noise bleed out over the property line.

Correct. And we have a commitment reflecting that as well.

And it would be enforceable simply by the ordinance even if you didn't commit to it.

Correct. And I think just on top of that, we have that

as well.

And then we also have to submit how we're going to be testing and making sure that testing is done during when the generation generators are being tested.

Thank you. I have no other questions.

And then I apologize. Count commissioner, but you had a question, I think, before Ernest spoke. I didn't know if you still wanted to ask that.

No I have no other questions.

Okay thank you.

Final questions.

Yes sir one final question about height. Is there a version of this project that achieves the goals with less impact Because I think the the height conversation has happened a few different times and we know that the building height will be such, the parapet will be such, but there is an even additional layer on top of that that reaches 70 which is completely out of touch for the neighborhood scale. So can you help me understand why it must be this way? Is there a different version that helps achieve the goal without that? Is there a step back opportunity? What what's that look like?

Yeah. So, I mean, I to answer your question, I don't think there is. I think this is the scaled down version to get it as minimal as possible. You see that zero to 50 foot area is what would I would consider the standard kind of base to roof. And then the 17 feet above that is all related to screening both from site, the equipment, and noise attenuation.

And so I think that's been brought down to what we would describe as minimal. On top of that, to negate the effects because we understand that 67 for what normally would be 50 in an industrial area is is still 17 feet over. I understand that's high. That's intentionally why the buildings on the handouts I provided are placed where they are. They're pushed back from Sherman Drive intentionally to mitigate that height, the berms, the landscaping that staff is required.

Again, that landscaping can be part of the CS and that's why CS is a good thing because ultimately, administrators gonna have to grant us approval before an ILP is. They'll review landscaping plans before we get approval. And so the landscaping, the berming, the pushback off of Sherman Drive, all of that's gonna mitigate that extra 17 feet. And again, the 17 feet exist to screen both from sight and from noise.

Does that conclude our questions? Thank you, petitioners.

Thank you, commission.

To the demonstrators, De'Area, you have five minutes. We're gonna set the clock. We'll have representative Porter go. When the light goes on, you're done, and we may have questions for you. Representative Porter, you're on the clock. Go.

Thank you. Thank you mister president and other commissioners. I just want to say we're talking about today you heard from individuals with the who are truly truthful and forthright in regards to the quality of life plan and the Martindale Brightwood and One Voice community. More things I did not hear today with these individuals was it

more about

transparency, accountability, yet honesty. Didn't hear that today from these individuals of the petitioner. You heard things like it depends. You heard things like it's possible. You heard you know, so it's not concrete.

What you're doing today, we're looking at a zoning for a land that may have some variances. So now you're gonna have zoning, then we're gonna come back and make it up as we go and try to figure out what we're gonna do in our community. This is not a right right way to do things for the Martindale Brightwell community. The letter that I sent back on September 30 still stands today fervently against this project for for those some of the same reasons. Contamination contamination was because of what what had happened in the past, and the reason why it sat there was because it was contaminated.

The the the current the current person did not upkeep the land. It was owned by a university, sold it, did not upkeep it. Therefore, the city did not do what they're supposed to do in regards to trying to keep it right. There's a lack of communication, mister commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, between the city and everybody and and and the departments in regards to this this organization and what was good for the quality of life. The quality of life is the quality of life for people in Markdale, Boydwood area and throughout this city, not the quality of life of somebody from another state. Thank you very much.

Thank you, representative. Who's next? Please reintroduce yourself.

Paula Brooks. I just wanna make note that the organization One Voice was actually established to deal with the American lead contamination. The neighborhood, and I work closely with Ms. Gunn on land use issues, as you do know President Dillon. Their purpose is not to keep out industry.

They realize that the neighborhood is industrial, is polluting entities as well as developers who want to extract the wealth and leave the community with health and financial burdens. So it's not about the industrial overlay, it's really about the pollution that the Metrobox is bringing with 36 generators. Also, tier four generators are regulated differently. They can run longer. They need to basically work out all of the environmental and community health impacts before coming to this board for rezoning.

Because once they get the rezoning, they can do whatever they want to do. And then lastly, as you know, because we all live here in Marion County, enforcement is the issue. B n BNS does not have the capacity to enforce violations. So all of those burdens are gonna be put on the community. Thank you.

Thank you, Paul. And next, please.

I won't be with you along, commissioners. Appreciate you. One of the things I wanna name that Tyler actually brought up that I think is a really important thing to wrestle with is that the city of Indianapolis has not done the work to properly define what a data center is, and we're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole through this. And I understand the fundamental tension that this board has to wrestle through that you're asking to fit an unnamed, unspecified industrial object into a very clear overlay of industry. And that is a unfair, unrealistic expectation of this board that I think also opens a Pandora's box for the rest of the city to not have any clarity over where a data center can and cannot go. I think real leadership from our council would look like defining that for this body. And you all should reject this until they take that leadership step.

Thank you. You've hit your time. Counselor, time's over. Any questions for demonstrators?

Okay. There's nothing in writing.

I do have a question for demonstrators.

Yes. Dia Diaira, you wanna take the question?

I had a there was another minute, it looked like, on the clock.

Actually, I agree. Give him one minute on the clock. Alright.

I'm here with my mom who