Plan commission forwards minimal regulations to city council over citizen objections

Photo above, Resident Mercedes Lahr speaks against data centers at the Aug. 17 plan commission hearing.

This article is brought to you by Moore’s Home Health and Medical Supply. For more than 70 years, Moore’s Home Health has been Howard County’s leading provider of assistive and adaptive ​home medical equipment and supplies. Call 765-454-5210 or visit Moore’s at 608 W. Markland Ave. to let them help meet your healthcare needs!

A set of new regulations to help define how a data center might be developed is heading to the Kokomo Common Council. An ordinance designed to establish some ground rules was heard by the Kokomo Plan Commission on Mon., Aug. 17, and it was met with plenty of public opposition.

Despite the fact that the proposed ordinance puts in place some restrictions, the crowd was incensed by both the less than robust rules and the fact that there is any window left open for data center development in Kokomo.

As the public hearing began, city employee Tom Tolen approached the microphone, wearing a sweatshirt conveying his love for data centers. He made a brief comment in support of the proposed amendment ordinance, which turned out to be the only testimony in favor of the measure.

He was followed by a procession of speakers who have become familiar fixtures at hearings involving potential data centers. Resident Ann Ihms again urged local government leaders to pay heed to and protect the community’s water supply. She called for the formation of a water advisory group and warned against allowing a data center to be developed.

“You all make a big difference in what you recommend to come into a community,” said Ihms. “Over the history of our country, gambling, adult content places, weapons, firearms places, health and pharmaceutical places, tobacco and alcohol -- all those were monitored very strictly.

“And what we need to add now, I believe, in this point in time, is something that very much tightly oversees these high-tech, high-draw, high-water, high-energy facilities. Someone needs to be much more diligent. We don’t have to open our door to this. Other communities are saying no, and they’re saying no for good reasons.”

Resident Allie Pond, who lives near the industrial park that is the suspected site for a data center, criticized the proposed ordinance for its failure to include a decommissioning plan.

“I think that might be wise to include, so we are not in the same boat as we are with the GM plant that’s sitting there vacant,” said Pond. “So, if this data center comes, they do all the things they need to do, and data centers go away or the company goes away, we need a plan of what to do with that building and how to get rid of it.”

The rancor in the room did not abate, as speaker after speaker voiced strong opposition of data centers and condemned the proposed ordinance for not going far enough to restrict such development.

“At the very least, strict regulations must be established to protect our infrastructure, environment, and community,” said resident Thomas Sharp. “Instead, the ordinance changes proposed actually remove barriers to entry and fail to include necessary safety protections for the people of Howard County and Kokomo.”

Resident Kathy Hoover expressed dismay over the 200-foot minimum setback for a data center from the nearest residential property. She argued that even 300 feet would be insufficient. She also stressed that restrictions should be added to limit construction times for a data center project, citing construction activity at the solar farm on the county’s east side as an example of the need.

“Construction went on sometimes 24/7,” said Hoover. “Maybe it wasn’t supposed to, but it did. I had friends that lived there. They would send me pictures from 3 a.m. in the morning. Dump trucks in and out, in and out. Are you kidding me?”

Once those who had signed up to speak had done so, Kokomo Common Councilman Matt Grecu, who also serves on the plan commission, spoke in support of the ordinance.

“I think any time you draft something by committee, there are going to be parts of that that this person agreed with, that person agreed with, and so you come to something that everybody on the committee can get behind,” said Grecu. “Nobody ever gets their way 100 percent in that type of an environment.

“What we have before us is not something that is creating an invitation for data centers. Data centers have never been disallowed. What we have is something that puts further restriction on data centers, and it does. It does. As the ordinance is written today, you could build a data center 30 feet from a property line. That would not be a good thing.”

His comment drew outbursts from the crowd, and a new round of speakers headed to the microphone, allowed by acting board president Cathy Stover. What followed was a back-and-forth between speakers and Grecu. Once the arguments were exhausted, city attorney T.J. Rethlake clarified that the Kokomo Common Council will receive a recommendation on the ordinance, either favorable, unfavorable, or neutral, and that it would receive two readings before a final vote would be taken.

Plan commission member Kelly Barker asked if the council has the ability to amend the ordinance, perhaps to increase minimum setbacks, and Rethlake responded that the council could amend the legislation as they see fit. Residents continued to line up at the microphone, unsatisfied by the commission’s discourse.

Eventually, the plan commission closed public comment and prepared to vote. Since the board was missing two members, the threshold for passage dropped from five yes votes to just four. When the vote was taken, the measure passed on a 5-2 vote, with Tina Durham and Cathy Stover casting votes in opposition.

The proposed ordinance advances to the Kokomo Common Council, which is expected to hold a first reading of it on Mon., Aug. 24, at 6 p.m. in the council chambers at City Hall, 100 S. Union St. An informational meeting precedes the session at 5:30 p.m.

(Editor’s note: This article has been amended to remove claims made by one of the residents cited and to correct the dissenting voters to reflect Cathy Stover as a no vote.)