[PAGE 1]
SHELBYVILLE SPECIAL PLAN COMMISSION
SUMMARIZED MEETING MINUTES
January 7, 2026
Members present: Mike Claxton, Betsy Means-Davis, Scarlett Tinsley-Price, Duane Schuler,
James Garrett, Doug Cassidy, Gary Nolley, Carter Hall, Winnie Soviar, Joe Lux, Tyler Comstock
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Adam Rude, Mike Evans, Abby Adams, Lisa Loveless
Election of Officers: Carter Hall nominated Gary Nolley for president and Winnie Soviar
seconded the nomination. Adam Rude interrupted to remind current president, Doug Cassidy of
the proper procedure for election of officers. Duane Schuler then nominated Doug Cassidy as
president. There was no audible second. Ballot vote: Mr. Cassidy - 6 votes, Mr. Nolley - 5
votes so Mr. Cassidy is 2026 Plan Commission president.
Mr. Cassidy called for nominations for vice president and Duane Schuler nominated Gary Nolley
with Joe Lux seconding the motion. Since there were no other nominations, Gary Nolley is vice
president.
The planning staff is secretary.
Miscellaneous Business: President Doug Cassidy read a prepared set of rules for the
meeting into the record.
Approval of Minutes: Scarlett Tinsley-Price motioned to approve the minutes of the
December, 2025 meeting and Besty Means-Davis seconded the motion. Voice vote passed 11 -
0.
Old Business: None
New Business: Suspension of Section 8.3 Plan Commission Rules & Procedures
Adam Rude informed the board that he’d been advised by the city’s legal counsel that Section
8.3 of the Plan Commission’s Rules & Procedures be suspended for tonight’s meeting so that
the board won’t have to end the meeting at 9:30, tabling the petition and bringing it back up at a
future meeting. President Cassidy called for a motion to suspend Section 8.3. James Garrett
made the motion and Scarlett Tinsley-Price seconded the motion. Voice vote: Mike Claxton -
yes, Betsy Means-Davis - yes, Scarlett Tinsley-Price - yes, Duane Schuler - yes, James Garrett
- yes, Doug Cassidy - yes, Gary Nolley - yes, Carter Hall - yes, Winnie Soviar - yes, Joe Lux -
no, Tyler Comstock - yes. Mr. Rude told the board that the motion has to pass unanimously in
order to suspend the rule so since it did not, the meeting would be adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Mr.
1

[PAGE 2]
Lux said that he misspoke so Adam told Mr. Cassidy that the motion would have to be repeated
and re-voted. Therefore James Garrett motioned and Scarlett Tinsely-Price seconded to
suspend Section 8.3 of the Plan Commission’s Rules and Procedures. Voice vote passed 11 -
0.
PC 2025-15 LORM, LLC and Alicia Clay Annexation
Eric Glasco, representing the petitioner, discussed the petition.
(?) Reynolds from the petitioner, Prologis spoke to introduce Prologis.
Mike Kenny, director of data center investments with Prologis discussed concerns about the
petition.
- Mike Claxton asked about the number of jobs that the petitioners had quoted. Mr. Kenny
said at full buildout, there would be 450 jobs across the entire campus.
- Betsy Means-Davis spoke about training at our local Ivy Tech. Mr. Kenny said that since
Prologis won’t be the end-user, he couldn’t commit to using Ivy Tech but assured the
board that there would be training by the end users for employees.
- Scarlett Tinsley-Price asked to clarify the number of construction jobs there would be to
build the site out. Mr. Kenny said more than 6700. Ms. Tinsley-Price asked if those jobs
would go to local contractors and Mr. Kenny said typically they do. Scarlett asked if they
could speak about when the conservation of the land would be on these sites. Mr.
Kenny said there’s usually ample green space and water management.
- Duane Schuler asked what the water capacity is for the closed loop cooling units in each
of the buildings. Mr. Kenny didn’t have a definitive answer but invited Larry Long, also
with Prologis to address the question. Mr. Long said those questions were more relevant
at the site plan stage so he doesn’t have technical specs yet. Mr. Schuler expressed
frustration at not getting an answer to what he termed a “basic question”. Mr. Kenny said
less than 1%. Mr. Schuler then asked about water loss in a closed loop system, saying
that they do in fact lose water. Mr. Long said it’s very minimal. Mr. Schuler asked if
refreshing the systems would be done in stages or all at once. Mr. Long said they would
be staged in sequence. Duane then asked if there was a plan for a large scale water
loss. At that point, Mr. Glasco, petitioner’s representative, reminded the board that it’s
not known for sure that this project is for a data center. Mr. Schuler asked his question
again and Mr. Long said they’d have a spill protection and prevention plan that would
outline all the steps to be taken.
- James Garrett asked if Prologis’ existing clients would be going into this data center or if
it would be new clients. Mr. Kenny said they work with all of the hyperscalers so they
would likely be interested. James asked if this data center would be using RushShelby
Energy or Duke Energy. Mr. Long said all of their coordination has been with
RushShelby and Hoosier. Mr. Garrett said that a shipping/receiving area was shown in
their slide presentation but Prologis had said they’d have very low truck traffic so how
many trucks would be going in and out of the site in a day. Mr. Kenny said it’s hard to
2

[PAGE 3]
say since they don’t know for sure what the size of the buildings will be. Mr. Garrett
pressed and Mr. Long said they might get 2 trucks a day. James asked if they would be
53’ trailers and Mr. Long said more like a city delivery truck.
- Winnie Soviar said that in the research she’d done, including a study by the University of
Michigan, the 450 jobs projection were not realized. The same study mentioned that the
rate payers ultimately ended up having to fund improvements. Mr. Kenny said he wasn’t
familiar with the study but they always play by the rules. Ms. Soviar then asked about
regulatory oversight and again Mr. Kenny said they follow through on agreements. Mr.
Glasco stepped in and asked Ms. Soviar if she was referring to IDEM oversight and
Winnie said yes. Discussion was had regarding commitments.
- Gary Nolley clarified that if they wanted to construct a building on the ground that’s
currently in the city limits, zoned IG, they could. Discussion of building size followed.
- Carter Hall asked city engineer, Tyler Comstock what the capacities currently available in
this area are. Tyler said Indiana American Water currently has a water main run to this
area that could provide the needed water and they would have to get IDEM approval as
well. Mr. Hall asked if the area is equipped to handle general industrial use and Tyler
said yes.
- Mr. Kenny said that he had followed up on Mr. Schuler’s question regarding loop fill and
that it’s 200,000 gallons with annual loss of about 1% for each building.
- Joe Lux asked what the time frame would be to complete the entire campus. Mr. Kenny
said 10 years. Discussion ensued as to what that would look like with 18 months to 2
years being the cycle of starting/completing another building and 10 years being the
entire buildout time. Joe said he noticed all the buildings shown were short and asked if
they could be taller instead of spread out. Mr. Kenny said no. It’s cheaper to build one
story rather than several due to the amount of equipment and the heat it produces. Mr.
Lux asked for clarification of certain structures on the drawings that were shown in the
slide presentation. Mr. Kenny said they were substations.
- Tyler Comstock discussed the electric, water and waste water capabilities of the city for
the site and the checks and balances used to make sure everything would work
according to plan. Mr. Comstock asked if there had been any soil or noise analysis done
and Mr. Kenny said no but they would comply with Shelbyville’s noise ordinance.
Discussion continued regarding architectural features, jobs, supplemental businesses
and future uses of the buildings in case the AI bubble bursts.
- Doug Cassidy asked why this location instead of the industrial park being developed
along Hession Boulevard. Mr. Kenny said that 30% of this site is already zoned IG and
has the needed electrical power. Doug asked if solar would be used and Mr. Kenny said
that varies with the customer’s wishes. Mr. Cassidy asked if they’re looking at Indiana
because of the tax breaks. Mr. Kenny said Indiana is a market they like and has several
factors they like. Doug asked if Prologis has a back up plan/uses for these buildings
when they’re no longer used as data centers. Mr. Kenny said they design with flexibility
in mind but no one knows what the future holds.
- James Garrett asked if the buildings would all look alike or if there would be variation in
aesthetics. Mr. Kenny said they’re square boxes. Doug then asked Eric Glasco to return
to the podium and answer why IG zoning is being requested. Mr. Glasco said the area
3

[PAGE 4]
already within the city limits is already zoned IG. Discussion followed among other
board members regarding zoning designation.
- Mike Claxton asked if the other facilities Prologis has are successful and Mr. Kenny said
there’s a high demand for these facilities. Mike Claxton asked if the success of their
facilities has been extended to the communities. Mr. Kenny said it’s produced a lot of
revenue for Loudin County, VA and they’re happy with it.
- Mr. Garrett asked if there was consideration given to IL, light industrial zoning. Mr.
Glasco said that question would have to be addressed to the Redevelopment
Commission since they own the ground that’s currently zoned IG.
- Scarlett Tinsley-Price told Mr. Kenny that he’d talked of the company’s success but what
about success for the communities where they’re located. Mr. Kenny talked about their
facilities in Loudin County, Virginia and said they’re roughly 15:1.
- Betsy Means-Davis asked if the city annexed the requested land and zoned it IG but
Prologis doesn’t follow through with their plans if it could still be farmed at that point.
Eric Glasco said yes. It would then be a non-conforming use.
- Tyler Comstock asked Adam Rude what the city’s last Comprehensive Plan was for this
area. Adam said the future land use designation was high tech/light industrial and
commercial and was adopted in 2019.
Doug Cassidy closed board comment and opened it to the public. Adam Rude explained to the
audience how public comment would work. Mike Evans would call 5 people up at a time to
speak. Adam said individuals would get one minute to speak and someone speaking for a
group could talk for three minutes.
- Connie Lindsay, 2428 Trotter’s Chase asked Adam to pull up her presentation and she
walked through it. In addition, she has a petition with over 5,000 signatures of residents
in the area who are opposed to the data center.
- Jeff Bate, 1333 E. Meiks Road spoke about the requested zoning and how it would affect
property values in the area. He also questioned whether this is the highest and best use
of the property and pointed out that Prologis couldn’t answer questions that the
commission members asked so there’s a lot of questions with no answers, thus
encouraging an unfavorable recommendation.
- Susan Taylor, 445S 230W said that the proposal to annex and rezone this land is in
direct conflict with the Shelby County Development Plan and the Shelbyville
Comprehensive Plan. She said that page 56 of the Comprehensive Plan states that
Shelby County is one of the most agricultural counties in the state due to our soil and
that this ground should be left for that purpose.
- Diana Lemmons, 6284 E. Blue Ridge Road stated that there are 314 homes within one
mile of the 429 acres and 2 churches that would be affected by the proposed
development and she and her husband are not in favor of it.
- Lorene White, an Anderson attorney representing some of the audience members
provided a 21 page remonstrance brief with exhibits outlining their reasons for opposing
the petitioner’s request. She said that Prologis has been shopping this development
around Indiana and other counties have denied it. Shelby County should to.
4

[PAGE 5]
- Trevor Pike, 2879 S. Thompson Road spoke about the huge amount of electricity
needed to run a data center and that ratepayers in the area would be affected regardless
of claims to the contrary. He also discussed harmful pollutants data centers are known
for and emissions from the generators necessary for data centers.
- Jamie Houston spoke on behalf of the Cindy Worth(?) campaign stating they’re opposed
to data centers and that the number of jobs quoted by Prologis is false. She also said
that data centers strain the power grid causing rolling brownouts and their emission
pollute air and water. She urged commission members to stand up for residents.
- Richard Kitson, 103 Luna Place opposes the project stating that it doesn’t preserve and
or promote the best use of the land. He also said that Prologis couldn’t answer a lot of
the questions that were asked and urged the commission to represent residents and not
big business. He said the people who own the data centers don’t live here. They just
want our land.
- Bob Steineker, 2219 Scarlett Court spoke in favor of the project saying it would attract
other new businesses, create high quality jobs and strengthen our local economy
through increased tax revenue.
- Miles Llewellyn, 5785S Shelby 675W Edinburgh spoke in favor saying that the
commercial HVAC closed loop system talked about earlier is not toxic nor a dangerous
threat compared to what could be built in this area.
- Hope Fenton, 1804 Meridian Street urged the plan commission to oppose the project
because she thinks it will discourage people from moving here.
- Vanessa Armstrong, 1397S 600E opposes the project discussing the rarity of her
family’s Meltzer Woods property.
- Callie Carrico(?), 8842W 100N opposes the project and believe that it will significantly
raise electric rates.
- Jan Jones, 1356 Bontrager Lane would live a half mile from the proposed site and is
opposed.
- Ethan Runnebohm, 1455 Greenview Court said he and his wife recently moved back to
Shelbyville and oppose the project. He doesn’t believe it aligns with the county’s long
term vision for land use laid out in the city’s Comprehensive Plan and walked through his
reasoning for that.
- Elizabeth Laney, 10352N 400W is opposed due to environmental concerns, electrical
rates increasing and rolling blackouts and brownouts. She also talked about Prologis’
lack of information and inability to answer questions.
- Jeremy Harris, 315S 325E lives adjacent to the proposed development and is not in
favor of it and encouraged the board to not approve it.
- Blake Newkirk, 3319S Shelby 750W Franklin encouraged the board to deny the rezone
and have it remain agricultural.
- David Frightner(?), 353S 325E, an adjacent property owner urged the board to stand up
for the residents’ interests and not business interests.
- Steve Collins, 3359 E. German Road opposes the petition.
- Jason Coffey, 3423 E. German Road opposes the petition and urged the board to read
their attorney’s brief carefully.
5

[PAGE 6]
- Beth Coffey, 3423 E. German Road also opposes the petition saying it’s chopped up and
doesn’t make sense. She said the commission and council should do their own research
and not rely on a billion dollar company to supply reports that support their petition.
- Angie Hendrickson, 4434N PR 150E Shelbyville, representing her mom, an adjacent
property owner said she and her mother oppose the project.
- Kristen Kuhn, 54(?)2E 100N oppose the rezoning and annexation saying that every
community wants to grow but growth should not come at the expense of of people who
already live in the area and call it home.
- Elizabeth Carney, 103 N. West Street is opposed to the project and said that industrially
zoned areas attract human sex trafficking.
- John Burgess, 848N 325E pointed out that on the planning commission’s website, it says
that a plan should have public support and he doesn’t see any public support except
from a couple of union employees. He suggested Tom Hession Drive as an alternative
location.
- Whitney Carson-Mahin, 4487E 250S said the rush on this raises red flags and that it
would be irresponsible to approve this without getting questions answered.
- Bill Collins, 4075 E. St. Rd. 44, an adjacent property owner and urged denial saying that
all elements of the city’s zoning ordinance are not being met.
- Holly Forville opposes the rezoning and annexation. She said she tried to do some
research on Prologis and after a few hours couldn’t find a way to reach a human being at
Prologis. She even emailed every one of their board of directors and upper
management team with no reply. She asked a member of Prologis here tonight if they
were spending their dollars in our community by staying here, eating here, etc. She said
they’re not even doing that. They’re staying in Indianapolis.
- Karen Jackson, 287 W. Boggstown Road said residents are being asked to trade their
land and quality of life for a facility that will primarily benefit outside corporations and not
community families and urged denial. She cited other communities that have turned
down data center proposals and said we should too.
- Chris Dennis, 2972 E. Blue Ridge Road opposes as well questioning whether the
emergency services we have are equipped to handle large industrial parks. Chris also
said it seems to go against the Comprehensive Plan and should maybe be commercial.
- Mitch Mitchell, 6877 W. Boggstown Road, a former Shelby County Plan Commission
member urged caution before approving the IG zoning. He said that a company with an
annual income of $3.2 trillion isn’t going to be phased with a $5,000 a day fine for not
doing what they say they’ll do.
At 10:00 p.m., the board discussed whether to continue the meeting or continue the petition to a
future meeting. Ultimately, they continued the meeting after a five minute break.
- Megan Hart, 5100S Shelby 900W reviewed the plan commission’s job in this situation
and urged the board to leave the land zoned AG and have the petitioner submit a proper
application with sufficient details to enable the board to make a properly informed
decision based on facts.
6

[PAGE 7]
- Tracy Feller, 17 St. Mary Street asked as a downtown business owner asked what
concrete funded steps the city is taking to require or incentivize reinvestment in existing
downtown properties, many of which are vacant, deteriorating and owned by out of state
entities before expanding the city’s footprint through annexation and new zoning
classifications outside its core. She also asked how the city defines representing the
community when overwhelming public comment opposes a proposal and yet the
proposal proceeds with a clear explanation of how that input was weighed.
- Terry Bodine, 7178 E. Blue Ridge Road opposes the project and cited the
Comprehensive Plan which said it should focus on preserving prime farmland and
agricultural use preservation. Terry also talked about raising electrical rates to fund
improvements to serve a data center.
- Melinda Pennycuff, 1929 N. Riverwood Drive urged the board to listen to those in
attendance.
- Melissa Lapinsky-Meltzer said she’s heard from a lot of companies who make promises
that are not to be trusted. Prologis is no exception.
- Dr. Ashley Jones, 1053 Balto Drive said that IG zoning of this land doesn’t support six ob
the objectives listed in the Comprehensive Plan and shouldn’t be approved.
- Gina Jackson urged denial.
- (?) said electricity costs will go up from increased usage and opposed the project.
- Sara Newkirk, 270 W. Broadway Street said that if the project goes through, the entire
landscape and tranquility of that area will be lost forever and asked that the board vote
no to allow it.
- Ben Orem, 920S 250W on behalf of his grandmother, Donna Yarling who’s an adjacent
property owner opposes the project. He discussed lack of transparency and notification
of property owners.
- Aiden Millican, opposed to the annexation and rezoning.
- Katy Quillen, N. Morristown Road opposes this project and asked that residents’
concerns be considered above large companies making money off us.
- Cheyenne Merrell, 1702 Morningside Drive, Apartment E moved here from California
and is opposed.
- Bill Hubbard, 7256 E. Blue Ridge Road opposes the proposed annexation and rezoning.
- Andrea Potter, 266 W. Broadway Street opposes the project.
- Hannah Everhart, 4902N 980W Arlington talked about the importance of preserving
farmland over allowing big businesses into a community.
- Kevin Carson, 1311N (?) Needham, president of the Shelby County Plan Commission
urged the board to take note of the people opposed to the project and listen to what
they’re saying.
- Susan Reinhardt, Clearview said the plan commission members needed to talk to the
residents in the Ohio, Virginia communities where there are currently data centers what
their opinions are, what are the pros and cons of data centers for those residents.
- Roger Thomas, 1305 Elm Street opposes the project.
- Joseph Merritt, 617 W. Franklin Street opposes the project saying that if the data center
drives up the cost of living through high energy costs, Shelbyville will lose residents who
can’t afford to live here.
7

[PAGE 8]
- Amara Lewis, 1045 Mohr Street urged the board to take note of all the people who took
the time to come out in opposition to the petition.
- Hannah Barone said this project would affect property values and thinks there are better
projects for this area
- Patrick Shaw, Union Township is opposed to the petition.
There being no further people from the audience to speak, President Cassidy closed the
meeting to the public and reopened it to the board for comment.
- Duane Schuler thanked everyone for showing up and sharing their comments. He said
that based on those comments he doesn’t think this is the desired use for this property.
He also has concerns about property values and responsible growth. He chided
Prologis people for being ill-prepared to answer questions tonight. Mr. Shuler said that
based on the criteria board members are supposed to use, he didn’t see that he could
support a recommendation for general industrial use of this land.
- James Garrett asked Mr. Schuler if he was making a motion and Mr. Schuler said no.
He was expressing his concerns with the Findings of Fact that needed to be met. Mr.
Garrett said that if it had been a motion, he would’ve seconded it.
- Gary Nolley read a prepared statement saying he couldn’t support a favorable
recommendation and listed his reasons why. Discussion ensued between Gary and
Scarlett Tinsely-Price.
Mr. Cassidy closed board comment and asked if the petitioners had further comments or wanted
to answer any of the questions posed from the public comment portion of the meeting. There
were several inaudible comments from audience and board members so Doug reopened it to
the board.
- Winnie Soviar expressed her concerns with a possible financial burden that could get
passed on to residents when tax breaks are given to this project. She also said that
when tax breaks are given, there is evidence that the anticipated benefits to the local
economy are not realized. Ms. Soviar said she doesn’t support the project at all.
Doug Cassidy asked Mr. Glasco, the petitioner’s representative to approach.
- Eric Glasco said that while he respects the board members’ comments, the planning
staff’s recommendation is for approval of the IG zoning.
Adam Rude explained to board members what their options were for a motion.
Doug Cassidy called for a motion. Gary Nolley motioned to send an unfavorable
recommendation to the City Council. Duane Schuler seconded the motion. Voice vote: Mr.
Claxton - yes, Ms. Means-Davis - yes, Ms. Tinsley-Price - yes, Mr. Schuler - yes, Mr. Garrett -
yes, Mr. Cassidy - yes, Mr. Nolley - yes, Ms. Soviar - yes, Mr. Hall - yes, Mr. Lux - yes, Mr.
Comstock - yes. Voice vote passed unanimously.
8

[PAGE 9]
Betsy Means-Davis asked if the Council meeting could be held in Breck Auditorium since the
City Council was unprepared for the number of people who attended their meeting.
Discussion: None
Adjournment: James Garrett motioned to adjourn the meeting. No audible second.
Meeting adjourned
9