Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents appeal fill permit, demand groundwater, traffic studies for proposed data center
Summary
Residents and nearby property owners appealed a fill permit tied to a proposed large data center, citing groundwater contamination, dewatering, traffic, stormwater and procedural concerns; the board deferred final determinations to the Board of Works meeting on the 18th.
Residents and property owners urged the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on Monday to delay or reverse a recently approved fill permit tied to a proposed large data-center development, saying the permit authorizes mass grading before necessary engineering, groundwater and traffic analyses are complete.
Barbara Telles, a public commenter who initiated the appeals under the Plan Commission decision, told the board she had found no precedent for a ‘‘725-acre’’ data center sited adjacent to homes and warned the fill permit is a first step toward long-term construction and traffic impacts that could depress property values and create daily safety risks for neighbors.
The concerns echoed through several public comments. Elizabeth Scagliardi, owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, said her commercial stable sits about 1.5 miles from the site and described gaps in the application materials: she said plans posted online did not include final impact studies, that drainage and stormwater controls appear incomplete, and that dewatering and sediment runoff could harm wells, wetlands and farm operations.
Eric Morris, speaking for property owners near 6716 Colorado Street, asked the authority to require a complete engineering record before approving large-scale grading. He urged independent stormwater and groundwater studies, a no-net-increase runoff standard, written elevation and drainage guarantees, a stormwater performance bond or escrow, baseline well/property surveys with ongoing monitoring, and enforceable maintenance and inspection requirements.
Jennifer McWhite (representing appellants during the hearing) asked the city to conduct independent baseline groundwater testing — including nitrate and agricultural/industrial screening — to establish pre-construction conditions and to fund ongoing monitoring. She also read a written review alleging the permit application omits required elements listed in the municipal code, such as equipment lists, haul routes, timing, and erosion-control measures.
Appellants and commenters repeatedly raised dewatering as a central worry, citing high-volume dewatering examples elsewhere and asking what contingency plans and remediation commitments (including potential water-line connections or buyouts) would be available to affected homeowners and farms.
City staff described the procedural options available to the board and recommended resolving legal questions prior to final determinations; staff and the chair said written decisions will be issued to petitioners. The board did not reverse the Plan Commission at the meeting; instead, it scheduled the appeals for formal determination at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th so petitioners will receive written findings.
What happens next: the appeals will be considered at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th. Petitions and related written decisions will be transmitted to the appellants; board members and residents urged that any final approval be tied to engineering studies, monitoring and enforceable mitigation measures.
Quotes that capture the debate:
"This fill permit is just one step in the final building of the site center of the Chapmans — 25 buildings. That's a lot," Barbara Telles said, urging caution about approving mass grading before other approvals are in place.
"We are asking that major land-altering decisions be made carefully and based on a complete engineering record before irreversible changes to the land occur," Eric Morris said, calling for independent studies and binding guarantees.
Authorities cited and legal context: appellants referenced multiple municipal code provisions in chapters discussed during the hearing (identified in public comments as chapter 1.50 and chapter 1.54, including claims referring to sections such as 1.54.417 and 1.50.103). Appellants argued those sections require site-plan review elements and construction specifics that they say are missing from the permit record.
The board did not take a final planning vote on the substantive permit at this meeting; the procedural outcome is a scheduled determination on the appeals at the next Board of Works session.
