Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fill Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hobart residents press Board over data-center fill permit, citing groundwater, health and procedural concerns; decision set for March 18
Summary
Roughly 14 appellants and public commenters told the Hobart Board of Public Works and Safety they fear groundwater contamination, dewatering impacts, traffic disruptions, and harm to pollinators from a proposed data center; the Board said written determinations will be issued March 18, 2026.
At a March 4 meeting, members of the Hobart City Board of Public Works and Safety heard appeals and public comment objecting to a fill permit tied to a proposed large data‑center development and scheduled written determinations for the appeals for March 18, 2026.
Residents and property owners who spoke or submitted statements raised three recurring concerns: potential impacts to private wells and the local aquifer from dewatering, traffic and construction impacts, and procedural questions about whether a site plan review was required before issuing a fill permit.
"Residents that live directly across the street from the data center will have their health and property values adversely affected," said Barbara Koteles of 6140 California St., who urged more scrutiny of how 25 planned buildings could alter nearby neighborhoods. Dana Triber of 6400 Grand Blvd., who said she has multiple sclerosis and keeps honeybees on her five‑acre property, told the Board she feared well contamination, disturbance to pollinators and chronic low‑frequency noise, and said, "No amount of money is worth our quality of life." Triber submitted an 11‑page statement for the record.
Several speakers pressed the City to require independent baseline and ongoing groundwater testing. "We urge the City to do independent baseline testing of the aquifer including nitrates and screening for common agricultural and industrial contaminants," Jennifer McQuade said, asking that results be publicly released and that monitoring continue if construction and dewatering proceed.
Attorney Eric Morris, representing Stone Meadow LLC, and property owner Ginger Mikolics said the public should see full engineering and drainage plans before disturbed land is permanently altered. "There is no reliable engineering basis to conclude that the drainage pattern will not change or the adjacent property owners will not be affected," Morris argued, and recommended a stormwater/groundwater study, written elevation and drainage guarantees, a performance bond or escrow, and monitoring of wells.
Business owner Elizabeth Gagliardi of Excelsior Equestrian Center, whose facility is about 1.5 miles from the site, questioned why a fill permit moved forward before a full site plan. "Why are you putting the cart before the horse?" she asked, noting that some local wells are shallow and that her operation could not feasibly switch to city water.
Community members also noted apparent inconsistencies in public notices. Angelita Soriano pointed out that an initial notice listed the submission as a site plan and later notices described it as a fill permit, and she cited sections of the municipal code that she said require site‑plan review for development involving grading, drainage and land disturbance.
City Attorney McCarthy told the Board that it must issue written findings to affirm, reverse or amend the Plan Commission's Feb. 5 decision. Mayor Huddlestun closed the oral hearing and said the Board will issue written determinations at or after its March 18 meeting and provide them to appellants in writing.
No formal vote on the appeals was taken on March 4; the matter remains under consideration pending the Board's written action.
