Residents and landowners appeal Hobart fill permit tied to proposed data center, cite water and health risks

A series of residents, farmers and property owners appealed a plan-commission decision permitting large-scale fill and grading tied to a proposed data-center development, pressing the Hobart Redevelopment Authority to pause action until independent engineering analyses and baseline groundwater testing are completed.

Elizabeth Scagliardi, owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, told commissioners she and her husband rely on shallow private wells in the Deep River watershed and that dewatering or mass grading ‘‘could dry up or contaminate’’ those sources. Scagliardi said her 20-horse boarding operation could not practically tie into city water and warned that the permit’s site-plan details and erosion-control measures were not available for review before approval.

The appeals and public comment period featured repeated concerns about groundwater, dewatering and stormwater control. Eric Morris, representing property owners at 6716 Colorado Street, said the permit authorizes mass grading on roughly 605 acres but that critical elements — final access points, finished grading and stormwater designs — remain unresolved. He urged an independent stormwater and groundwater study, a no-net-increase runoff standard, elevation and drainage guarantees, a stormwater performance bond or escrow, baseline well/property surveys, and enforceable long-term monitoring and maintenance measures funded by the developer.

Other residents cited health and environmental concerns. One speaker said that multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune conditions made her fearful of potential exposures, and another warned that the project would harm local pollinators and farm operations. Several commenters referenced an example in a nearby jurisdiction where dewatering was reported to involve large daily volumes of water, and they asked what contingency plans exist if wells are affected.

Appellants also raised procedural and legal objections. A commenter pointed to inconsistent public notices and argued the planning process appears to have advanced a fill permit before required site-plan review, citing provisions in the municipal code identified in the public record. Several speakers said the fill permit appeared piecemeal and lacked required information about equipment, haul routes, hours of operation and erosion controls.

Speakers urged concrete conditions before the city permits mass grading: independent baseline groundwater testing (including nitrates and agricultural contaminants), hydrogeological assessments of dewatering impacts, ongoing groundwater monitoring funded by the applicant, transparent public release of results, a stormwater performance bond large enough to fund corrective action, and retention of public-review rights if final grading plans change. "We need baseline data and protective monitoring measures now to safeguard our community’s drinking water and public health," one appellant said.

City staff and counsel told the authority they would consolidate the appeals and provide written findings; the board moved to consider the matters together at the next Board of Works meeting on the 18th, and no final reversal or approval decision was recorded at this session.

What happens next: The authority deferred final determinations and indicated petitioners will receive written findings after the Board of Works meets on the 18th. Appellants said they expect independent technical studies and binding mitigation or monitoring commitments before any large-scale grading proceeds.