Residents urge delay on large fill permit tied to proposed data‑center over water, traffic and health fears

Residents and appellants pressed the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority to delay action on a large fill permit linked to a proposed data‑center development, arguing the permit was issued without essential engineering and environmental safeguards.

At the meeting, public commenters said the fill permit is a preliminary step that enables mass grading on hundreds of acres tied to a multi‑building data‑center project. Barbara Telles, a nearby resident, said the scale and siting raised property‑value and safety concerns: "Because there is no place in The United States where there is a 725 acre data center across the street from residences," she said, adding that heavy construction traffic could endanger school bus routes and local travel.

Other commenters described specific local impacts. Elizabeth Scagliardi, owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, said her farm and business — a 20‑year downtown area enterprise — rely on shallow private wells and the Deep River watershed. She told the board she could not find impact studies and questioned why dewatering and erosion plans would be left until after permit approval. A resident who identified herself as Dana said she lives with multiple sclerosis and that environmental stressors from nearby industrial development could pose severe health risks, adding, "This is a deal breaker for us, and we will have to leave."

Call for independent testing and stricter conditions

Speakers asked the city to require independent baseline groundwater testing and a hydrogeological assessment before permitting large‑scale dewatering. Jennifer McWhite urged the city to "conduct independent baseline testing of the aquifer, including nitrates, nitrites, and screening for common agricultural and industrial contaminants," and to require ongoing monitoring funded by the applicant.

Representatives for affected property owners asked for additional technical safeguards, including an independent stormwater and groundwater study, a no‑net‑increase runoff standard, written elevation and drainage guarantees, a stormwater performance bond or escrow sufficient to pay corrective work if failures occur, and baseline property and well surveys with monitoring during construction.

Procedural and legal objections

Commenters also raised procedural objections. Multiple speakers said notices and municipal code references were inconsistent across permit documents (they cited Chapter 1‑54 and Chapter 1‑50 provisions) and argued site‑plan review and full construction details should be presented before granting a large fill permit. Speakers urged transparency and public review of any significant changes to grading or site design.

Board response and next steps

Planning staff told the authority there are roughly 14 appeals pending and recommended issuing written determinations to petitioners after reviewing any outstanding questions; the board agreed to consolidate the appeals and hear them at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th. Chair (speaker 1) said the board will provide determinations and transmit decisions to petitioners after that meeting.

What remains unresolved

Speakers asked the city to identify who will pay for remediation or buyouts if wells are damaged, how the city will enforce long‑term stormwater guarantees, and whether construction traffic plans and haul‑route details will be publicly disclosed. The board did not make a final decision on the substantive merits of the fill permit at this meeting; it set a schedule to consider the consolidated appeals at the next Board of Works meeting.