Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fill Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge delay on massive data‑center fill permit, citing groundwater, traffic and health risks
Summary
At the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority meeting, residents urged the board to pause action on a large fill permit tied to a proposed data‑center campus, calling for independent groundwater testing, traffic and drainage studies, and bonds to guarantee remediation; the board deferred formal determinations to the Board of Works meeting on the 18th.
At a Hobart City Redevelopment Authority meeting, multiple residents and property owners urged the board to delay final action on a large fill permit connected to a proposed data‑center campus, raising concerns about groundwater contamination, dewatering impacts, traffic safety and long‑term drainage.
The appeals hearing began with public comment from Barbara Telles, who said the permit is “just one step in the final building of the data center” and warned that the project’s scale and proximity to homes could suppress property values and create construction‑traffic hazards. Elizabeth Scagliardi, owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, told commissioners she could not find impact studies for the project and asked specifically, “how the data center is gonna affect the aquifer that we rely on.”
Several speakers pressed the board for independent, baseline groundwater testing and a hydrogeological assessment before any approval that could permit dewatering. One commenter said, “Before moving forward with any kind of permit approval, I respectfully urge the city to conduct independent baseline testing of the aquifer, including nitrates, nitrites, and screening for common agricultural and industrial contaminants.” Another resident, who said she lives with multiple sclerosis, framed the issue as a health‑risk decision and said, “This is a deal breaker for us, and we will have to leave.”
Property owners also sought more engineering detail and public review. Eric Morris, speaking for nearby owners, said the mass grading authorization covers roughly 605 acres and argued there is insufficient final engineering on drainage, elevations and access to support the plan commission’s findings. He recommended an independent stormwater and groundwater study, a no‑net‑increase runoff standard, written elevation and drainage guarantees, a stormwater performance bond or escrow for corrective work, and baseline well‑and‑property surveys with monitoring.
Several commenters raised legal and procedural questions about municipal code citations and whether site‑plan review had been completed before issuing the fill permit. An appellant outlined inconsistencies in public notices and argued that the application appears to omit required details such as haul routes, equipment sizes, hours of operation and final site plans.
City staff told the board the plan commission has issued findings and that petitioners will receive written notices. Staff recommended, and the board accepted, consolidating the appeals and continuing determinations to the next Board of Works meeting so commissioners can review written materials and, if necessary, hold any legal questions in executive session prior to a public determination. The board did not vote to reverse or affirm the plan commission during the meeting.
What happens next: The board will consider and release written determinations at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th. Petitioners will receive the findings in writing, and staff said petitioners may request executive session if they have legal questions to resolve before a public vote.
