Residents press city to require independent groundwater testing, cite health and traffic risks in data center fill permit appeal

Residents, landowners and appellants concentrated the Hobart Redevelopment Authority meeting on a contested fill permit tied to a proposed multi-building data center, urging the city to require independent groundwater testing and more complete engineering before permitting large-scale grading.

Appellant Barbara Telles, identified on the agenda, told the board the fill permit “is just one step” toward construction of dozens of buildings and said she could not find evidence that nearby property values would remain stable. She warned that construction traffic and truck idling on two-lane roads could endanger school bus pickup and neighborhood access and said the scale of the project — dozens of buildings and up to 605 acres referenced in the filings — makes the current permit a consequential early decision.

“My concern is that people who live right across the street for reasons of health and property values would be adversely affected,” Telles said, urging the board to reconsider taking irreversible action while key engineering remains incomplete.

Several other residents described direct water- and health-related worries. A nearby homeowner who was later addressed in the meeting as Dana said she and her husband would be forced to leave if their well water were contaminated and added, “I didn't sign up to be a guinea pig, and I and I won't wait around.” Dana also raised concerns about bees and pollinators on local farms and the effect of long-term industrial neighbors on vulnerable residents with autoimmune conditions.

Elizabeth Scagliardi, owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, told the board her farm and other small operations rely on private wells. She cited site soils described as “silty loam” with poor drainage, questioned how the application could authorize mass grading without finalized site plans, and flagged a building pad located within about 100 feet of an oil pipeline. Scagliardi asked what the city’s emergency plan would be if construction compromised a pipeline or made homes uninhabitable.

A property owner and appellant speaking for multiple neighbors urged the board to require a suite of protections before mass grading proceeds, including an independent stormwater and groundwater study conducted by an engineer not retained by the developer, a no-net-increase runoff standard, written elevation and drainage guarantees, a stormwater performance bond or escrow to fund corrective work, and baseline property and well-condition surveys with monitoring during construction.

“I would ask for, first, an independent stormwater and groundwater study,” the speaker said, and repeated recommendations for enforceable guarantees and monitoring to protect adjacent owners.

Legal and procedural objections were also raised. One appellant pointed to inconsistent public notices and disputed whether the correct municipal code chapters were applied to successive permits, arguing site-plan review should precede a fill permit and that the current application lacks required details (construction timing, haul routes, equipment lists and erosion controls) for the city to lawfully find the fill “will not interfere with existing drainage patterns.”

Another speaker, introduced in the record as Jennifer McWhite, asked the city to require independent baseline aquifer testing — including nitrates and screening for agricultural or industrial contaminants — and a hydrogeologic assessment of how dewatering might shift groundwater flow and mobilize existing pollutants. McWhite recommended that monitoring be funded by the applicant and that the city publicly release all findings.

City staff and legal counsel told the board that appeals have been filed and that written findings and a consolidated decision will be provided to petitioners after the Board of Works meets. The board confirmed there were no objections to scheduling and directed that the appeals be addressed at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th, when the board will make a public determination and provide written findings to appellants.

What happens next The board did not vote to rescind the permit during the meeting. Instead, the matter will be considered at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th; appellants will receive written findings after the board’s determination. Several residents said they want independent baseline groundwater testing and additional engineering completed before any large-scale grading begins.