Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge pause on large data‑center fill permit, citing water, traffic and health risks
Summary
At a Hobart redevelopment authority meeting, multiple residents and appellants asked officials to delay or reconsider a fill permit tied to a proposed multi‑building data center, raising groundwater, dewatering, traffic, ecological and procedural concerns; the board scheduled a decision for the Board of Works meeting on the 18th.
Residents and appellants asked the Hobart redevelopment authority on Wednesday to pause action on a large fill permit tied to a proposed multi‑building data center, citing potential groundwater contamination, dewatering risks, construction traffic and public‑health concerns.
Barbara Telles, introduced by the chair as the first speaker on the appeals list, told commissioners that "this fill permit is just 1 step in the final building of the status center of the Chapmans" and warned that dozens of buildings near residences would harm property values and quality of life. Speaker 10, a nearby homeowner, said her private well is about "50 to 60 feet deep" and that dewatering or contamination would threaten her household and livestock; she added that, because she has multiple sclerosis, "Living next to a data center can have significant negative effects" and called permit approval without fuller study a "deal breaker."
Other commenters pressed the board on procedural and technical grounds. One presenter noted the permit authorizes mass grading on "approximately 605 acres" and argued the planning commission’s findings rest on incomplete engineering, missing final access points and site configuration. Several speakers pointed to apparent inconsistencies in how the permit was categorized in public notices and the municipal code, noting references alternately to Chapter 154 and Chapter 150 of the Hobart municipal code.
Speakers urged independent baseline groundwater and hydrogeologic studies, continuous post‑construction monitoring funded by the applicant, stormwater performance bonds or escrow to cover corrective grading or property damage, and transparent public review of any substantive changes to grading plans. One appellant recommended "no net increase" standards for post‑development runoff and baseline well monitoring with clear remediation commitments.
City staff and the board did not decide the appeals at the meeting. The chair said the board will take up the appeals at the next Board of Works meeting on the 18th and provide written determinations to petitioners; staff also suggested petitioners may request an executive session if they have legal questions. For now, the board set the list of appeals to be addressed at that later meeting.
The meeting record shows multiple residents raising overlapping concerns about traffic impacts on two‑lane county roads, sediment and erosion during grading, proximity of building pads to pipelines, and potential effects on pollinators. Commissioners did not vote to approve or deny the contested fill permit at this meeting; the appeals will be decided at the scheduled Board of Works session.
