Residents urge independent groundwater and engineering studies before Hobart fill permit moves forward

Residents and property owners urged the Hobart redevelopment board on a packed comment period to delay implementation of a recently approved fill permit they say paves the way for a large data‑center complex.

At the meeting the board heard lengthy public testimony calling for an independent baseline groundwater assessment, a hydrogeological analysis of potential dewatering impacts, and binding stormwater and elevation guarantees before mass grading begins. "This fill permit is just one step in the final building of the data center," Barbara Telles said, arguing the scale of the project and construction traffic will harm neighborhoods and property values.

The concern focused on dewatering and private wells. A resident who said she built her home near the proposed site told the board she worries about well contamination and the capacity of her farm and business to switch to city water. "This is a deal breaker for us," she said, describing multiple sclerosis and other health conditions that make potential environmental impacts especially troubling.

Elizabeth Scagliardi, who identified herself as owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, said her boarding and breeding business — roughly 1.5 miles from the proposed development — depends on local groundwater. "How are you not going to need to be dewatering the area?" she asked, urging the city to require impact studies before approving mass earthwork.

Eric Morris, speaking for adjacent property owners, urged the board to require completed engineering before irreversible grading occurs: independent stormwater and groundwater studies, a no‑net‑increase runoff standard, written elevation and drainage guarantees, a stormwater performance bond or escrow, baseline well/property surveys with monitoring, and enforceable long‑term inspection and maintenance commitments.

Appellants also raised procedural objections, saying public notices and permit documents referenced different municipal code chapters and that required site‑plan details — timing, equipment, haul routes, traffic control and erosion controls — were missing from the fill‑permit record. One commenter asked the board to require the applicant to fund ongoing groundwater monitoring and to publicly release all baseline findings.

Speakers cited external examples and numbers during testimony; for instance, residents referenced a figure of 35,000,000 gallons per day dewatering in a separate, cited project. The board did not verify those figures at the meeting, and several speakers framed them as reported or comparative examples rather than local measurements.

Procedurally, staff told the board that the Plan Commission had already issued findings but that appeals need a written determination and may be considered at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th. The board announced it will release written determinations to petitioners after that session. The appellants and several residents asked that the board delay any on‑the‑ground grading until the requested studies and protections are in place.

The hearing record will be part of the board's deliberations at the scheduled Board of Works meeting; no new permit conditions were adopted at this meeting.