Residents and farmers urge delay on large fill permit tied to proposed data center, citing water and health risks

A string of residents, farm owners and a legal representative urged the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on Monday to delay formal action on a contested fill permit tied to a proposed large data-center development, saying the city lacks the technical record to ensure nearby wells, drainage and public health will be protected.

The appeals hearing, introduced by planning staff, covered objections from neighbors and farm operators who described potential impacts from dewatering, sediment and traffic during mass grading. Planning staff told the board appellants may ask it to affirm, reverse, amend or modify the Plan Commission order; staff recommended that unresolved technical questions be addressed before a final determination and that petitioners receive written determinations after the Board of Works meeting on the 18th.

Barbara Telles, a nearby resident, told the board the fill permit is “just one step in the final building” of a large data-center complex and said she feared adverse effects on property values and children’s safety from construction traffic. “There is no place in the United States where there is a 725-acre data center across the street from residences,” Telles said, arguing the scale and proximity are unprecedented.

An unnamed resident said she opposed the permit because of risks to private wells and personal health, noting recent meetings in neighboring jurisdictions where large projects sought massive daily water withdrawals. “We have multiple sclerosis in our household — this is a deal breaker for us, and we will have to leave,” the resident said, adding concerns about dewatering, traffic and impacts to beekeeping and pollinators.

Elizabeth Scagliardi, owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, described her farm operations about 1.5 miles from the site and urged that key engineering analyses be completed before mass grading. She cited shallow wells, silty-loam soils that drain poorly and building pads located close to an oil pipeline, asking what emergency planning or buyout protections would exist if a pipeline incident or groundwater contamination occurred.

Eric Morris, speaking for nearby property owners, said the permit would authorize mass grading across roughly 605 acres while a final site plan and critical engineering details (access points, finished elevations, traffic routes and stormwater measures) remain unresolved. He asked the city to require an independent stormwater and groundwater study, adopt a no-net-increase runoff standard, establish written elevation and drainage guarantees, require a stormwater performance bond or escrow, and implement baseline well and property-condition surveys with ongoing monitoring funded by the applicant.

Counsel for appellants, identified during the meeting as Jennifer McWhite, reviewed municipal-code requirements and said the permit application appears deficient in multiple respects, citing chapters referenced in the meeting packet and arguing that stormwater, equipment, haul-route, phasing and erosion-control details required under local code were not present in the fill-permit application. McWhite asked the board to require independent baseline groundwater testing, a hydrogeological assessment, public release of findings, and monitoring funded by the applicant before dewatering or large-scale earth moving proceeds.

Planning staff and the chair said the consolidated appeals will be placed on the Board of Works agenda on the 18th for written determinations to be prepared and provided to petitioners, and they suggested unresolved technical questions could be addressed in executive session before a public determination. The board recorded voice votes on procedural motions to move through the appeals list and to schedule the next steps.