Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge board to require engineering, groundwater studies before large fill permit tied to data-center project
Summary
Residents and property owners told the Hobart redevelopment board the city should not allow large-scale grading tied to a proposed data‑center project until independent engineering, groundwater baseline testing and enforceable stormwater protections are in place; the board referred appeals to the Board of Works on the 18th for final determination.
Public commenters urged the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on Tuesday to pause substantial land‑altering work tied to a proposed data‑center development and to require comprehensive engineering and independent groundwater studies before approving a large fill and grading permit.
The appeals hearing began with staff explaining that the Plan Commission had approved a fill permit and that petitioners may ask this board to affirm, reverse or modify that determination. Staff recommended, and the board agreed, to take final action at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th after petitioners have had an opportunity to submit written materials.
The most sustained testimony came from residents who said the fill permit is the first step toward a project that could eventually contain dozens of buildings, generate heavy construction traffic and require dewatering that would affect private wells. "This fill permit is just one step in the final building of the data center," said Barbara Telles, who told the board she had not found evidence of similar developments sited so close to residences and warned the scale could harm nearby property values and quality of life. "People who work at these even say you should be 5 miles away," she said.
Elizabeth Scagliardi, owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, described her farm’s reliance on local wells and said she could not find impact studies describing dewatering or aquifer protections prior to approval. "How are you not going to need to be dewatering the area?" she asked, noting site‑plan notes that defer watering and erosion mitigation to later submittals.
Eric Morris, representing neighboring property owners, urged a methodical approach: "This permit authorizes mass grading on approximately 605 acres," he said, and without finalized grading plans, finished elevations, traffic access points and stormwater engineering the city lacks a basis to conclude drainage will not change or that adjacent properties will remain protected. He asked the board to require an independent stormwater and groundwater study, a no‑net‑increase runoff standard, written elevation and drainage guarantees, a stormwater performance bond, baseline well surveys with monitoring and enforceable long‑term maintenance and inspection provisions.
Other speakers and petitioners raised procedural and code concerns. One presenter reviewed the municipal code and said notices and permit citations were inconsistent between chapter 1‑54 (site plan requirements) and chapter 1‑50 (fill permits), and argued that site‑plan review must precede a fill permit to provide the information the code requires. Another petitioning resident urged independent baseline groundwater testing for nitrates and other contaminants, hydrogeological assessment of how dewatering could affect groundwater flow and a requirement that the applicant fund ongoing monitoring.
City staff told the board that petitioners would receive written determinations and that the board could convene an executive session with legal counsel if needed before the next public determination. The board did not make a final decision at the meeting; instead it scheduled the matter for the Board of Works meeting on the 18th for formal action and directed staff to provide petitioners with the board’s written findings.
The appeals focused on two distinct concerns: (1) whether the permit process followed municipal code (petitioners pointed to inconsistent public notices and said required site‑plan details were not yet complete), and (2) environmental/operational risks if mass grading and dewatering proceed without baseline hydrogeologic data, explicit mitigation measures and financial assurances. Speakers repeatedly sought assurance that any final grading or dewatering would not harm private wells or create unmitigated runoff or erosion risks to adjacent properties.
The board’s next procedural step is the Board of Works meeting on the 18th, when officials said they will review petitioners’ written materials and make a formal determination.
