Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fill Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge delay of Hobart fill permit tied to Amazon data‑center, citing groundwater and safety risks
Summary
At a Hobart Redevelopment Authority meeting, several residents and landowners urged the board to delay or reverse a planning commission fill permit that they say enables a large Amazon data‑center project, citing potential dewatering of wells, stormwater impacts, traffic hazards and procedural defects in the permit record.
Residents and property owners pressed the Hobart Redevelopment Authority to delay action on a planning commission fill permit they say clears the way for a large Amazon data‑center development, arguing the record lacks required engineering and groundwater safeguards.
Multiple commenters told the board the permit authorizes mass grading across hundreds of acres and that key details — final site plans, access points, traffic haul routes, dewatering plans and stormwater controls — were missing from the application. "This permit authorizes mass grading on approximately 605 acres," a property‑owner representative said, urging an independent stormwater and groundwater study before irreversible land alteration.
Barbara Telles, introduced by the chair before speaking, said she found no comparable example of a 725‑acre data center sited adjacent to residences and warned of falling property values and long‑term construction traffic. "People who live right across the street ... property values would be adversely affected," she said.
A resident who identified herself as an area homeowner and beekeeper said she feared well contamination and dewatering, cited a separate case in which Amazon sought to pump 35,000,000 gallons of water a day, and described health concerns for people with autoimmune conditions: "This is a deal breaker for us," she said, adding that her family would have to leave if conditions worsened.
Elizabeth Scagliardi, owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, called the timing ‘‘backwards’’: she said the application repeatedly defers site‑specific engineering to later phases and asked why a fill permit would be approved before a final site plan and erosion controls. "Why would you put the cart before the horse?" Scagliardi asked, noting concerns about dewatering, sediment movement into local drainage, and proximity of building pads to a pipeline.
Jennifer McWhite and other appellants flagged inconsistencies in the public notices and cited municipal code sections (Chapter 154 and Chapter 150) to argue site‑plan review should precede a fill permit. They urged the board to require baseline groundwater testing, hydrogeologic assessment, continued monitoring funded by the applicant, and transparent release of any findings.
Board staff and legal counsel told the authority that the Plan Commission has issued findings and that the authority may affirm, reverse, amend or modify that decision; staff recommended appellant materials be provided in writing and suggested the board could use executive session for legal questions prior to a decision. The chair said the appeals and the record would be assembled and a determination would be made at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th.
What happens next: appellants requested independent baseline groundwater testing, a no‑net‑increase stormwater standard, elevation and drainage guarantees, a performance bond for stormwater repairs, and baseline well surveys with monitoring. The board scheduled the appeals to be decided by the Board of Works on the 18th; staff noted petitioners will receive written determinations.
