Residents press appeals over Amazon‑area fill permit, board defers decision to Board of Works

Dozens of residents and property‑owner representatives urged the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on Monday to reconsider a recently approved fill permit tied to a proposed Amazon data‑center development, raising concerns about groundwater contamination, dewatering, traffic and incomplete engineering review.

The board heard a string of public comments and technical objections during an appeals segment that staff said will be consolidated and taken up at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th. Staff told petitioners written determinations will be provided after that meeting.

Why it matters: Speakers said the permit authorizes large‑scale grading and that critical engineering work—final site plans, stormwater and groundwater analysis, haul routes and mitigation measures—has not been finalized, which they said leaves adjacent property owners vulnerable to drainage, noise, dust and water‑supply impacts.

Residents described multiple specific worries. Elizabeth Scagliardi, owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, said she and her husband have operated a 20‑stall boarding business within the watershed for 20 years and asked, “How is the data center going to affect the aquifer that we rely on?” She said her well is only about 50–60 feet deep, and she warned that dewatering and disturbed soils would increase sedimentation and risk to wetlands and wells.

Several speakers cited health and environmental risks. One resident said she lives with multiple sclerosis and added, “I didn't sign up to be a guinea pig,” arguing continuous environmental stressors and air or water pollution could worsen autoimmune conditions. Jennifer McWhite urged the city to require independent baseline groundwater testing (including nitrates and other agricultural/industrial contaminants), a hydrogeological assessment of potential dewatering impacts, and applicant‑funded ongoing monitoring, and to publicly release all findings.

Property‑owner representative Eric (speaker 6) told the board the permit would allow mass grading on roughly 605 acres while key elements such as final access points, site configuration and detailed stormwater plans remain unresolved. He recommended an independent stormwater and groundwater study, a no‑net‑increase runoff standard, elevation and drainage guarantees, a stormwater performance bond or escrow sufficient to cover corrective work, and baseline well surveys with monitoring where groundwater impacts are possible.

Several commenters also pointed to process and documentation issues: Evangelina Soriano and others said notice language and municipal code references differed across permit documents and argued that site‑plan review should precede a fill permit because the latter depends on information (routes, schedules, equipment, erosion control measures) typically provided in final construction plans.

Board action and next steps: The board did not overturn the plan commission’s decision at the meeting. Instead staff said they will consolidate appeals, provide petitioners with written findings, and present determinations at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th. The board recorded multiple 'aye' votes to carry the motion to defer; no final permit reversal or new conditions were imposed at the meeting.

The record: Petitioners and speakers repeatedly asked for independent technical studies, baseline monitoring and stronger guarantees before large‑scale grading proceeds. The board advised parties they may request executive session with legal counsel ahead of the next meeting if they need more technical or legal advice to prepare for the public determination.