Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fill Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge independent water, drainage studies as board schedules appeals over massive data-center fill permit
Summary
At the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority meeting, multiple residents and appellants urged the board to delay final action on a large fill/grading permit tied to a proposed Amazon data-center project, citing groundwater and well contamination risks, traffic and pipeline safety, and procedural gaps in site-plan review.
A series of appellants at the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority meeting appealed a Planning Commission fill permit that residents say paves the way for a large data-center campus and poses risks to groundwater, traffic safety and nearby homes.
Several residents and property owners addressed the board during the appeals segment, urging more engineering analysis before large-scale grading and fill occur. "This fill permit is just 1 step in the final building of the status center... 25 buildings," one appellant said, warning of construction traffic near two-lane roads and possible declines in property values. The board listed approximately 14 appeals and said determinations will be made at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th.
Speakers repeatedly focused on groundwater and dewatering: a longtime homeowner said she was "concerned about the possibility of our well becoming contaminated" after hundreds of soil-testing holes and said dewatering could dry or damage private wells. Another appellant who described herself as operating a 20-stall equestrian center urged the city to account for the farm's water needs, saying connecting to city water "physically isn't a possibility for a farmer" and describing wells as the only viable supply for livestock.
A representative for nearby property owners recommended delaying mass grading until a complete engineering record is available, including final access points, finished grading, drainage data and traffic routes. He proposed several concrete protections: an independent stormwater and groundwater study by an engineer not hired by the developer; a no-net-increase runoff standard; written guarantees on finished grades and drainage; a stormwater performance bond or escrow to cover corrective work; and baseline property and well-condition surveys with ongoing monitoring.
Several speakers also raised procedural concerns, saying the permit record cites different municipal code chapters inconsistently and omits full site-plan details required for stormwater and erosion control reviews. A commenter urged the city to conduct independent baseline aquifer testing and a hydrogeological assessment and to require applicant-funded ongoing groundwater monitoring.
City staff told the board that the Planning Commission held a special meeting to approve findings from the February application and that appeal responses and written notes will be provided to petitioners. Staff recommended handling legal questions in executive session prior to the next meeting, and the board agreed to consolidate the appeals and render a public determination at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th.
The board took no final action on the merits of the fill permit at the meeting; it scheduled further consideration at the Board of Works meeting so commissioners can review written materials and any technical responses. The next procedural step is the consolidated appeal hearing and formal written determinations at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th.
