Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Data Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, property owners urge pause on Amazon data‑center fill permit; request independent groundwater, stormwater studies
Summary
Residents, farm and business owners told the Hobart Redevelopment Authority that a large fill permit tied to a proposed Amazon data center risks groundwater contamination, increased traffic, noise, and irreversible grading; appellants asked the board to require full engineering, baseline aquifer testing and bonds before construction.
Residents and property‑owner representatives at a Hobart City Redevelopment Authority meeting urged the board to delay or reverse a recently approved fill permit tied to a proposed Amazon data center, saying the permit authorizes large‑scale grading before key engineering and environmental safeguards are in place.
Multiple speakers described health, agricultural and safety concerns. Dana, a long‑time Hobart resident, told the board that living next to the planned development would be a “deal breaker for us, and we will have to leave,” citing her diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and concerns about noise, dust and potential air pollution.
Eric Morris, speaking for nearby property owners, said the permit “authorizes mass grading on approximately 605 acres” but that the planning record lacks final site plans and sufficient engineering to support the commission’s findings on drainage, traffic and elevation. Morris urged the city to require an independent stormwater and groundwater study, a no‑net‑increase standard for runoff, written elevation and drainage guarantees, a performance bond sufficient to cover corrective work, baseline property and well surveys, and long‑term monitoring funded by the applicant.
Several appellants and commenters pressed the city for baseline hydrogeologic testing and clear contingency plans if dewatering affects private wells. Jen (speaking for an absent resident) and other speakers asked what the city would do if construction dewatering altered groundwater flow or mobilized contaminants, and whether affected residents could practically be tied into municipal water service.
Elizabeth Scagliardi, owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center, said her farm relies on private wells and water troughs for 20 horses and that tying into city water is not a feasible business solution. She also raised sediment and stormwater concerns where on‑site drains connect to nearby wetland ditches.
Speakers repeatedly cited procedural concerns. One appellant noted inconsistent public‑notice language—some documents referenced chapter 1‑54 (site plan review) while a later fill permit referenced chapter 1‑50—and argued that site‑plan review is ordinarily required before issuing a fill permit. Appellants said the permit application omitted critical operational details called for by local code: haul routes, equipment types and frequency, hours of operation, erosion and dust control measures, and final outlet locations for stormwater.
Legal counsel advised the board that it may affirm, reverse or modify the Plan Commission’s decision and suggested appellants be given written determinations. After discussion the chair said the appeals will be considered at the Board of Works meeting scheduled for March 18 so the full board can review the matters and issue determinations to petitioners.
What happens next: The board consolidated appeals and referred them to the Board of Works; appellants asked for baseline groundwater testing, independent technical studies and binding guarantees (bonds or escrow) before large‑scale grading proceeds. The Board of Works is expected to take up the appeals on March 18 and provide written findings to petitioners.
