Hobart residents urge pause on fill permit for proposed Amazon data center, demand independent groundwater testing

Residents and property‑owner representatives pressed the Hobart board on a contested fill permit for a proposed Amazon data center, urging the city to require independent groundwater testing and full engineering plans before allowing large‑scale grading to proceed.

At the public‑comment period, Barbara Telles said she opposed the permit because the complex would be unusually large and close to homes: "There is no place in The United States where there is a 725 acre data center across the street from residences," she said, warning of long construction timelines, heavy truck traffic and possible impacts to property values.

Multiple residents said they rely on private wells and fear dewatering or mobilized contaminants could damage water supplies. One resident described building a home near the site and said she and her family — which keep bees and livestock — would likely be forced to leave if wells are compromised. "I am concerned about the possibility of our well becoming contaminated," said Elizabeth Scagliardi, who identified herself as owner of Excelsior Equestrian Center.

Speakers also cited outside examples and large‑scale dewatering amounts reported at other projects, including public comments that Amazon was approved in nearby jurisdictions to withdraw tens of millions of gallons per day during construction. Several commenters asked the city to provide baseline tests so any post‑construction change could be measured.

Eric Morris, representing nearby property owners, recommended the board pause or revise the permit until a complete engineering record is available. He told the board the current permit would "authorize mass grading on approximately 605 acres" and outlined specific protections he said are missing: an independent stormwater and groundwater study, a no‑net‑increase runoff standard, written elevation and drainage guarantees, a stormwater performance bond or escrow, baseline well and property condition surveys and enforceable long‑term maintenance and inspection requirements.

A separate commenter (S2) argued the permit process showed procedural inconsistencies, saying public notices and permit references cited different municipal code chapters and contending that a final site plan and the full construction information required by local ordinances should precede any large fill permit.

Jennifer McWhite urged an independent, city‑commissioned baseline groundwater assessment and ongoing monitoring funded by the applicant: "Before moving forward with any kind of permit approval, I respectfully urge the city to conduct independent baseline testing of the aquifer," she said, listing specific contaminants and hydrogeological studies the city could require and asking that results be published publicly.

City staff and the board did not resolve the appeals at the meeting. Staff told petitioners that the appeals would be consolidated and the board’s formal determinations will be made at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th and provided in writing to petitioners. The hearing record shows broad community concern about water, drainage, traffic, environmental impacts and the adequacy of the engineering and public‑notice process; speakers asked for independent technical review and binding mitigation measures before large‑scale earthmoving begins.

What happens next: The board will address the appeals at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th; petitioners will receive written findings after that meeting.