Residents, landowners urge pause on massive fill permit tied to proposed data center; board schedules decision

Dozens of residents and property owners urged the Hobart board to pause approval of a large fill/grading permit that would enable construction of a multi-building data center, citing groundwater risks, traffic and procedural concerns.

The board opened a series of appeals and public comments after the Planning Commission approved the permit. Agency staff and appellants agreed the final site plan and key engineering details remain unresolved, but the Planning Commission’s order had found no likely detrimental drainage or traffic impacts. "This fill permit is just one step in the final building of the data center," said Barbara Telles, a petitioner, arguing that the scale and proximity to homes make the finding unreliable. "There is no place in The United States where there is a 725 acre data center across the street from residences," she said, urging reconsideration.

Why it matters: Speakers repeatedly warned that large-scale dewatering during grading could mobilize existing contaminants and alter groundwater flows that private wells depend on. "We rely on well water," said Dana, a resident, who described fears her household would have to leave if well quality or quantity is harmed. Multiple commenters asked the city to require independent baseline groundwater testing and ongoing monitoring paid for by the applicant before any permit is executed.

Property owners and farm operators pressed two threads: (1) procedural compliance and sequencing — several speakers said site-plan review and full engineering documentation should precede a mass-grading permit — and (2) technical protections — requests included an independent stormwater/groundwater study, a no-net-increase runoff standard, written elevation and drainage guarantees, a stormwater performance bond or escrow, baseline property and well-condition surveys, and enforceable long-term maintenance and monitoring.

"This permit authorizes mass grading on approximately 605 acres," said Eric Morris, who spoke on behalf of nearby property owners, saying the Planning Commission's conclusions rely on incomplete information and should be revisited after final engineering is available. Morris recommended independent engineering review and a performance bond to cover corrective grading or property damage.

Several speakers cited health concerns or local impacts: one resident raised multiple sclerosis and asserted that low-frequency noise, infrasound and air pollution can worsen symptoms; another noted local beekeeping and said EMF, infrasound and vibrations from large facilities could harm pollinators. Multiple commenters referenced a separate, large dewatering approval in a neighboring jurisdiction and questioned whether similar water withdrawals would be proposed here.

City procedure and next steps: City staff and the board explained appellants must file written appeals and that the Board of Works will meet on the 18th to consider the appeals and release written determinations to petitioners. The board asked petitioners to identify specific questions for legal counsel; the chair said any executive-session legal briefing should occur before the Board of Works meeting so the full board can make a public determination with all parties prepared.

Quotes and requests: Among the specific demands recorded were: independent baseline groundwater testing (nitrates, nitrites and common agricultural/industrial contaminants), a hydrogeological assessment of dewatering impacts, public release of findings, erosion-control plans tied to long-term impervious-area mapping, traffic/haul-route disclosures, and specified hours of operation for heavy hauling.

The board did not make a final determination at the meeting; it said decisions and written findings will be provided to appellants and announced at the Board of Works meeting on the 18th.