Planning board tables rezoning request for 168 acres after residents raise traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns

Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority that his firm is seeking rezoning of two adjoining properties from R2 (residential) to M1 (industrial) to allow industrial and logistics development near the I‑65/US‑30 corridor.

Simon said the combined parcels total about 168 acres and argued that the rezoning would align with Hobart’s recently adopted comprehensive plan and make the sites attractive to corporate investment. “Securing the proper zoning now creates a clear path to ensure a range of permitted uses can occupy the site, providing the best chance to land corporate investment and continued economic growth in the city of Hobart,” Simon said. He described conceptual coverage rates of roughly 22.8% on the west parcel and about 14% on the east parcel, and said the project’s designs would include setbacks, berms and landscape screening to reduce noise, light and visual impacts.

Neighbors and small business owners who spoke during a long public hearing expressed broad concerns about traffic, property impacts, pipeline safety and environmental effects. Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street for nearly 60 years, warned the project could bring “traffic, noise, pollution” and feared nighttime truck traffic and lights shining into his home. Patricia Corey told the board she opposed additional industrial truck traffic on already‑damaged local roads and said she feared respiratory impacts; she urged the commission to reconsider large industrial uses near neighborhoods.

Other commenters urged a traffic study before rezoning and asked for guarantees that the sites would not be used for data centers. Joseph Conn, who said he attended past master‑plan discussions, asked whether the area had been studied and urged the board to require a traffic study and clarity about permitted uses. Mark Popel, who spoke from an online connection, said dewatering and wetlands issues made data‑center uses particularly concerning.

In response, Simon said his team has worked with pipeline operators and civil engineers and that any construction would follow pipeline company restrictions: “We will not be able to develop any building on top of the pipeline,” he said, and added that submitted construction plans would be reviewed by the pipeline owner. He also said his firm would pay to connect property owners to city water and sewer if owners wished to hook up when lines are extended north along Clay Street.

Commissioners debated whether to proceed with an M1 rezoning now or to require a planned unit development (PUD) or a binding development agreement that secures road widening, utility extensions and property‑acquisition commitments from the developer. Several members said they were uncomfortable rezoning without firm infrastructure commitments and a traffic study that quantifies road improvements and right‑of‑way needs. One commissioner argued that a PUD would allow the board to limit specific uses and guarantee that infrastructure obligations are clear before development moves forward.

After discussion, the authority voted to table petition 26‑02 and, after reopening the record for the adjacent parcel, tabled petition 26‑03 as well. The tabling motions asked staff and the petitioner to provide traffic study results and clearer commitments (PUD or development agreement) addressing Clay Street widening, sanitary and water extensions and property impacts before the board forwards a recommendation to the city council.

The authority’s action is procedural: rezoning remains a possible outcome, but commissioners said they want binding infrastructure and mitigation plans on the record before changing zoning. The petitions will return to the board or the council only after the petitioner provides the requested studies and proposed infrastructure agreements.