Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission tables large rezoning requests after lengthy public hearing and infrastructure concerns
Summary
Wiley Capital asked to rezone roughly 168 acres from R‑2 to M‑1; developers stressed economic benefits while residents raised traffic, pipeline, drainage and potential data‑center concerns. Commissioners tabled both petitions pending traffic studies, infrastructure commitments and possible PUD/developer agreements.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority opened lengthy public hearings on two rezoning petitions (26‑02 and 26‑03) seeking to change roughly 168 acres from R‑2 residential to M‑1 industrial. Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, presented conceptual site plans and argued the rezoning aligns with the city’s comprehensive plan and would enable industrial investment and jobs.
Public opposition centered on traffic and truck impacts on Clay Street, pipeline safety where a high‑pressure natural gas line runs near properties, stormwater and wetland dewatering concerns, potential air or odor impacts, loss of property value for adjacent homeowners and the fear that the site could become a data center rather than warehousing or light industrial. Residents repeatedly urged traffic and environmental studies and asked whether developers or the city would guarantee road widening, sewer/water extension, or compensation for property impacts.
In response Jason Simon said the rezoning request was only the first step and that traffic studies and required approvals would follow; he described buffer and site design measures (doubling typical setbacks, berms and tree screening) and said developers work with pipeline companies to avoid building over a line. He also said the developer would coordinate easements and the cost of connecting water and sewer if property owners opted to tie in.
Why it matters: The petitions would convert a large area of low‑density, mostly agricultural land into industrial use, with potential long‑term effects on traffic, municipal infrastructure needs, property values and neighborhood character. Commissioners signaled caution about rezoning before infrastructure commitments are formalized.
Outcome: After discussion several commissioners recommended using a planned‑unit development (PUD) or a development agreement to ensure road improvements, right‑of‑way acquisitions and sewer/water extension were committed before rezoning. On motions to table (S6), the board tabled both Petition 26‑02 and Petition 26‑03 to allow further study, negotiation of infrastructure responsibilities and review of traffic studies.
Representative quotes: Resident Robert Wright told the board, “I've been here for almost 60 years … I don't wanna see the value of my home go to hell,” expressing worries about noise, lights, traffic and property takings. Jason Simon said, “Tonight is only about rezoning … it's the first step,” and later pledged to follow regulatory requirements and pipeline company restrictions.
Next steps: The petitions were tabled; commissioners asked staff and the applicant to return with traffic studies, clarified infrastructure commitments (road widening, sewer and water extension), and possible PUD or development agreement language before further action.
