Planning board tables rezoning of two large Hobart parcels after residents raise traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns

At a meeting of the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority, members voted to table two rezoning petitions—26‑02 and 26‑03—seeking to rezone about 168 acres near the U.S. 30/I‑65 corridor from R‑2 (residential) to M‑1 (industrial). The petitions were presented by Jason Simon of Wiley Capital, who described conceptual industrial site plans and promised buffers, setbacks and mitigation measures.

The petitions drew lengthy public comment from Clay Street and nearby residents worried about increased truck traffic, noise, lights, odors and possible effects on property values. "I've been here for almost 60 years," said resident Robert Wright, citing concerns about traffic, noise and the gas pipeline that runs through the area. Neighbors also urged the board not to allow data centers in the area and to require traffic and environmental studies.

Jason Simon, the petitioner, told the board that the rezoning request was the first step and that subsequent site plans, design reviews and permits would be required. He said project teams had identified wetlands and utility easements that would limit building coverage and that the developer would coordinate with pipeline operators so no buildings would be located over the line. "We will not be able to develop any building on top of the pipeline," Simon said when describing constraints and approvals required by the pipeline company.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly pressed for more concrete, binding commitments before changing zoning. Several members recommended pursuing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or a development agreement that would include who pays for road widening, sewer and water extensions and any property acquisitions needed for a widened right of way. One commissioner summarized the board’s concern: rezoning without commitments could leave the city responsible for large infrastructure bills.

After debate, a motion to table each petition passed by voice vote so staff and the petitioner could provide additional materials—including traffic studies, infrastructure agreements and clearer commitments on access, drainage and mitigation—before the board makes a recommendation to the city council. The board’s action pauses the zoning decision and schedules further review and follow-up with the petitioner and impacted property owners.

The planning board’s next steps include requesting a traffic study and written plans for road widening and utility extensions, exploring whether a PUD or development agreement is the appropriate vehicle for binding commitments, and continuing direct outreach with adjacent property owners about buffers, screening and construction impacts. The petitions will return to a future meeting after those items are submitted and reviewed.