Developer seeks M‑1 rezoning for two large Hobart parcels; planning board tables both petitions after residents raise traffic, pipeline and wetland concerns

Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority to rezone two large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 to clear the way for industrial and logistics development, saying the sites together comprise roughly 168 acres and align with the city’s adopted comprehensive plan.

“This evening, we are requesting a rezoning change from R‑2 to M‑1,” Simon said, describing conceptual site layouts that reserve large setbacks and preserved tree stands. He told the board the developer would work with the city on water, sewer and easement needs and that typical mitigation—landscaping, berms and lighting controls—would be part of future site plans.

Neighbors who live along Clay Street and nearby addresses told the board they fear heavy truck traffic, noise, lighting, possible odors and higher property taxes. Robert Wright, a Clay Street resident, said he has lived on the street for nearly 60 years and warned that truck routes, widening and nighttime activity would harm his quality of life.

Several speakers, including Joseph Conn and Wade Bieber, urged the board to require a traffic study and asked for assurances that semi trucks would be routed to Route 30 rather than through neighborhood streets. Online commenter Mark Popel and others raised concerns about wetlands and dewatering, and several residents asked the city to prohibit high‑power data centers at these sites rather than allow broad M‑1 uses.

Commissioners pressed the developer on infrastructure: several members said they preferred a planned unit development (PUD) approach or a development agreement that explicitly commits the applicant to pay for road widening, curb and gutter, sidewalks and extension of water and sanitary sewer lines. One board member noted that, without clear infrastructure commitments, rezoning alone could result in piecemeal approvals that leave neighbors to shoulder impacts.

The developer responded that rezoning is the first step and that specific site plans would return for review; he said his team will seek required permits, would coordinate with pipeline companies regarding construction near a high‑pressure gas line and offered to coordinate with affected property owners about setbacks and screening. He also told the board the rezoning would improve the city’s industrial land inventory and argued that limiting allowable uses could make the site less attractive to prospective tenants.

After extended public comment and internal debate over requiring a PUD, traffic studies and binding infrastructure commitments, the board voted to table both petitions to allow staff and the applicant to supply additional studies and a clearer infrastructure plan. The planning board said a traffic study, explicit development‑agreement language about who pays for road and utility work, and more detail on site access and pipeline safety should be provided before a formal recommendation goes to the city council.

The authority did not make a final zoning decision; both rezoning petitions were tabled.