Planning board tables rezoning of two large US‑30/Clay Street parcels after residents demand traffic, infrastructure commitments

Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, asked the Hobart planning board to rezone two large parcels north of the US‑30 and Clay Street intersection from R‑2 to M‑1 to enable industrial development. Simon said the sites total roughly 168 acres, have access to utilities and are positioned near the I‑65/Route 30 interchange, which he argued makes them attractive for industrial and logistics users.

Simon cautioned the board that the hearing concerned zoning only and that detailed site plans, permitting and engineering reviews would follow. He said the conceptual renderings intentionally showed low site coverage due to wetlands and a gas pipeline easement and that the developer planned significant setbacks, landscape screening and noise mitigation. He said, "we are requesting a rezoning change from r 2 to m 1." (transcript).

Neighbors and business owners voiced concerns at length. Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street for almost 60 years, described worries about noise, lights and property‑value losses; he asked whether he would be forced to hook up to new water or sewer lines. Several speakers raised the specific risk of a high‑pressure gas pipeline crossing parcels adjacent to homes and asked what construction over or near that line would mean for safety and access. Multiple residents and remote commenters urged a traffic study before any zoning change and expressed fear the parcels could be used for a data center rather than warehouses.

Jeff Chaz and Wade Bieber, local business owners, said they support redevelopment if it is warehousing or light industrial but asked the board to explicitly bar data‑center uses and to protect driveway access and business operations during construction. Mark Popel (remote) urged the commission to consider the comprehensive plan’s 'study area' designation north of the parcels and urged mitigation for the handful of homes between 73rd and US‑30.

Commissioners debated procedure and substance. Several members said rezoning to a permissive M‑1 district prior to securing funding or agreements for road widening, sanitary/water extension and stormwater improvements would risk piecemeal outcomes. One board member urged requiring a PUD (Planned Unit Development) so that infrastructure responsibilities, design standards and allowable uses could be bound in a single agreement.

A motion to table petition 26‑02 was made and seconded; the maker cited the need for a traffic study, a binding development agreement or PUD guaranteeing road improvements (a four‑lane cross section, curbs, gutters and sidewalks), water and sanitary extensions and property acquisition where necessary. The motion carried by voice vote. The board opened a separate public hearing on petition 26‑03 (the adjacent parcel) and, after similar public comments and discussion, moved to table 26‑03 for the same reasons. Both items were tabled pending documentation that infrastructure and mitigation commitments will be secured.