Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer Jason Simon seeks industrial rezoning for large Hobart parcels; planning board tables requests after resident concerns
Summary
Wiley Capital asked the planning board to rezone roughly 168 acres north of U.S. 30 from R‑2 to M‑1, arguing the land is well suited for industrial uses that can bring jobs and tax revenue. After extensive public comment about traffic, pipelines, wetlands and the possibility of data centers, the planning commission voted to table both petitions pending traffic and infrastructure commitments.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the Hobart planning board he seeks rezoning of two large parcels north of U.S. 30 from R‑2 to M‑1 to create an industrial employment center that would attract corporate investment and create construction and permanent jobs. "Securing the proper zoning now creates a clear path to ensure a range of permitted uses can occupy the site," Simon said during his presentation, adding that the sites have utility access and are close to the I‑65/Route 30 interchange.
Neighbors and business owners filled the public hearing with concerns about traffic, safety and environmental impacts. "I've been here for almost 60 years," said Robert Wright, a Clay Street resident. "I don't want to see the value of my home go to hell because somebody wanted to build a business there." Patricia Corey told the board she opposed more industrial development on the street because of existing truck problems and health concerns. Several speakers asked whether the proposals could include data centers rather than warehouses and urged a traffic study before any approval.
Commissioners pressed the developer on infrastructure commitments. Several members said they would prefer a planned unit development (PUD) or a development agreement that explicitly required road widening, sanitary and water extension, and property acquisitions rather than rezoning alone. "I would feel far better ... if instead of asking for M‑1, he would ask for a PUD," one commissioner said, citing the need to bundle infrastructure, drainage and use limitations.
Simon responded that traffic studies and required city reviews would guide road improvements and that pipeline operators restrict construction directly over transmission lines. He also offered that the developer could pay to connect properties to city water and sewer if owners chose to hook up, while allowing others to remain on well and septic.
After discussion, the planning commission voted to table petition 26‑02 and, subsequently, petition 26‑03 to give staff, the developer and property owners time to resolve traffic, drainage and infrastructure questions and to consider whether a PUD or binding development agreement is appropriate. The board indicated a favorable recommendation to the city council could follow only after infrastructure responsibilities and traffic‑management plans are clear.
Next steps: the petitions are tabled; the developer may revise the petitions or return with a PUD proposal and the planning staff will expect traffic and drainage studies and clearer infrastructure funding commitments before the board forwards a recommendation to the city council.
