Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning M1 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rezoning for large Hobart parcels put on hold after residents raise traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns
Summary
Wiley Capital asked to rezone two large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 for industrial use, touting jobs and tax benefits; a broad set of public comments about traffic, wetlands, pipelines and possible data‑center uses and commissioners’ calls for infrastructure commitments led the board to table both petitions.
Wiley Capital’s request to rezone two large Hobart parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 was put on hold after an extended public hearing and commissioner discussion that highlighted traffic, pipeline safety, wetlands/dewatering and infrastructure‑funding concerns.
Applicant Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the board the sites comprise about 168 acres combined and are well‑positioned for industrial uses with proximity to US‑30 and Interstate 65. The applicant presented conceptual renderings showing roughly 22.8% building coverage on one site and about 14% coverage on the other, and emphasized potential construction and permanent jobs plus real‑estate tax revenue gains if developed.
But many residents who spoke at the hearing opposed or asked for caution. Robert Wright, a Clay Street resident of nearly 60 years, said he feared traffic, light and noise impacts, property‑value loss and potential safety risks tied to a high‑pressure gas pipeline that runs through the area. Patricia Corey and other commenters cited truck traffic already damaging local roads and urged the board not to allow further industrial uses without safeguards. Several speakers asked the board to bar data centers or at least require clear limits on such uses.
Commissioners and staff wrestled with whether to proceed with M‑1 zoning or require a planned unit development (PUD) or development agreement that would lock in infrastructure commitments — including a four‑lane Clay Street, right‑of‑way acquisitions, gutters, curbs, sidewalks, and extension of water and sanitary sewer to the north end of the property. Multiple speakers and at least one commissioner urged a traffic study and agreements that the developer pay for road and utility improvements rather than leave costs to taxpayers.
Given the scale of the proposals and the outstanding infrastructure questions, the board voted to table petition 26‑02. The subsequent public hearing for petition 26‑03 covered similar ground and that petition was also tabled with instructions that the applicant address infrastructure, traffic and drainage concerns before the board advances a recommendation to the city council.
The transcript records voice votes carrying the tabling motions; no roll‑call tallies were recorded in the hearing record.
