Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning M1 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission tables two large rezoning requests for US‑30 area after residents raise traffic and safety concerns
Summary
The planning commission tabled two rezoning petitions from Wiley Capital to rezone large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 after extensive public comment about truck traffic, wetlands/dewatering, a high‑pressure gas pipeline, potential data‑center use and the absence of a committed infrastructure plan; commissioners urged a PUD or binding development agreement and requested traffic studies.
The Hobart planning commission opened public hearings on two rezoning petitions from Wiley Capital seeking to change large tracts from R‑2 (residential) to M‑1 (industrial) near US‑30 and I‑65. The petitions prompted prolonged public comment and a unanimous decision by the commission to table both items to allow for clearer infrastructure commitments and additional study.
Developer Jason Simon (Wiley Capital) framed the request as a first step to enable industrial and logistics development, saying the site’s proximity to I‑65 and available utilities makes it attractive for investment and jobs. Simon said the conceptual plans show low building coverage because wetlands and tree stands would remain as buffers and that the rezoning would create a clear path to attract corporate users. "We're seeking to establish the appropriate zoning to allow for development of the sites given the increased demand for industrial land," the developer said.
More than a half dozen neighbors and business owners spoke during the public hearing. Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street for nearly 60 years, urged the commission to consider noise, lights, truck traffic and potential property‑value losses and asked whether property owners would be forced to connect to new water and sewer lines. "I have to deal with possibility of traffic, noise, pollution," Wright said.
Other residents raised these recurring concerns: - Patricia Corey said the neighborhood already suffers from truck traffic and that industrial development could worsen respiratory or nuisance impacts. "We don't need no more industrial development," she said. - Several speakers warned the site could be used for a data center rather than warehouses; they asked the commission to ensure the rezoning would not enable an unanticipated, high‑impact use. - Business owner Jeff Chaz said he supports development if it is warehouses and not a data center but noted road widening and driveway impacts would need addressing. - Wade Bieber, who owns commercial property adjacent to the site, urged guarantees that construction and road work would not interrupt access to his business and asked that semis be routed to Route 30 rather than on neighborhood streets. - Mark Popel and others urged the commission to require a traffic study and to ensure Clay Street can be widened and reconstructed before large truck traffic is permitted.
In response the developer and project engineers said they would work with pipeline companies and engineers (noting that buildings cannot be constructed directly on a pipeline easement), that they would connect water and sewer at their expense for property owners who request it, and that construction plans would be coordinated to avoid shutting down adjacent businesses. The developer also said conceptual renderings are not final site plans and that any future projects would require separate review and permitting.
Commissioners expressed shared concerns about rezoning before infrastructure commitments were secured. One commissioner recommended pursuing a planned unit development (PUD) or a written development agreement that would lock in who pays for road widening, sanitary and water extensions and property acquisitions necessary for right‑of‑way. "I would feel far better at this point instead of asking for M‑1, that he would ask for a PUD," a commissioner said, arguing a PUD would allow the commission to specify uses and infrastructure responsibilities.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to table petition 26‑02 so the developer could return with a clearer plan for infrastructure funding, a traffic study and more detailed commitments; the motion was seconded and carried. The commission then opened the second petition (26‑03) for public comment, heard substantially similar concerns and also voted to table that petition.
Why it matters: The petitions involve large acreage near key regional freight routes; rezoning decisions can materially affect traffic patterns, municipal costs for road and sewer improvements, property values and neighborhood quality of life. Commissioners prioritized securing binding infrastructure commitments and technical studies before approving zoning changes that would enable industrial development.
Next steps: The petitions are tabled. Commissioners and staff indicated they expect the developer to provide traffic studies, proposed infrastructure financing or a PUD-style agreement, and clarifications on allowable uses before the commission will take them up again.
