Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables two rezoning petitions after residents raise traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns
Summary
After extensive public comment about truck traffic, narrow local roads, wetlands/dewatering, and a high‑pressure pipeline, the authority voted to table two rezoning petitions (26‑02 and 26‑03) that would change large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1, urging traffic studies or a PUD and developer commitments on road and utility improvements.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on Monday tabled two rezoning petitions — 26‑02 and 26‑03 — that sought to change large parcels north of U.S. 30 and Clay Street from R‑2 (residential) to M‑1 (industrial). The petitions together cover roughly 168 acres and drew sustained public comment and detailed board discussion.
The applicant’s presenter outlined the rationale for industrial zoning along the I‑65 corridor, citing market demand, proximity to interchanges and utility availability. The presenter said conceptual site renderings showed low building coverage (about 22.8% on one parcel and roughly 14% on the east parcel) because wetlands and a natural‑gas pipeline limit buildable area, and pledged buffers, berms and screening to reduce neighborhood impacts.
Multiple residents told the board they objected or had unanswered questions. Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street for nearly 60 years, warned of increased traffic, noise, light, and potential property‑value impacts; other residents demanded a traffic study, asked that trucks be routed to U.S. 30 instead of neighborhood streets, raised concerns about dewatering and wells, and asked how pipeline safety would be protected during and after construction. One resident urged the board to treat the area north of the sites as a coordinated “study area” rather than approve piecemeal rezoning.
Several commissioners said they supported development in principle but were uncomfortable rezoning before infrastructure commitments were in place. Multiple board members recommended a planned unit development (PUD) or written development agreement that would bind the applicant to road widening, sewer and water extensions, and any required property acquisitions. One commissioner said the developer should pay for water and sewer extensions and potential hookups for affected residents.
A motion to table petition 26‑02 passed on a voice vote; the board then opened and received public comment on 26‑03, heard similar concerns and moved to table the second petition as well. The board said it would expect traffic studies, clearer infrastructure and funding commitments, and more detail on how truck traffic will be routed before considering a favorable recommendation to the city council.
The petitions will return to the board after the requested studies and infrastructure commitments are provided.
