Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables two large rezoning requests along US‑30/Clay Street after heavy public comment
Summary
Developers sought to rezone large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 for industrial use; after residents raised traffic, pipeline, dewatering and property‑value concerns and commissioners asked for infrastructure guarantees, the board tabled both petitions pending traffic studies, infrastructure plans and possible PUD/development agreements.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on Monday tabled two major rezoning petitions (26‑02 and 26‑03) that would change roughly 138.98 and an adjacent parcel from R‑2 to M‑1 industrial zoning after extended public comment and board discussion about infrastructure and mitigation.
Jason Simon of Wiley Capital presented both petitions and described conceptual site plans showing low building coverage (14–23%), large setbacks, wetlands and mature tree buffers. He argued that the location’s proximity to I‑65 and Route 30 made it suitable for industrial and logistics uses that could create construction and permanent jobs and significantly increase real estate tax receipts.
More than a half dozen neighbors spoke against the rezoning during the public hearings. Concerns raised included increased truck traffic and roadway damage on Clay Street, nighttime lighting and noise, the safety and constraints posed by a high‑pressure gas pipeline that crosses one parcel, potential groundwater/dewatering impacts on private wells, and the prospect that the site could be used as a data center rather than conventional warehouses.
Several residents asked for traffic studies, and multiple speakers urged the city to ensure truck routing directs heavy vehicles to Route 30 rather than local streets. The petitioner said required traffic studies would be requested by the city for a project of this scale, that pipeline companies must review and approve any construction near pipelines, and that engineering teams plan for dewatering mitigation; the developer also offered to pay to connect adjacent properties to city water and sewer if owners choose to take service.
Commissioners repeatedly urged the petitioner and staff to consider a Planned Unit Development (PUD) framework or a development agreement that would require binding infrastructure improvements — including road widening, full sewer and water extension, right‑of‑way acquisition and mitigation funding — before rezoning. Several commissioners said rezoning to straight M‑1 without those binding commitments would be premature for a project of this size.
On motions from the board, both petitions were tabled with direction that the developer and staff return with traffic studies, infrastructure plans, and clearer commitments about who would pay for road and utility improvements. The board’s tabling preserves the petitioner’s ability to revise and resubmit the petitions but delays any vote on the requested M‑1 zoning.
Next procedural steps: the board expects traffic studies and agreed infrastructure commitments (or a PUD/development agreement) before advancing a recommendation to the common council.
