Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables Wiley Capital rezoning requests after neighbors raise traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns
Summary
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority heard from Wiley Capital on rezoning two large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 for industrial use but, after extensive resident concerns about truck traffic, wetlands, a gas pipeline and infrastructure funding, the board voted to table both petitions pending more study and clearer infrastructure agreements.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority to rezone two large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 to allow industrial development, saying the sites total roughly 168 acres (west parcel) and 138.98 acres (east parcel) and offering conceptual site plans that showed low building coverage and large setbacks.
"Tonight, we are requesting a rezoning change from r 2 to m 1," Simon said, presenting renderings his team prepared and describing wetlands, a natural‑gas pipeline crossing and planned buffers. He told the board his firm expects industrial users could bring permanent jobs and substantial real estate tax revenue, and said the conceptual renderings show building coverage of about 22.8% on one parcel and about 14% on the other.
Neighbors spoke at length during the public hearing, raising repeated concerns about traffic on Clay Street, the effect of truck traffic on local roads, potential noise and light intrusion, stormwater and dewatering impacts on private wells, and the safety implications of a high‑pressure gas pipeline that crosses part of the property.
"I've been here for almost 60 years. Had nothing but peace and quiet," said resident Robert Wright, who lives on Clay Street and urged the board to consider property‑value and safety impacts before rezoning.
Others asked whether the rezoning could enable a data center rather than warehouses, a subject that drew repeated requests for clarity. Joseph Conn asked the board to require a traffic study before permitting warehousing, and several residents urged limiting uses in any rezoning.
Board members and staff focused on two recurring process questions: (1) whether a planned unit development (PUD) or similar development agreement should accompany rezoning to lock in infrastructure commitments and restrict certain uses, and (2) whether traffic and drainage studies — plus firm agreements about who pays to widen Clay Street or extend sewer and water — must be completed before approving zoning changes.
One commissioner said, when discussing the scale and complexity of the proposal, that a PUD would "let us do" the needed infrastructure planning in one package rather than rezoning now and dealing with details later.
After extended questioning, developer response and public comment, a board member moved and seconded to table petition 26‑02; the motion carried. The board then opened and heard the companion petition, 26‑03, where many of the same concerns were raised; petition 26‑03 was also tabled.
Next steps: the board recorded the tabling motion and asked for follow‑up information, including traffic studies, more detailed infrastructure commitments and clearer use limitations for any future zoning or PUD submission. No final zoning action was taken at the meeting.
