Hobart planners table rezoning requests for 168‑acre industrial site after residents raise traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns

The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority opened public hearings on two rezoning petitions from Wiley Capital that would change zoning from R‑2 to M‑1 for large parcels near US‑30 and Clay Street, but the board tabled both petitions after extensive public comment and a series of board concerns about infrastructure and process.

Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the board the two parcels total roughly 168 acres and that industrial zoning would create a clear path for corporate investment along the I‑65 corridor. "This evening, we are requesting a rezoning change from r 2 to m 1," Simon said during his presentation, adding that conceptual plans show low building coverage and significant setbacks.

Residents and nearby business owners voiced concerns at the public hearing about truck traffic on Clay Street, the condition of the road, potential noise and light impacts, property‑tax and property‑value effects, and the presence of a high‑pressure gas pipeline through parts of the site. Robert Wright of 7971 Clay Street told the board he had "been here for almost 60 years" and worried about noise, lights and the possibility of forced hookups to city utilities; Patricia Corey and other speakers described truck damage to local roads and health concerns.

Several commenters also warned the sites could become data centers and urged the board to exclude that outcome. A public commenter said the area had previously been shown as a "study area" in the comprehensive plan and asked whether the city had completed the study.

In response, Simon and his engineering team said the conceptual renderings are not final and pledged to work on design measures including setbacks, berms, screening and coordination with pipeline companies. "We will do, you know, everything we can from a design perspective, and I'm gonna follow‑up with Robert ... and make sure that we get it right," Simon said.

Board members pressed for a stronger process: one member urged rezoning only as part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would include binding agreements for road widening, sewer and water extension and property acquisitions paid by the developer. The board moved to table petition 26‑02 to allow time for traffic studies and infrastructure agreements; the motion passed by voice vote. The second petition (26‑03) was opened for public comment and similarly tabled after members reiterated the same infrastructure and process concerns.

No rezoning determinations were made at the meeting. The planning authority asked the petitioner to return with traffic and engineering studies and clearer infrastructure commitments, and recommended the petitions be accompanied by enforceable development agreements or a PUD framework before council consideration.