Developer’s request to rezone two large Hobart parcels to industrial is tabled after residents raise traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns

Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the Hobart planning board that his firm seeks rezoning of two parcels north of the Clay Street and US 30 intersection — about 168 acres in total across the two sites — from R-2 (residential) to M-1 (industrial) to allow future industrial and logistics development.

Simon said the sites have regional logistics advantages near the I‑65/US‑30 interchange, that wetlands and a natural‑gas pipeline constrain buildable area, and that the conceptual site plans intentionally show low building coverage (he cited 22.8% coverage on one parcel and roughly 14% on the other) to preserve buffers and reduce neighborhood impacts. He said Wiley Capital has met with municipal staff and engaged civil engineers and that the developer would cover costs to bring water and sewer north along Clay Street where necessary. “We will not be able to develop any building on top of the pipeline,” Simon said, adding the developer would work with pipeline operators and follow required safety and permitting procedures.

The presentation prompted more than an hour of public comment. Nearby residents cited traffic and road safety on Clay Street, worries about noise and nighttime truck activity, risks near the high‑pressure pipeline that crosses the site, potential water‑table and dewatering effects on private wells, and the prospect that a rezoning could later permit a data center rather than warehouses. Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street for nearly 60 years, said, “I have had nothing but peace and quiet. I don’t want my property value driven down or my yard taken for road widening.” Several other speakers asked that the city require a traffic study and guaranteed commitments for road widening and property compensation before rezoning.

Commissioners and staff focused questions on process and mitigation. Commissioner Marco Rodriguez (economic development) recommended a yearlong extension for a different petitioner earlier in the meeting; during the rezoning discussion several commissioners expressed support for requiring a planned unit development (PUD) or development agreement that would lock in who pays for road improvements, sewer and water extensions, and specific permitted uses. One commissioner said rezoning to M‑1 without binding infrastructure commitments would be premature for a site of this size and urged either a PUD or a formal development agreement that commits the developer to pay for necessary improvements.

After discussion about required traffic, drainage and utility work and repeated requests from residents for clarity on who would bear costs and how truck traffic would be routed to US‑30 rather than neighborhood streets, a motion to table the rezoning petitions was made and seconded. The planning commission voted to table both petitions to allow further studies and negotiation of infrastructure commitments and use restrictions.

What happens next: Tabling preserves land‑use options while the city and the petitioner coordinate on traffic studies, potential PUD terms or development agreements, and design measures intended to mitigate noise, light and stormwater impacts. The commission said it expects follow‑up material — including traffic analysis and clearer infrastructure commitments — before bringing the petitions back for decision.