Planning board tables Wiley Capital rezoning of two large tracts after residents raise traffic, pipeline and utility concerns

Wiley Capital requested that the Hobart planning commission rezone two large tracts of farmland from R-2 to M-1 to allow industrial uses, including warehouse and service facilities. The developer said the combined parcels total about 168 acres and stressed proximity to I-65 and Route 30 as advantages for logistics and job creation.

“Securing the proper zoning now creates a clear path to ensure a range of permitted uses can occupy the site,” the developer said during a presentation, adding the company would provide buffers, landscape screening and noise mitigation.

Neighbors questioned that picture during a lengthy public hearing. Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street for nearly 60 years, said he feared increased truck traffic, nighttime noise and potential safety issues tied to a natural-gas pipeline that runs near several properties. “I don’t want to see the value of my home go to hell because somebody wanted to build a business there,” Wright said.

Patricia Corey, a Clay Street resident, told commissioners she opposed further industrial development on the corridor because of existing truck problems and respiratory concerns in the area. Joseph Conn said the comprehensive plan had previously marked nearby land as a study area and asked whether a traffic study had been completed; he urged the board to confirm the intended uses and to rule out data-center development because of wetlands and dewatering risks.

Other speakers voiced a range of views. Jeff Chaz, a local business owner, said he supported redevelopment so long as the site was used for warehouses rather than data centers; Wade Bieber, who owns property adjacent to the site, said he would welcome development only if the developer addressed driveway access, easement demands and the cost of road repairs; an online commenter, Mark Popel, asked for assurances that well-and-septic households would not be harmed by dewatering and sewer extension work.

In response, the developer acknowledged the public’s concerns and described technical constraints. The presenter said conceptual site plans are illustrative, that wetland and pipeline constraints reduce buildable coverage compared with typical industrial sites, and that the company would follow pipeline-company rules and submit detailed engineering for review. The presenter also said the developer would pursue easements and could fund water and sewer construction and offered to follow up individually with affected residents.

Commissioners debated whether to require a planned-unit development (PUD) or a development agreement that would lock in infrastructure upgrades, such as an 80-foot right-of-way and four-lane reconstruction of Clay Street, rather than rezoning to a broad M-1 class without binding commitments. One commissioner said rezoning without firm infrastructure commitments risks leaving taxpayers on the hook for road and utility improvements.

After discussion and public testimony, the planning commission moved and voted to table both petitions (26-02 and 26-03). Commissioners said they wanted a traffic study, clearer infrastructure and easement plans, and either a PUD or a binding development agreement that specifies who will pay for road widening, sidewalks, and sewer/water extension before sending a recommendation to the city council.

The planning commission’s tabling votes do not change the comprehensive-plan designation but mean the petitions will return only after the developer provides the requested studies and commitments. The planning session concluded without final approval on the rezoning requests.