Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables rezoning of two large Clay Street parcels after neighbors raise traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns
Summary
The Hobart planning board held public hearings on rezoning two large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 proposed by Wiley Capital and, after extensive public comment on traffic, pipelines, wetlands and infrastructure funding, voted to table both petitions pending traffic studies and clearer infrastructure commitments.
The Hobart planning board on Monday opened public hearings on two rezoning petitions from R‑2 to M‑1 for large parcels near Clay Street and U.S. 30 and ultimately tabled both requests after residents and commissioners pressed the developer and staff for traffic studies and firm infrastructure commitments.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the board the sites total about 168 acres and are positioned within a regional industrial corridor with direct access to I‑65. "We are requesting a rezoning change from R‑2 to M‑1," Simon said, describing conceptual plans that show substantially lower building coverage than typical industrial developments because of wetlands, mature trees and a gas‑pipeline easement.
Neighbors who live along Clay Street and adjacent roads used the public hearings to raise a string of concerns. Robert Wright, who said he has lived at 7971 Clay Street for nearly 60 years, urged caution about noise, lights, property‑value impacts and safety near the pipeline. "I have to deal with possibly my property taxes going up now. I have to worry about lights being on all night long," Wright said.
Other speakers asked whether the comprehensive‑plan 'study area' had been analyzed, called for a traffic study before permit approvals and warned against allowing a future data center on the sites. Joseph Conn urged the board to clarify whether the parcels had been studied and to require a traffic study before permitting heavy warehousing. Jeff Chaz and Wade Bieber said they supported development in principle but opposed a data center and stressed that roadway and access impacts must be addressed.
The developer responded to common themes, saying vehicle traffic would be oriented to Route 30 and that construction teams and civil engineers would follow pipeline‑company requirements and design best practices. Simon said the developer would consider paying for water and sewer connections for property owners who wish to tie in but emphasized that rezoning is the first step and that subsequent site plans and permits would get additional review.
Commissioners repeatedly raised process concerns, with several members recommending a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or development agreement rather than a straight rezoning so that road widening, sanitary and water extensions and right‑of‑way acquisition could be secured and assigned before approval. "I would feel far better at this point instead of asking for M‑1, he would ask for a PUD," one commissioner said, noting the scale of infrastructure needed along Clay Street.
A motion to table petition 26‑02 — the west parcel — carried after the board said it wanted a traffic study and clearer commitments that the developer would fund necessary improvements. The board later tabled petition 26‑03 for the same reasons. No final land‑use approvals were granted at the meeting.
The planning board is expected to revisit the petitions after staff, the developer and the city produce traffic analyses, infrastructure cost estimates and written commitments about who will pay for road and utility improvements.
