Planning commission tables rezoning of two large Hobart parcels after residents raise traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns

Developer representatives asked the Hobart planning commission to rezone two large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 to make way for industrial development, but the commission tabled both petitions after protracted public comment focused on traffic, wetlands and utility concerns.

The petitioner’s representative said the combined projects would total roughly 168 acres and argued rezoning would enable “industrial, high technology and service‑based businesses” to locate by I‑65, bringing construction jobs and long‑term tax revenue. The presenter described conceptual renderings showing 22.8% and 14% site coverage and said the team would double normal setbacks to about 100 feet and use landscaping, berms and screening to reduce visual and noise impacts. The presenter also said the developer had “worked with a lot of pipeline companies” and would follow pipeline companies’ requirements so no buildings would be constructed over the high‑pressure line.

Neighbors and business owners told the commission they fear greater truck traffic on Clay Street, damage to existing roads, increased noise and light at night, higher property taxes and possible impacts to wells and septic systems. Robert Wright (resident) said he has lived on Clay Street for almost 60 years and listed worries including traffic, noise, light, litter and the location of a gas pipeline near his lot. Another commenter raised concerns about wetlands and dewatering, asking whether a data center – which requires extensive power and dewatering – could be a future use for the parcels. Several speakers asked the commission to require a traffic study before any rezoning vote.

Multiple members of the commission and staff responded that traffic, drainage and utility impacts are material considerations. One commissioner urged handling the matter as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or requiring a development agreement that would bind the developer to pay for road widening, sidewalks, sewer and water extensions and property acquisition necessary for right of way. Supporters of industrial expansion argued that Hobart has a small industrial land inventory and that bringing employment uses to the site would diversify the tax base.

After discussion the planning commission voted to table petition 26‑02 and then petition 26‑03, with the motion citing the need for additional studies and written commitments for infrastructure improvements. The commission indicated it expects further materials — including a traffic study, clearer infrastructure commitments (who pays for road rebuilding and sewer/water extensions) and more detailed site engineering — before forwarding any recommendation to the city council.

What’s next: Both petitions were tabled pending follow‑up. The commission and staff asked the petitioner to provide a traffic study and to document proposed infrastructure and mitigation measures; neighbors were told they could expect follow‑up communications.