Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Large rezoning request for two Hobart parcels tabled after residents press for traffic and infrastructure guarantees
Summary
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority tabled rezoning petitions (26‑02 and 26‑03) for two large parcels after residents raised concerns about Clay Street truck traffic, pipeline safety and water/sewer impacts; the developer said studies and design mitigations are forthcoming.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority to rezone two large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 to attract industrial investment and jobs. “This evening, we are requesting a rezoning change from R‑2 to M‑1,” Simon told the commission during a presentation that included conceptual site renderings and coverage estimates (about 22.8% coverage on one parcel and roughly 14% on the other).
Neighbors and business owners responding at the public hearing urged caution. “I’ve been here for almost 60 years,” said Robert Wright, a Clay Street resident, who said he feared more traffic, noise, lights and higher property taxes if large industrial uses locate nearby. Mark Popel, who spoke from the online connection, asked for a traffic study before permitting warehousing: “I would hope that you would get a traffic study done before you permit warehousing.”
Speakers raised pipeline safety, wetlands and the scale of potential dewatering for construction. Several residents specifically asked the commission to prevent data‑center uses and to require developers to mitigate impacts on nearby well‑and‑septic properties.
Simon and his team responded to many of those concerns. He said the conceptual renderings were only preliminary and that the developer has experience working with pipeline operators and civil engineers to avoid building on pipeline easements. “We will do everything we can from a design perspective,” Simon said, and he offered to meet individually with neighbors to discuss setbacks, screening and noise mitigation.
Commissioners pressed for more detail on infrastructure and process. Several members recommended a planned‑unit development (PUD) or written development agreement so road widening, sewer and water extensions and property‑acquisition needs are settled before zoning is finalized. One commissioner summarized the board’s position: rezoning without a clear agreement on road and utility improvements would be premature.
A motion to table petition 26‑02 (the west parcel) passed by voice vote to allow time for traffic and infrastructure planning and for the developer to return with additional assurances. The board later opened the second rezoning item, 26‑03, and, after similar public concerns and discussion, tabled that petition as well.
The tabling leaves the zoning unchanged for now; the developer may return with study results, agreements or a PUD proposal for the parcels.
