Large Hobart rezoning requests for two US‑30 parcels tabled after residents raise traffic, pipeline and wetland concerns

Developer Jason Simon asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority to rezone two large parcels from R2 to M1, saying industrial zoning would help attract corporate investment and create construction and permanent jobs.

"This evening, we are requesting a rezoning change from R2 to M1," Jason Simon said, adding that conceptual site renderings intentionally showed relatively low building coverage and that utilities could be extended to the sites. He told the board the combined properties contain large tracts of farmland and argued the location offers direct access to I‑65 and Route 30, which is attractive to logistics and manufacturing users.

The petition notice for the west parcel (petition 26‑02) describes a 138.98‑acre site; Simon and his presentation materials also referenced the two sites together as roughly 168 acres. Commissioners and residents highlighted that discrepancy and said it illustrated the need for clearer project documentation before rezoning.

Neighbors raised a series of concerns during the public hearing. Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street for almost 60 years, told the board he feared increased traffic, noise, lights and higher property taxes. "I have to deal with possibility of traffic, noise, pollution," Wright said.

Patricia Corey told commissioners trucks already harm local streets and said residents worry about odors and other emissions: "We don't need no more industrial development. It's risking my respiratory problem," she said.

Several speakers asked whether the sites could become data centers rather than warehouses, and whether the developer would pay for road widening, sanitary and water extensions. Joseph Conn urged the board to require a traffic study and to confirm whether a data center was a possible use: "I would hope that you would get a traffic study done before you permit warehousing," Conn said.

Simon and his team responded that traffic and environmental studies would be required as the project moves forward and that their civil and construction engineers are experienced at working around pipelines and wetlands. "We would expect [a traffic study] to be a requirement," Simon said, and he said the developer would seek easements and work with the city to prudently design detentions, buffers and screening.

Commissioners debated whether to rezone now or require a planned unit development (PUD) or a binding infrastructure agreement that would commit the developer to pay for road reconstruction, sidewalks, curbs and extensions of sanitary sewer and water. Several commissioners said rezoning before infrastructure commitments would be premature for projects of this scale and recommended tabling the petitions until a traffic study and clearer commitments were in hand.

The planning body voted to table petition 26‑02 with instructions to the developer to provide further information and to pursue infrastructure assurances; a separate public hearing and subsequent similar motions resulted in petition 26‑03 also being tabled.

Next steps: the petitions remain active but will not advance until the developer provides requested studies and proposed binding terms for infrastructure. The planning commission indicated it will seek traffic and stormwater analyses and expects to see a funding/implementation plan for road and utility improvements before taking a recommendation to the city council.