Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hobart planning board tables rezoning of large US‑30–area parcels after residents cite traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns
Summary
The redevelopment authority voted to table two rezoning petitions from R‑2 to M‑1 for large parcels near US‑30 after residents and board members raised traffic, pipeline‑safety and infrastructure‑funding concerns; the applicant said rezoning is the first step and pledged follow‑up on mitigation.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority to rezone two large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 to make way for industrial development and attract corporate investment. Simon said the sites have good access to I‑65 and US‑30, utilities nearby and conceptual site plans showing relatively low building coverage compared with typical industrial parcels. “Tonight, of course, is only about rezoning,” Simon told the board, adding that site plans, permits and pipeline company approvals would follow if the zoning change is approved.
Residents and nearby property owners who spoke at the public hearing urged caution. Robert Wright, a Clay Street resident of nearly 60 years, said he feared more truck traffic, nighttime lights, noise and a drop in his property value; he also asked whether he would be forced to hook up to water and sewer if lines are extended. “I have to deal with possibly my property taxes going up now,” Wright said, and expressed particular worry about construction activity over a gas pipeline that crosses nearby land.
Other speakers raised related concerns: requests for an independent traffic study, questions about whether the parcels could instead house data centers (which have different electrical and water demands), and calls for protections for residents whose yards and driveways could be affected by road widening. Several speakers suggested the city require stronger guarantees that developers pay for road widening, sewer and water extensions and any necessary property acquisitions.
Board members echoed those concerns during deliberations. One commissioner urged using a Planned Unit Development mechanism or a development agreement that would bind the applicant to road, utility and drainage improvements before changing the zoning. The board said it lacked sufficient information about infrastructure impacts and mitigation commitments to move forward.
On a motion to table Petition 26‑02 and then Petition 26‑03, the board voted to hold both rezoning requests so staff, the applicant and property owners can return with more detailed traffic and infrastructure plans, and with clearer agreements about who will pay for road widening, sewer and water extensions and any required property acquisitions. The planning staff will forward the board’s recommendation and the record to the city council for further consideration.
The developer said he would continue to meet with neighbors and engineering teams to refine setbacks, screening and construction plans and to coordinate with pipeline operators to ensure regulatory compliance. The authority emphasized that rezoning would not by itself allow construction: site plans and permits must still be submitted and approved in later steps.
Next steps: the petitions are tabled pending additional studies and written commitments on infrastructure and traffic mitigation; the planning commission’s recommendation will go to the city council for a subsequent hearing.
