Planning board tables rezoning request for large US 30-area parcels after residents raise traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns

Developer Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority to rezone two large parcels from R-2 to M-1 to allow industrial and logistics uses, saying the site’s proximity to US 30 and I-65, existing utilities and market demand make it well suited for industrial development.

The request covered roughly 168 acres across two petitions. Simon and his team presented conceptual renderings that, they said, show relatively low building coverage (the presentation cited roughly 22.8% coverage for one parcel and about 14% for the other in the concept renderings) and emphasized buffers, mature tree stands and design techniques the developer said would reduce visual, noise and light impacts.

Why it matters: rezoning from R-2 (residential) to M-1 (industrial) changes the set of uses allowed on the land and begins the regulatory process that could eventually permit warehouses, manufacturing or other industrial facilities. Several residents warned that the change could bring heavy truck traffic and other impacts that Clay Street and local infrastructure are not prepared to absorb.

Residents urged delay and studies. Dozens of neighbors spoke during the public hearings. Robert Wright, who lives on Clay Street, told the board he has lived in the neighborhood nearly 60 years and said he feared increased truck traffic, noise, light, litter, higher property taxes and possible changes to his yard from road widening. “I have to deal with the possibility of traffic, noise, pollution… I don’t want the value of my home going to hell because somebody wanted to build a business,” Wright said.

Other speakers raised similar concerns: Patricia Corey said existing truck traffic already harms air quality and respiratory health in the area; Joseph Conn asked whether the site had been studied and urged a traffic study before any rezoning; and Wade Bieber, a nearby commercial property owner, pressed that any roadwork or utility work not interfere with his business access. Multiple commenters also asked whether the property could become a data center rather than warehouses, which would trigger different environmental and electrical impacts.

Developer response and commitments. Simon and the project’s engineers said a rezoning vote is only the first step and that future site plans, permitting and construction will require traffic studies and other technical reviews. He told the board the developer would work with pipeline companies’ requirements and would design around the high-pressure gas line on the site. The developer also said they are willing to discuss landscape buffers, berms and screening to limit light and noise and said they would accept the cost of connecting adjacent properties to city water and sewer if owners elect to do so.

Board concerns and outcome. Several planning commissioners expressed discomfort with rezoning before infrastructure and mitigation were secured. Multiple board members recommended considering a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or a development agreement that would lock in road widening, right-of-way acquisitions, and water and sewer extensions before changing zoning. One commissioner said the board should require the developer to agree in writing to fund the needed improvements rather than leave them to the city’s taxpayers.

The board voted to table both petitions (26-02 for the west parcel and 26-03 for the adjacent parcel) and asked the petitioner to return with more detail on traffic, infrastructure commitments and proposals for addressing neighbor impacts. The board’s tabling vote was unanimous on the motions as recorded at the meeting.

What’s next: The petitions will return to the planning board only after the developer provides the requested traffic studies, infrastructure plan or negotiations about a PUD or development agreement. Additional public hearings will be required before final council action on any rezoning.