Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables rezoning petitions for two large parcels after sustained resident concerns
Summary
Developers requested rezoning of two large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1; after a developer presentation and extensive public comment about truck traffic, pipeline safety, septic/well impacts and potential data‑center use, the board voted to table both petitions pending traffic and infrastructure commitments and consideration of a PUD/development agreement.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority unanimously moved to table two rezoning petitions that would change large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 zoning after extended public comment and board discussion on infrastructure, traffic and neighborhood impacts.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, presented both petitions and asked the board to rezone the sites to M‑1, arguing that the change is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and would attract industrial investment. "This evening, we are requesting a rezoning change from R‑2 to M‑1," Simon said, and he described conceptual site renderings with building coverage of about 22.8 percent on one parcel and 14 percent on the other because of wetlands and a pipeline that limit buildable area.
Multiple residents and business owners urged caution. Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street for nearly 60 years, told the board he fears traffic, noise and higher property taxes: "I've been here for almost 60 years. I have had nothing but peace and quiet," Wright said. Other commenters raised the possibility that the site could be used for a data center rather than warehouses and asked for traffic, noise and environmental studies before a rezoning decision.
Board members and staff recommended additional information and safeguards. Several members said a planned‑unit development (PUD) or a development agreement that commits the developer to pay for road widening, sewer and water extension, and property acquisitions would be preferable to immediate blanket rezoning. One board member said the sequence felt piecemeal — rezoning before infrastructure commitments — and asked that a traffic study and a clear plan to fund a four‑lane right‑of‑way be provided.
After discussion the board moved and seconded to table petition 26‑02 (the west parcel) and, subsequently, petition 26‑03 (the east parcel). The board recorded the motion to table with supporting language that staff and the developer should bring forward traffic studies and evidence of infrastructure commitments, including who will fund right‑of‑way acquisition and road reconstruction.
Why it matters: The petitions would enable industrial use with potential long‑term tax and employment implications, but residents and board members said the scale requires explicit infrastructure agreements and environmental safeguards before rezoning is finalized.
Board action: Motions to table petition 26‑02 and petition 26‑03 — carried by voice vote.
What’s next: Staff and the developer to provide traffic studies, engineering plans, and proposals for developer funding or a PUD/development agreement before the board forwards any rezoning recommendation to city council.
