Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks rezoning of 168‑ and 139‑acre Hobart sites; planning board tables petitions after residents raise traffic, pipeline and wetlands concerns
Summary
Wiley Capital founder Jason Simon asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority to rezone two large parcels from R2 to M1 to attract industrial investment and jobs. Extensive public comment raised traffic, pipeline‑safety, dewatering and data‑center concerns; the board voted to table both petitions pending infrastructure commitments and traffic studies.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, presented a request to rezone two large Hobart parcels from R2 to M1, saying the sites (one about 168 acres and one about 138.98 acres) have easy access to I‑65 and US‑30 and could attract industrial employers and construction jobs.
“The requested zoning ultimately aligns with the adopted future land use,” Simon said during the presentation, arguing the rezoning is the first step in a multi‑stage review that would include site plans, engineering and permitting. He said conceptual renderings show relatively low building coverage because of wetlands and pipeline easements and that the developer would design buffers, berms and landscaping to reduce impacts on nearby homes.
In the public hearing that followed, neighbors expressed a range of concerns. A long‑time Clay Street resident said the area has enjoyed “peace and quiet” and urged the board to consider noise, light and nighttime truck traffic that could run past homes. Several commenters pressed for a traffic study and questioned whether the properties could be used for a data center rather than warehousing. Others raised technical issues: wetlands and dewatering during construction, potential effects on private wells, and the presence of a high‑pressure gas pipeline that crosses one parcel.
Residents also asked whether sewer and water extensions would be mandatory and whether property owners could be compelled to connect. The developer responded that water and sewer extensions would be planned as part of project engineering, that property owners may remain on well and septic if they wish, and that the developer would coordinate required approvals with pipeline owners and follow their restrictions: “They have very specific requirements on what can and can’t go over each ... pipeline,” Simon said, adding that buildings could not be located over the line.
Board members debated process. Several commissioners said they favored greater certainty on the infrastructure plan before approving a straight M1 rezoning. At least one commissioner recommended requiring a planned‑unit development (PUD) or a development agreement that would lock in road widening, sidewalk and utility extensions and spell out who would pay for property acquisitions and improvements.
Citing those infrastructure and traffic uncertainties, a motion to table petition 26‑02 (the west parcel) carried. The board opened a second public hearing on petition 26‑03 (the adjacent parcel) and, after similar public comments and further discussion about road capacity and sewer/water extensions, voted to table that petition as well. Planning staff and several commissioners said they expect traffic studies and more detailed engineering to be required before the council considers any rezoning.
The board’s action was procedural: tabling the rezoning petitions does not approve or deny them but asks the developer to return with additional commitments and studies that address road improvements, utility extensions and community impacts. The planning commission recommended that the council consider infrastructure conditions — including a traffic study and development agreement options — before making a final decision.
