Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Large Parcels topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Large rezoning requests for two parcels near US‑30 draw heavy public comment; planning authority tables petitions
Summary
Wiley Capital sought rezoning of two large parcels (one 138.98 acres) from R2 to M1 to enable industrial development. The planning authority heard extensive public comment on traffic, pipeline safety, wetlands/dewatering and the possibility of data‑center uses, and tabled both petitions pending infrastructure commitments, traffic studies and consideration of a PUD/development agreement.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on the evening opened public hearings on two rezoning petitions from R2 to M1 for large parcels near US‑30 and Clay Street and then voted to table both petitions after extended public comment and commissioner deliberations.
Developer representative Jason Simon told the board the combined sites total roughly 168 acres and argued that M1 zoning aligns with the city’s 2040 comprehensive plan (adopted Sept. 2023). He said the conceptual plans show lower building coverage than typical industrial projects because of wetlands and pipeline easements and that the firm plans substantial setbacks, landscape buffers and mitigation measures.
Residents and adjacent property owners voiced repeated concerns: Robert Wright (7971 Clay Street) said he has lived on Clay Street for nearly 60 years and warned that truck traffic, noise, lights and higher property taxes could harm his quality of life. Several neighbors asked whether water and sewer would be mandatory if the city extends mains and whether construction could compromise a high‑pressure gas pipeline that runs near or through parts of the sites. Others—Patricia Corey, Jeff Chaz, Wade Bieber and Mark Popel—asked for a traffic study and said Clay Street’s existing pavement, width and driveway configurations are not suited to heavy truck traffic.
Some speakers also raised the prospect that large industrial parcels can be marketed as data‑center sites; residents urged the board to restrict data centers or require clarifying commitments about end uses. In response, the developer said the renderings are conceptual, that any development adjacent to the pipeline would be designed around the easement and that any construction requiring dewatering or utility extensions would follow engineering best practices.
Commissioners questioned whether rezoning to M1 should come before an infrastructure plan and urged consideration of a planned unit development (PUD) or development agreement that would lock in who pays to widen Clay Street, provide curbs, gutters and sidewalks, extend water and sewer mains, and compensate impacted property owners if right‑of‑way acquisition were necessary. One commissioner explicitly said he would not support rezoning without written agreements requiring the developer to fund road reconstruction, sanitary and water extensions and property acquisitions where needed.
After discussion, a motion to table petition 26‑02 was made and carried; the board then opened the second public hearing (26‑03) for the adjoining parcel, heard similar testimony and moved to table that petition as well. Both tabling motions were recorded as carried by voice votes. The board instructed staff and the developer to work toward clearer commitments on infrastructure, traffic studies and potential PUD terms before the petitions return for further consideration.
