Hobart planning board tables two large rezoning petitions after residents cite traffic, wetlands and pipeline concerns

Hobart — The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on Monday heard a developer presentation and two extended public hearings on petitions 26‑02 and 26‑03, in which Wiley Capital asked the city to rezone roughly 168 acres from R‑2 (residential) to M‑1 (industrial) to allow large industrial or warehouse uses.

Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the board the sites are strategically located about a quarter‑mile from the Route 30/I‑65 interchange and that rezoning to M‑1 would create a clearer path to attract industrial investment. "Tonight, we are requesting a rezoning change from R‑2 to M‑1," Simon said, presenting conceptual site renderings and estimates of long‑term property tax revenue and construction jobs.

The petitioner emphasized buffers, setbacks and a low building coverage in the conceptual plans, and said the firm is prepared to bring water and sewer north along Clay Street and to work with pipeline owners and city engineers on site constraints.

Residents raised a series of objections during the public hearing, citing truck traffic, road condition, wetland dewatering, possible data‑center uses and proximity to a high‑pressure gas pipeline. "I've been here for almost 60 years. Had nothing but peace and quiet," said Robert Wright of Clay Street, who said he feared noise, lights and property‑tax increases.

Patricia Corey, a nearby homeowner, argued trucks already damage local roads: "We don't need no more industrial development," she said. Joseph Conn urged the board to require a traffic study before permitting warehousing. "I would hope that you would get a traffic study done before you permit warehousing," he said.

Board members and staff questioned whether rezoning alone was the appropriate first step. Several commissioners recommended a planned unit development (PUD) or a development agreement that would lock in who pays for road widening, sewer and water extensions, and property acquisitions needed for an 80‑foot right‑of‑way. One commissioner said rezoning without guaranteed infrastructure would be "piecemeal" for a project of this scale.

After further discussion the board adopted motions to table both petitions. The board recorded no final zoning decision; both petitions were postponed to allow the petitioner and staff to return with traffic and engineering studies and clearer commitments on infrastructure and impacts.

What happens next: The petitions were tabled; the petitioner may return with additional studies, a potential PUD, or a development agreement addressing road widening, sewer/water extension and mitigation measures for wetlands and pipeline constraints.