Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables rezoning requests for two large Hobart parcels after residents press traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns
Summary
The planning commission held lengthy public hearings on two petitions to rezone property from R‑2 to M‑1; developer Wiley Capital emphasized industrial demand and conceptual buffers, but commissioners and residents raised traffic, pipeline, wetland/dewatering and utility‑funding concerns and voted to table both petitions pending studies and infrastructure agreements.
The Hobart planning commission on March 26 tabled two related rezoning petitions (26‑02 and 26‑03) seeking to change residential (R‑2) parcels to M‑1 industrial zoning after an extended public hearing in which nearby residents raised traffic, pipeline safety, wetland/dewatering and property‑value concerns.
Developer Jason Simon of Wiley Capital presented conceptual plans for both parcels — together about 168 acres — saying the sites are proximate to I‑65, have utility access and could attract industrial users that create construction and permanent jobs. Simon said conceptual renderings show relatively low building coverage because of wetlands and pipeline easements and emphasized the zoning request is only a first step; site plans, design review and permits would follow.
"Tonight is only about rezoning," Simon told the commission. "This is the first step and the council and the city ultimately will have many subsequent stages to review, plans, drawings, ideas for the site."
Residents pressed a series of concerns: possible nightly truck traffic and noise on Clay Street, a narrow roadway that several speakers said needs full reconstruction; a high‑pressure gas pipeline crossing part of the property and adjacent yards; the risk and process of dewatering wetlands and impacts to private wells; potential for a data center (which some said would create different environmental and electrical‑demand issues); and the effect of required road right‑of‑way takings on front yards and driveways.
One commissioner urged a different approach. "I would feel far better at this point…if instead of rezoning we asked for a PUD," the commissioner said, recommending a planned‑unit development that would bundle zoning, road widening and development agreements and clarify who pays for infrastructure and property acquisitions.
After discussion, a motion to table petition 26‑02 passed; the board then opened the second petition (26‑03), heard similar comments, and also voted to table it for the same reasons — specifically requesting a traffic study, clarity on infrastructure funding and assurances about how water/sewer connections and property impacts would be handled.
What happens next: the petitions will return to the commission only after the applicant provides the requested traffic and infrastructure information and proposes a plan (or an agreement) to fund required road widening, sewer/water extension and any property acquisitions. The commission emphasized that rezoning does not guarantee a particular end use and that site plans and permits will be reviewed in subsequent proceedings.
