Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables two large rezoning petitions after extended public comment
Summary
Wiley Capital requested rezoning of two large parcels from R‑2 to M‑1 to permit industrial development; residents raised traffic, pipeline safety, sewer/water hookup and data‑center concerns, and commissioners debated requiring a PUD and traffic/infrastructure commitments. The board voted to table both petitions for further study.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority tabled two rezoning petitions from Wiley Capital that would change large parcels along Clay Street from R‑2 to M‑1 after extended public comment and internal debate about infrastructure and impacts.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the Authority the combined parcels total roughly 168 acres on and near the former US‑30 drag strip and that the company seeks M‑1 zoning to attract industrial and logistics uses. Simon said conceptual site plans show low building coverage because of wetlands and pipelines and emphasized access to I‑65 as a regional asset. “Having appropriate site and building design considerations are really important,” he told the board.
Residents and business owners raised recurring concerns during the public hearings: truck traffic and the condition of Clay Street, the potential for a data‑center use rather than warehousing, impacts to property values and night lighting, sewer and water hookups, and safety where a high‑pressure gas pipeline crosses the site.
Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street nearly 60 years, told the board he feared increased traffic, noise and property‑tax increases and asked whether property owners would be forced to connect to sewer and water. “I’ve always had peace and quiet where I live. I just don’t want to see the value of my home go to hell because somebody wanted to build a business there,” Wright said.
Other speakers asked that the board require a traffic study before permitting large industrial uses and requested assurances that commercial truck traffic would be channeled to Route 30 rather than local roads. One speaker who identified property purchases in the area asked the board to clarify whether the developer’s past work bundling parcels for a nearby data‑center could indicate similar uses here.
Planning‑board members pressed for more infrastructure commitments before rezoning. Several commissioners recommended either tabling the petitions until traffic and dewatering studies are completed or asking the petitioner to file a planned‑unit development (PUD) application that would bundle zoning, road improvements and development agreements so infrastructure obligations are explicit.
The Authority moved and seconded motions to table both petitions (26‑02 and 26‑03). The motions carried on voice votes, and members said they expect additional studies and negotiations about roadway widening, right‑of‑way acquisition, sewer and water extensions, and possible mitigation for adjacent property owners before returning the items to the board.
