Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hobart planning board tables rezoning of two large parcels after residents cite traffic, pipeline and infrastructure concerns
Summary
After lengthy public comment and technical questions, the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority voted to table two rezoning petitions (26‑02 and 26‑03) that sought to rezone large R‑2 parcels to M‑1 for industrial use, pending traffic studies and binding infrastructure agreements.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on an unspecified date tabled two rezoning petitions that would change R‑2 residential zoning to M‑1 industrial for large parcels along the US‑30/Clay Street corridor, following more than three hours of presentation, public comment and commissioner questioning.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the Authority the sites have “natural characteristics that ultimately provide significant buffers” and argued the rezoning aligns with the city’s 2040 comprehensive plan and will create development opportunities and jobs. Simon said conceptual site plans show relatively low building coverage because of wetlands and setbacks and that utilities can be brought to the sites.
Residents urged caution. Robert Wright of 7971 Clay Street said he has lived on Clay Street “for almost 60 years” and warned rezoning could bring “traffic, noise, pollution” that would lower property values. Several commenters said Clay Street is already in poor condition and asked who would pay to widen the road and extend water and sanitary sewer. One resident asked the board to require a traffic study before any rezoning vote.
Commissioners pressed the petitioner on technical details. Staff and elected members discussed dewatering and wetlands, the risk that construction could affect private wells, and how the presence of a high‑pressure gas pipeline limits buildable areas. One commissioner said the board would feel more comfortable if the developer pursued a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or a development agreement that explicitly requires road widening, easement acquisitions and utility extensions before rezoning.
Jason Simon and his team responded that site plans are conceptual, that any construction would require pipeline‑company approvals where relevant, and that traffic would be routed to Route 30 and I‑65. Simon offered to discuss buffers, berms, landscape screening and construction coordination with neighbors; he reiterated, however, that rezoning is only the first step and that site plans and permits would be subject to later review.
After the public hearing and follow‑up discussion, a motion to table the petitions passed. The Authority said it will ask for the traffic study, clearer commitments on who will fund road and utility improvements (or a binding development agreement/PUD), and additional engineering information about drainage and well impacts before reconsidering the rezoning requests.
