Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning M1 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Authority tables two large rezoning petitions after packed public hearing on traffic, pipelines and wetlands
Summary
The Hobart planning commission tabled two petitions to rezone two large parcels from R-2 to M-1 after extensive public comment raised concerns about Clay Street capacity, wetlands/dewatering, pipeline safety and the possibility of data‑center use; commissioners asked for a traffic study and infrastructure commitments, and recommended pursuing a PUD or development agreement before further action.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority held a lengthy public hearing on two related rezoning petitions (26-02 and 26-03) that would change large parcels near US 30 from R-2 to M-1 to allow industrial development. Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital (speaker 1), presented conceptual plans for both parcels—describing roughly 168 acres combined, proximity to I‑65/US 30, conceptual building coverage (22.8% on one rendering, 14% on the east parcel), and potential long‑term tax and job benefits—then responded to a long series of public comments.
More than a half dozen neighbors and business owners raised consistent concerns: Clay Street’s current condition and capacity for truck traffic; the need for a thorough traffic study and clear truck routing to Route 30; wetlands and dewatering impacts on private wells; the presence of a high‑pressure gas pipeline across one site and related safety and buffer concerns; and uncertainty about whether the properties might be developed as data centers rather than warehouses. Robert Wright urged the board to protect long‑time residents from noise, lights and property‑value losses. Several speakers asked that the city require buffers, berms and planting, and to guarantee that truck traffic would be routed to Route 30 rather than through residential streets.
Commissioners repeatedly said they were sympathetic to economic development goals but were not comfortable rezoning before infrastructure responsibilities were clearly documented. Multiple members recommended a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or a development agreement that would require the developer to fund road‑widening (an 80‑foot right of way/4‑lane build was discussed), sewer and water mains, property acquisition where necessary, and the results of an independent traffic study. Commissioner (speaker 6) moved to table Petition 26-02 specifically to secure those infrastructure assurances; the motion carried by voice vote. The board then opened and closed the public hearing on the adjacent petition 26-03 and similarly voted to table it for the same reasons.
Petitioner Jason Simon said engineering teams will plan around pipeline constraints and that the developer expects pipeline companies’ conditions to govern what can be built directly over pipeline corridors. He also offered to coordinate on buffers, screening and construction‑phase planning with affected neighbors. Commissioners asked staff to require traffic studies and to document who will pay for road rebuilding, sewer extensions and other infrastructure before the petitions return for a vote.
