Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables rezoning for two large Hobart parcels after residents raise traffic, pipeline and data‑center concerns
Summary
The Hobart Redevelopment Authority heard presentations and extensive public comment on two rezoning petitions from R‑2 to M‑1 for large parcels near US‑30 and Clay Street. Commissioners cited infrastructure, traffic studies and development agreements and voted to table both petitions for further work.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority he seeks M‑1 industrial zoning on two large parcels south of US‑30 to attract industrial employers and jobs. "This rezoning request aligns with our 2040 comprehensive plan," Simon said, describing easy access to I‑65, utilities and conceptual site plans that show significant landscape buffers and setbacks.
Neighbors pushed back during the public hearing, citing traffic, noise, safety and property‑value concerns. Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street for almost 60 years, told the commission he feared "traffic, noise, pollution" and possible loss of yard and property value. Patricia Corey, a nearby resident, said the neighborhood already experiences heavy truck traffic and said she was "totally against" further industrial development near her home.
Other residents urged caution on specific technical points: Joseph Conn asked whether the area had been the comprehensive‑plan “study area” and urged a traffic study before permitting warehousing; Mark Popel and others warned about wetlands, dewatering, electrical impacts and the possibility that large parcels could become data centers rather than warehouses. Several commenters asked who would pay to widen Clay Street, who would acquire small front yards for right‑of‑way, and whether water and sewer connections would be mandatory.
Simon and his team responded that the site plans shown were conceptual, that all construction would comply with pipeline company restrictions and city regulations, and that the developer would work with engineers and the city on traffic and stormwater issues. "We will not be able to develop any building on top of the pipeline," Simon said, and he offered to follow up individually with nearby homeowners about buffers, berms and screening.
Commission discussion focused on process and infrastructure. Multiple members urged requiring a PUD or development agreement to secure road, sewer and water improvements and to limit uses; one commissioner said rezoning without infrastructure commitments felt "piecemeal". A motion to table petition 26‑02 passed after commissioners asked for traffic studies, a clearer infrastructure plan and assurances about who would fund improvements; the board subsequently tabled petition 26‑03 for the same reasons.
Next steps: the commission asked the petitioner to return with additional studies and a plan for infrastructure improvements (traffic study, sewer/water extension details and proposed right‑of‑way acquisitions) and noted any PUD or development agreement should specify required public‑improvement commitments before a final vote.
