Developer seeks M-1 rezoning for US 30–area parcels; planning board tables petitions after neighbors raise traffic and safety concerns

Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, asked the Hobart City Redevelopment Authority’s planning board to rezone two large properties near U.S. 30 from R-2 to M-1 to allow industrial development, saying the sites are well-located for logistics firms and would bring construction jobs and long-term business taxes.

Simon told the board the two sites are undeveloped farmland and that, together, the parcels total about 168 acres; petition 26-02 was described in the public notice as a 138.98-acre parcel located roughly 900 feet north of the Clay Street–US 30 intersection. He said the conceptual site plans preserve wetlands and show relatively low building coverage — “22.8%” in one rendering and “about 14%” on a portion of the property — and that natural buffers and setbacks are included in the designs. He also said utility access is feasible and that pipeline easements on the site prevent placing buildings directly over the pipeline.

Neighbors opposed the rezoning during the public hearings. "I've been here for almost 60 years," said resident Robert Wright, who lives on Clay Street; he warned of "traffic, noise, lights, possible crime" and said he feared losing property value and facing health and safety risks from increased truck traffic near a high‑pressure gas pipeline. Patricia Corey, another neighbor, said Clay Street is already damaged by trucks and urged the board to reject more industrial zoning.

Other residents asked whether the projects might become data centers rather than warehouses and urged the board to require a traffic study before permitting warehousing or other heavy uses. "I would hope that you would get a traffic study done before you permit warehousing," said Joseph Conn, a speaker during the public comment period. Jeff Chaz, a nearby business owner, said he supports warehouses but asked the board to exclude data centers from approvals.

Simon and his team answered many questions during and after the hearing. He said construction teams know how to plan around wetlands and pipelines and that "we will not be able to develop any building on top of the pipeline," adding that the petitioner would work with the pipeline company and with city engineering on mitigation. He also said his team would follow up with neighbors on buffer and screening details and that any future site plans will return to the city for review and approval.

Multiple planning commissioners pressed the petitioner to put infrastructure commitments in writing. Several members favored handling a project of this scale as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or securing a development agreement that would require the petitioner to fund major roadwork, right-of-way acquisitions and extension of water and sanitary sewer lines. Commissioner discussion repeatedly returned to Clay Street’s condition, the need for base rebuilding and the size of right-of-way necessary to handle truck traffic.

After discussion, a motion to table petition 26-02 — citing the need for a traffic study and binding infrastructure commitments — carried on a voice vote. The commission then opened and heard largely the same concerns for petition 26-03 and voted to table that petition as well. Members said tabling is intended to give staff and the petitioner time to produce traffic and infrastructure plans (and, if appropriate, a PUD or development agreement) before the board considers rezoning again.

What happens next: The petitions are tabled; commissioners instructed staff and the petitioner to return with (at minimum) a traffic study, clearer commitments on road and utility improvements (including right‑of‑way acquisition), and potential limits on allowable uses if necessary. The board’s favorable recommendation would still be routed to the city council later, but no rezoning was approved at this meeting.