Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hobart redevelopment authority tables rezoning of 168‑acre US‑30 site after residents cite traffic, pipeline and data‑center concerns
Summary
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority voted to table two rezoning petitions from Wiley Capital that sought to change ~168 acres from R‑2 to M‑1 near US‑30 and I‑65 after extensive public comment about truck traffic, a gas pipeline, wetlands and the potential for a data center; commissioners asked for a PUD, traffic study and infrastructure commitments.
The Hobart City Redevelopment Authority on July 14 tabled two rezoning petitions from Wiley Capital that would rezone roughly 168 acres north of the US‑30/Clay Street area from R‑2 (residential) to M‑1 (industrial) after residents raised safety, traffic and environmental concerns.
Jason Simon, founder of Wiley Capital, told the authority the rezoning is the first step to attract industrial and logistics users to the site. Simon said the parcels offer direct regional access to I‑65, nearby utilities and conceptual site coverage that is lower than typical industrial projects — 22.8% on one parcel and about 14% on the other — because of wetlands and a natural‑gas pipeline that bisects the land. "We're seeking to establish the appropriate zoning to allow for development of the sites given the increased demand for industrial land and buildings," Simon said.
The developer emphasized potential economic gains, including construction jobs, ongoing business property taxes and sales‑tax revenue. He said water and sewer could be extended along Clay Street and that any building plans would be subject to future site‑plan and permitting reviews and to pipeline‑company approvals for any work near the transmission line.
Residents at the public hearing urged caution. Robert Wright, who said he has lived on Clay Street for nearly 60 years, warned the change could bring "truck traffic, noise, pollution" and a reduction in property values and asked whether he would be required to connect to city water and sewer. Patricia Corey said the neighborhood already struggles with truck traffic and raised health concerns after citing a prior odor issue at another industrial site. Other speakers, including Joseph Conn, Mark Popel, Jeff Chaz and Wade Bieber, asked for a traffic study, questioned whether the site could become a data center and pressed for guarantees on road upgrades and construction impacts.
Commissioners and staff repeatedly said the rezoning request raised infrastructure questions that should be resolved before a final recommendation. Several members said a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or a conditional zoning approach would better allow the city to require specific road improvements, sidewalks, curbs, easements and developer‑funded utility extensions. One commissioner said he would prefer a PUD that binds improvements and limits certain uses; another urged a traffic study to guide design and right‑of‑way needs.
After discussion, a motion to table the petitions passed by voice vote so staff and the petitioner can supply additional materials: a traffic study, infrastructure commitments or a PUD proposal and clearer engineering responses to wetlands and dewatering questions. The authority indicated it will revisit the petitions once those materials are provided.
What happens next: the rezoning petitions have been tabled; the petitioner and staff were directed to coordinate on traffic analysis, potential development agreements and more detailed engineering information before the authority issues a recommendation to the city council.
