Commissioners transmit two Energy Industrial Park plan amendments after extended public opposition, add testing conditions

Hillsborough County commissioners voted to transmit two related comprehensive-plan text amendments that would change the rules for the county’s Energy Industrial Park, sending the proposals to state and regional review and attaching new environmental conditions after extended public comment and amendments on the dais.

The board transmitted HCCPA 23-15 (Energy Industrial Park — text changes) and HCCPA 24-06 (Energy Industrial Park — allow residential uses south of the CSX railroad) after adding language requiring expanded testing and monitoring for a 14‑dioxane groundwater plume and other site-specific protections. Commissioners approved the main transmittal motions and the new conditions by 6–1 votes (Commissioner Cameron Spada voted no on the substantive motions and related amendments).

The amendments would modernize the Energy Industrial Park policies and allow limited residential development in a roughly 476-acre area south of the railroad tracks if the applications meet new environmental and design conditions. Planning Commission staff and the applicant said the changes reflect modern renewable-energy technologies and co-location (for example rooftop solar) and would concentrate the most intensive uses near State Road 60 as the updated policy directs.

Board action and added conditions - The commission voted to add a condition (motion by Commissioner Bowles, seconded by Commissioner Wellstell) requiring that no change of existing land use be permitted south of the CSX railroad tracks until the U.S. EPA and Hillsborough County establish and implement an ongoing testing program to delineate the extent of a 14‑dioxane groundwater plume. The board approved that amendment 6–1. The text requires demonstrated “stability” of the plume through continuous monitoring and that testing protocols and results be made available to property owners and the county. - The board also adopted additional conditions (motion by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Bowles) requiring coordination with federal and state environmental regulators, pre‑construction radiation sampling if warranted by prior data, and installation of any required mitigation (for example active radon systems) before residential certificates of occupancy would be issued. That package passed 6–1. - After adding the new conditions, the commission transmitted both plan amendments for agency review; the motions to transmit carried by 6–1 votes.

Why the changes mattered to neighbors The two amendments drew large public turnout and repeated testimony from residents, neighborhood associations and independent consultants who cited the site’s history as a phosphate mine and the presence of the Sydney Mine Superfund area, reports of radon readings, and ongoing groundwater investigations for a 14‑dioxane plume. Speakers asked that the county pause any policy changes until a comprehensive testing program and remediation plan were complete.

Opponents pointed to institutional controls, historical dumping on the mined acreage and the limited testing that has been performed outside the Superfund parcel. Penny Martin, a resident who addressed the board virtually, urged commissioners to “pause these requests” and “require testing prior to any approval.” Several speakers said they had collected radiation readings they described as elevated and asked that residential uses not be considered until water and soil risks were delineated.

Applicant and staff Applicant counsel and project consultants said the amendments update the EIP rules for modern technologies and preserve commitments to renewable-energy production. David Smith of Stearns Weaver Miller told commissioners: “What we’re asking for tonight is the opportunity to investigate the ability to put residential here. It will not occur unless the tests and analysis are done. If they don’t pass, the projects won’t get permitted.” Jake Kramer, another applicant counsel, reiterated the owners’ stated commitment to maintain energy production and said the applicants had proposed additional environmental protections after public feedback.

Immediate next steps The transmittal sends the amendments and the board’s newly added conditions to state and regional reviewers for technical comments. The items will return for a second, public hearing before the commission considers adoption. Any future development proposals in the EIP area remain subject to state and federal environmental approvals, the county’s development-permit process and the conditions the board added.

Ending Commissioners and county staff repeatedly stressed that transmission is the procedural step that starts formal agency review; board members said that if subsequent technical review or permitting shows hazards that cannot be mitigated, the proposed residential uses would not be approved.