Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Innovation Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts Energy Industrial Park revisions; adds environmental tests and limited residential allowance amid public objections
Summary
The county adopted two Energy Industrial Park text amendments that (1) adjust commercial boundaries and (2) allow a limited residential pocket and other changes, while adding pre‑construction radiation testing, 1,4‑dioxane testing for the residential pocket and coordination requirements with environmental agencies. Votes were 6–1 on both contested EIP items after extensive public comment about contamination and health risks.
Hillsborough County commissioners voted to adopt two related changes to the Energy Industrial Park (EIP) rules after extended public comment and amendments requiring additional environmental safeguards.
Planning staff said the first amendment (HCCPA 20‑315) would modify the EIP text to shift certain commercial allowances and clarify locational boundaries; staff transmitted the change with agency comments and the planning commission recommended consistency. Cammy Corbett, representing Turkey Creek Preserve, stressed the amendment facilitates entitlement allocation between property owners and that the Superfund area noted by agencies is on neighbor parcels rather than the applicant’s eastern parcel.
A separate, related amendment (HCCPA 24‑06) would rename the category to Energy Innovation Park, reduce the renewable energy acreage requirement from 40% to 20%, and allow residential development of up to 3 dwelling units per acre in a roughly 4.75‑acre pocket south of the railroad tracks (a maximum of 1,200 units was cited in staff slides as a cap for the broader site if developed). Planning staff further noted three changes added before adoption: mandatory coordination with federal/state environmental agencies concerning the Sydney Mine Superfund site; a requirement for pre‑construction radiation sampling and mitigation if needed; and required 1,4‑dioxane contamination testing for the area south of the tracks where residential uses would be considered.
Residents and advocacy groups urged delay or denial. Speakers including George Neiman, Penny Martin, Brady Harris and others said historical phosphate mining and settlement ponds have left contamination risks—citing dioxane, radon, sinkholes and flooding—and asked for a comprehensive environmental suitability analysis before any residential development is permitted. Several speakers said portions of the site are untested and described health and flooding incidents in adjacent neighborhoods.
Supporters and applicants said the site is overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and that the proposed plan changes contain more protective environmental conditions than the prior 2010 entitlements. Applicant representative Jake Kramer said the changes represent an opportunity to add protections to a large site that already carries significant entitlements; he noted commitments to environmental coordination and additional studies during rezoning and PD review.
After discussion, the board adopted HCCPA 20‑315 and HCCPA 24‑06. Both measures passed 6–1; Commissioner Cameron Cepeda cast the lone no vote on both items. Commissioners who supported the measures said the added environmental conditions and required agency coordination were a significant improvement over the existing, older entitlements.
Next steps: With the text amendments adopted, any rezoning or PD applications proposing residential uses or other changes on EIP land will be required to satisfy the new preconstruction testing, mitigation, and agency coordination conditions before residential certificates of occupancy could be issued.
