Developer seeks approval for roughly 800‑acre expansion of Holder Industrial Park in Citrus County

The Citrus County Planning and Development Commission heard a combined presentation on March 5 from Deltona Corporation and its consultants proposing to expand the Holder Industrial Park (HIP) by approximately 798.6 acres and to amend the county’s future land‑use maps and sub‑area text. Sid Anzbacher, representing Deltona Corporation, introduced the two related applications and said the applicant would reserve rebuttal until the end of public input.

The presentation walked commissioners through site details and policy changes. Paul Gibbs, a landscape architect and land planner with Community Land Design, said the existing HIP sub‑area is about 557.4 acres and the proposed expansion would bring the total to about 1,356 acres, with roughly 500 acres identified as prime developable land because historic mine pits and other constraints leave portions unsuitable for development. Gibbs said a state grant of $2,800,000 funded much of the sewer infrastructure and that a lift station and related construction should make the property “shovel ready” by 2026.

In a planning analysis entered into the record, Avis Marie Craig, a certified planner, told the commission she concluded the proposed text and map changes are consistent with Citrus County’s comprehensive plan, pointing to specific objectives and policies in the plan that she said support the PSA expansion and the use of sub‑area text to limit certain noxious uses. “It is my professional planning opinion that the application is consistent with your adopted comprehensive plan,” Craig said.

Economic development consultants argued the expansion could generate significant revenue and jobs, while noting those figures are model projections, not contracts. Victor Liotta of Location Design Group said modeling suggests large aggregate fiscal returns over time — noting roughly $105 million in new property taxes over 10 years and about $4.8 million in sales tax in the model — but emphasized the estimates are predictive and not tied to any named end user. “There is no named applicant,” Liotta said, adding that the projections use standard sector and labor‑shed methods to estimate jobs and wages.

History and technical clarifications came from Clark Stilwell, who handled the original HIP land‑use matter. Stilwell summarized prior adjustments to the plan (including moving residential out of tier‑2 industrial areas and increasing multifamily density in tier‑1 for affordability) and described proposed safeguards: enhanced buffers along residences, mandatory right‑of‑way dedication on major roads at time of expansion, and shared stormwater commitments. He also described proposed restrictions in the sub‑area text intended to keep mining and certain other heavy uses out of the HIP expansion.

The prospect of data centers drew repeated questions. Applicants and consultants repeatedly said a data center is one possible tenant but not a certainty. Stilwell and the applicant team proposed closed‑loop liquid cooling with dry coolers for any such facilities and said that approach would minimize potable water consumption; Stilwell estimated an initial consumptive‑use volume in the range of 100,000–125,000 gallons tied to system commissioning and said any consumptive use would require applicable water‑management permits.

Commissioners pressed the applicant on several technical points: how the economic numbers were calculated without a named end user, the extent and type of buffers abutting residential lots (the applicant proposed a 75‑foot natural buffer, while staff asked for a 100‑foot buffer in one comment), noise mitigation, impervious‑surface limits, stormwater management and whether an environmental assessment was required (applicants said standard permitting and SWFWMD consumptive‑use processes would apply and that a specific environmental assessment was not in the packet). Paul Gibbs noted the land development code’s 125‑foot separation rule that can trigger certain buffer and wall requirements once a site plan is prepared.

A nearby property owner, Allen Ivory, used the public‑input period to say the county owns a one‑acre parcel next to the section of Crystal River under consideration and asked whether the county would write a letter opposing the city rezoning; staff said Ivory’s comment would be taken into consideration. Several commissioners also asked staff and the applicant to return at rebuttal with more specific mitigation proposals in response to public concerns.

No formal motion or vote was recorded before the hearing paused; the commission took a 10‑minute recess and planned to resume. The county staff and applicant said they would refine mapping of open‑space areas in the sub‑area plan and bring additional details at rebuttal.