Opponents urge denial of ‘Project Tango’ master‑plan expansion as zoning commission hears noise, water and process objections

The Palm Beach County Zoning Commission heard more than three hours of testimony on July 1 over PBA Holdings’ request to expand the Project Tango master plan by roughly 1.5 million square feet, a move that would increase the MUPD master‑plan total to about 3,594,564 square feet and allow a larger mix of warehouses and data/information processing uses.

Ernie Cox, project manager for PBA Holdings, told commissioners the applicant had revised the project since December to reduce overall intensity and move sensitive equipment away from neighboring homes and the adjacent school. “We have made a lot of changes since December,” Cox said, noting the application reduces certain data‑center footprints and relocates cooling equipment inside buildings to reduce potential sound impacts.

Opponents, including representatives of the Arden Homeowners Association and the Western Palm Beach County Community Alliance, urged the commission to recommend denial or delay. John Eubanks, speaking for Arden residents, said the record lacks adequate technical backup. “Today you don't have competent substantial evidence that what they gave you has any basis or backup in it,” Eubanks said, urging the commission not to move forward without the full methodological data behind the applicant’s noise and environmental studies.

Christina Reichert, representing the Western Palm Beach County Community Alliance, emphasized water and heat concerns tied to large modern AI data centers. She warned that closed‑loop cooling often requires substantial makeup water and that large facilities can create heat‑island effects with environmental consequences for nearby canals and the Everglades system. “Closed‑loop systems cannot use graywater,” Reichert said in discussing risks and the need for highly treated water and safeguards.

Tara Dewey, representing WPB Logistics (an owner of an outparcel within the MUPD), asked the commission to table the item, arguing her client had not consented to the master‑plan changes and that ownership or authorization issues merited more time. County counsel and staff responded that the ULDC does not require consent by all MUPD owners for a development‑order amendment and that ownership objections can be raised to the Board of County Commissioners or in court, but they acknowledged the dispute and noted the limits on tabling under statutory timeframes.

The record before commissioners includes staff’s summary of project history and recommended conditions addressing noise, water, landscaping and wildlife corridor protection. Staff told the commission the master plan request would add about 1,500,000 square feet overall, including increased warehouse area and a proposed portion for data/information processing; staff also listed noise and water conditions to be carried forward to the development order if the Board adopts the change.

Opponents repeatedly raised low‑frequency noise, potential continuous 24/7 industrial sound from large cooling fans and backup generation, questions about the adequacy and provenance of the applicant’s predictive noise modeling, and conflicting water‑use figures. The applicant presented preliminary noise assessments and said it had moved cooling equipment indoors and reduced some data‑center square footage to mitigate impacts.

The commission recessed for a midday break after substantial public comment; at the time of the break the panel had not taken a final recommendation on Project Tango. The item remains before the Zoning Commission and is scheduled to be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, where opponents said they will continue to press for additional technical analysis and for the Board to consider whether modern hyper‑scale data centers should be treated differently than the 'data/information processing' uses described in the county's comprehensive plan.

Next procedural steps: the Zoning Commission will resume consideration after the break and ultimately either forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners or decline to recommend, at which point affected parties may pursue challenges in court if they allege procedural or substantive defects.