Citrus County planning commission recommends denying Deltona's Holder Industrial Park expansion amid water, noise and compatibility concerns

The Citrus County Planning & Development Commission recommended denial on June 18 of Deltona Corporation's bid to expand the Holder Industrial Park and add heavy-industrial uses, including language that would allow data centers. The 7-0 voice vote sent the commission's finding of inconsistency with the county's comprehensive plan to the Board of County Commissioners for further consideration.

The commission's staff report and more than eight hours of testimony from applicants, experts, interveners and dozens of residents focused on three recurring concerns: the application lacks site-specific, quantified information on water use and electricity demand; low-frequency noise and other community impacts were not measured or bounded in the plan; and heavy-industrial zoning directly abuts low-density residential uses and environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and floodplains. Joanna Katu, deputy director of growth management, told the board, “The availability of central utilities does not mean an area is appropriate for more intensive development.”

Deltona's counsel and consultants presented a revised sub-area plan and a set of performance standards intended to limit impacts. Clark Stilwell, who led the applicant's presentation, described a mapped data-center area inside the expanded park, added buffers and open space, and said the company had sought Duke Energy's input about servicing large electric loads. Stilwell told the commission that the sub-area text would require central water and sewer and, for data centers, performance standards such as a 500-foot buffer and commitments to closed-loop or equivalent water-cooling systems.

Noise expert Jeffrey Straw, who testified for the applicant, described county noise rules and recommended pre-construction and 1/3-octave-band studies tied to the county's A-weighted standards. He said the county's existing noise metrics should be used and verified by post-construction testing. Straw also told commissioners that modern data centers increasingly use closed-loop cooling systems that greatly reduce operational water demand compared with older, evaporative designs.

Opponents and interveners pressed for specifics. Joe Hicks, accepted as an intervener, told the commission the application remained incomplete and urged denial: “This application is incomplete about water, it's incomplete about all these things that we just talked about.” Members of the public spoke over many hours; their concerns included strain on the Floridan aquifer, potential for increased municipal costs, long-term uncertainty about end users, low-frequency noise and vibration, dark-sky and wildlife impacts, and diminished property values.

Commissioners said the record before them did not provide the level of detail needed to find the proposal consistent with the county's comprehensive plan and compatibility policies. Commissioner Timothy Gilbert moved to find the applications inconsistent and recommend denial; the motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. The planning commission's recommendation will be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners, which will decide whether to transmit the amendment to state review or consider a continuance request filed by the applicant.

What happens next: the Board of County Commissioners will receive the PDC's recommendation at its transmittal hearing. If the BOCC transmits the plan amendment, it will go to state agencies for comment before a final local adoption hearing. Any future proposal for a specific facility (for example, a particular data-center campus with detailed engineering drawings) would require separate permitting and technical review, including concurrency checks for water and utility service and any applicable state approvals.

The hearing record shows a county divided between a desire to attract economic development and broad local concern about water, noise and community compatibility. For now, the PDC concluded the application does not meet the county's planning standards and recommended denial.