Palm Beach County hearing on proposed ‘Project Tango’ data‑center expansion draws hours of testimony and broad resident opposition

County zoning staff opened a lengthy July hearing on a proposed master‑plan amendment known as Project Tango, presenting a request to increase the master‑plan square footage on a 202.67‑acre Economic Development Center (EDC) site from the approved 2,020,000 square feet toward a roughly 3.5 million square‑foot campus and describing dozens of conditions the county has proposed to limit off‑site impacts.

The project before the board includes two pieces of work: a Type 2 variance (previously approved by the zoning commission) that would alter parking calculations for data/information processing uses, and a development‑order amendment to increase the master‑plan square footage. Staff told commissioners the zoning director’s 2016 determination classified “data information and processing” as the applicable use for data centers and that, under the county’s Unified Land Development Code, many internal use conversions can be done administratively if they remain within the approved total. Staff also emphasized that applications filed since January 2026 are being processed and that the county received, and is responding to, multiple related filings.

Why it matters: Commissioners and dozens of speakers said the application raises modern questions that the county’s existing code and prior approvals did not anticipate. Project Tango is proposed adjacent to an existing power plant and within sight of Saddleview Elementary School and several residential neighborhoods; residents and experts said the facility’s expected noise signature, heat rejection and potential water uses could extend beyond the property line and affect health, wildlife and community life.

County staff summarized proposed public‑safety and mitigation conditions that would apply if the board approved the increase: updated noise studies and numeric limits, battery siting and fire‑safety constraints, generator setbacks and testing windows, reduced lighting heights at property lines, architectural height limits near residential edges, landscaping and berming, roadway and stormwater improvements, and coordination with water utilities. Staff said the 850‑foot setback for data/information processing uses from the east property line was among the conditions drafted to protect Arden residences.

Legal context: The hearing included a discussion of pending litigation. Counsel for a property owner who opposes the application sought an injunction to prevent the hearing but told the board the court declined to issue one; county counsel said the judge denied the motion, allowing the county to proceed and noting statutory deadlines for processing. Commissioners debated whether to pause consideration while litigation continues; county counsel and staff advised the board that the court’s decision and statutory time limits supported moving forward with the public hearing.

Experts and technical testimony: Representatives for organized community groups brought multiple technical witnesses. Dr. Santiago D’Atencio, an acoustics and engineering consultant, told the board that developer‑supplied noise modeling lacked calibration records, full equipment specifications and low‑frequency (dBC) metrics needed to verify off‑site impacts. He said low‑frequency mechanical noise and fan arrays commonly used to reject heat from large data facilities require different measurement and analysis than typical community noise studies. "This is a project that is not of light industrial category," he said, summarizing his professional view that the submission did not provide sufficient independent evidence to conclude there would be no adverse off‑site effects.

Environmental and water concerns were also raised. Ronaldo Diaz, a local watershed and Everglades advocate, described hydrologic connections in the region and cautioned that heat rejection to the atmosphere or to cooling water could alter near‑site microclimates and have downstream effects on water quality and habitats. He said Project Tango’s proposed scale — and the uncertain cooling method — require more detailed evaluation of thermal discharge paths and groundwater risk.

Utility perspective: Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) testified that its large‑load tariff and interconnection process are designed to prevent residential customers from subsidizing the incremental infrastructure needed by very large users. Amy Kemp of FPL said the company requires a system study to determine interconnection needs and that large customers (generally defined at approximately 50 megawatts or more) must bear facilities costs under the tariff. She said those processes protect other customers but that a project‑specific study is required to understand whether system reinforcement or new assets are necessary.

What residents said: Hundreds of residents and representatives from community organizations, teachers and local planning experts opposed the proposal as presented. Speakers cited the proximity of Saddleview Elementary School, concerns about chronic low‑frequency noise and vibration, heat‑island effects, potential groundwater and water‑quality impacts, threats to wildlife corridors, traffic and public‑safety implications, and property‑value and insurance risks. Many called for the board to deny or postpone the request until the moratorium and zoning updates the board directed staff to prepare are complete, or until independent long‑term health and environmental studies are available. “Please vote no on Project Tango,” several speakers urged during public comment.

What the board must decide next: The transcript records extensive questions, staff presentation, expert testimony and public comment, but it ends at a recess and does not record a final board vote. Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff for more technical detail, enforcement language in conditions and clarity on the administrative versus board approval path for future conversions within the MPUD. The board has directed staff to prepare an ordinance and code updates on AI/hyperscale centers, but those changes will apply to future filings, not retroactively to applications submitted under existing code unless the board decides otherwise.

The hearing will reconvene after the break; the public record will include the technical exhibits and written correspondence referenced during testimony. The county’s next procedural steps include the staff’s final recommendations and the board’s consideration of the resolution language (if brought forward), any motions to approve or deny, and the potential for appeals or continued litigation if the board acts.