Citrus County planning commission pauses Holder Industrial Park expansion after hours of debate over water, noise and data‑center risks

The Citrus County Planning and Development Commission voted 4–3 on March 7 to continue consideration of a proposal to expand the Holder Industrial Park, sending the matter back for more study after hours of staff briefings, applicant comments and extended public testimony focused on water, noise and community impacts.

The proposal, submitted as a comprehensive‑plan amendment and sub‑area text change, would expand the Holder Industrial Park footprint to more than 1,300 acres and add a broader set of industrial uses the applicant says could include modern data centers. Commissioners and staff repeatedly pressed the applicant for specifics about end users, utility capacity and mitigation, and several residents urged denial rather than a temporary delay.

"These are not minor details," a commissioner said during closing remarks, listing missing studies on traffic, water, sewer and stormwater and saying the public had not had a fair opportunity to review new materials. Staff and the applicant both told the commission that some questions — including service capacity and concurrency — are typically addressed at permit review, but multiple commissioners said the record before the panel lacked the specificity needed to make a defensible recommendation.

In a lengthy staff presentation, Joanna Katu summarized the requested changes and noted pending state legislation that could impose new noise, RF‑emission and water‑allocation requirements for data‑center projects. "There's a lot going on at the legislature that may materially change how these projects are regulated," staff told the commission, urging caution.

County utility planning and engineering director Brian Dilmore, who answered technical questions from the panel, said the county would review each future project for concurrency and that any off‑site upgrades would be the developer's responsibility. Dilmore also said he learned of the meeting's "100,000 gallons per day" closed‑loop number during the hearing and could not confirm that figure without a formal project plan.

More than two hours of public comment followed. Joe Hicks, speaking for himself, told the commission the amendment was legally vulnerable because neither the county comprehensive plan nor the county code defines "data center" or "data center utility," arguing the submission is too vague to satisfy Florida's growth‑management requirements. "Approving this amendment would invite vagueness challenges and undermine orderly development," Hicks said.

Several residents cited drought conditions and groundwater concerns. John Ovingk told the commission that regional water‑supply indicators remain low and warned that data centers and their backup generators can add substantial demand on local water and electric systems. Others described concerns about low‑frequency noise from cooling equipment and the effect on wildlife and rural character.

Representatives of the applicant said the Holder Industrial Park text already excludes many high‑impact industrial uses and that pending state and federal rulemaking would bind any end user. Applicant counsel told the commission that individual projects would require permits from state water managers and that the applicant had offered sub‑area text commitments — including a closed‑loop water approach — to address concerns.

Commissioner deliberations reflected a split: proponents of a continuance said waiting for pending state legislation and requiring missing technical studies would produce a more defensible record; opponents said the scale of a heavy‑industrial designation adjacent to long‑established residential areas is inappropriate and argued for outright denial.

The commission's roll call recorded four votes in favor of a continuance and three opposed. The commission will return to the item at a future meeting; the Board of County Commissioners will be the final decisionmaker on any comprehensive‑plan amendment.

What happens next: The PDC's recommendation and the record developed during the continuance will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, which will hold its own hearing before making a final decision. Developers seeking to build data centers would still need state permits for consumptive water use and any other state or federal approvals.

— Key details from the hearing: the commission emphasized that the current application is a conceptual sub‑area text change rather than a site plan; staff identified pending state bills that would add noise and water safeguards; and county staff said utility upgrades required for an individual project would be the developer's responsibility.