Palm Beach County planning advisory body recommends denial of 'Project Tango' AI data‑center amendment after residents cite noise, water and environmental risks

A Palm Beach County planning advisory body on the county’s review of an amendment to its master plan voted to recommend denial of an application that would enable a large AI "Project Tango" data center on industrially zoned land, after multiple residents and environmental advocates raised concerns about noise, water use and potential harm to the regional watershed.

The recommendation followed more than an hour of public comment in which speakers described continuous overnight noise and low‑frequency hum, questioned the modeling behind the applicant’s sound study, and warned the project would set a county‑wide precedent allowing hyperscale facilities close to homes and schools. The advisory body’s motion to recommend denial carried; the record shows the next scheduled hearing is before the Board of County Commissioners on July 15 at 301 North Olive.

Why it matters: Residents and local advocates said the site sits in a sensitive watershed connected to Everglades restoration infrastructure, that the facility’s cooling systems and generators could increase local water temperatures and demand, and that modeled noise outcomes lack supporting methodology in the materials available to the public. Those concerns intersect with county zoning questions about whether modern hyperscale AI data centers should be treated as light industrial (permitted by right in some districts) or heavy industrial (subject to stricter review).

Public testimony and key claims

- Eric Appel, a Palm Beach resident, played an audio recording he described as the sound of an AI data center and asked whether the site’s current approval for 24‑hour operation could be limited: "That's not peaceful, it's not nice." He urged restricting hours to "sunup to sundown." (public comment)

- Rinaldo Diaz, founder of Lake Worth Water T‑Bird, argued the site is hydrologically connected to systems used in Everglades restoration and that data‑center cooling could raise water temperatures and aggravate nutrient‑driven blooms; he wrote and submitted a report for the record and urged denial. (public comment)

- Several residents, including Anthony Reyes and Edward Schaefer, raised similar concerns about low‑frequency vibration, heat‑island effects and substantial daily water use; one commenter said the facility could require on the order of 100,000 gallons of water per day. (public comment)

- Michelle Hendrix, who volunteers with Friends of the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, said there was strong local opposition and asked the advisory body to protect neighborhoods, schools and environmentally sensitive areas.

Applicant and staff responses

The applicant’s representative, Mr. Cox, clarified ownership boundaries on the draft site plan, noted pending litigation between property owners affecting other parcels, and said the application before the advisory body excluded an adjacent 60‑acre parcel. He said the team provided a preliminary Noise Impact Assessment and a longer health and safety assessment to the school board and to county staff, and that a final, engineer‑signed noise report would be required before building permits are issued.

County staff and the applicant maintained the designs and conditions are intended to push sound toward an industrial power plant rather than adjacent neighborhoods, and staff noted conditions of approval require additional engineering submittals (including a certified NIA) at later stages of review.

Commission discussion and ruling

Commission members debated whether hyperscale AI data centers remain a form of "data and information processing" that fits the county’s light‑industrial definition or whether modern cooling equipment and potential off‑site effects make them a heavy‑industrial use requiring different treatment under the Unified Land Development Code. Several commissioners said the code and building standards need revision before the county approves large hyperscale centers in proximity to homes and schools.

A commissioner moved to recommend denial, finding "competent substantial evidence" on the record that the proposal failed to meet county standards including comprehensive‑plan consistency, ULDC compatibility, design and protection of public facilities. The motion passed; the advisory body’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for the July 15 hearing.

What was not decided and remaining questions

The advisory body’s action was a recommendation, not a final permit. The record indicates several items remain unresolved in the materials provided to the public: the underlying methodology and model inputs for predictive noise mapping, a professional‑engineer‑signed final NIA, and the extent of required empirical data on noise, water use and long‑term site operations. Several speakers asked the county to require a bond to cover potential claims for health or property‑value loss; the record does not show such a measure was adopted at this stage.

Next steps

The Board of County Commissioners will take final action on the amendment at a scheduled hearing on July 15 at 301 North Olive. The advisory body’s recommendation and the materials submitted (including the preliminary noise study and the health and safety assessment) will be part of the commissioners’ record.

Quotes

"That's not peaceful, it's not nice." — Eric Appel, Palm Beach resident, recounting audio he said was from an AI data center.

"This is far from a light industrial use and the only course of action is to deny the application." — Rinaldo Diaz, founder of Lake Worth Water T‑Bird.

"We provided the preliminary noise impact assessment and the health and safety report; additional submittals will be required before permits." — Mr. Cox, applicant representative.

Clarifying details and figures

- Applicant proposes an additional ~1,500,000 sq ft of master‑plan square footage (the application text references expanding master‑plan allocations and existing approvals of ~1,200,000 sq ft on an adjacent 60‑acre parcel not included in this request). (reported in staff/applicant statements)

- Speakers described roughly 600 rooftop cooling fans, fans said to be "about 90 feet" high in public comment as part of hypothetical cooling arrays. (public comment)

- Noise thresholds referenced in the hearing included applicant‑claimed 50 dB design points and suggestions the facility could expand toward 60 dB in some locations; opponents disputed the modeling and asked for full methodology. (public comment; applicant/staff response)

- A resident cited an approximate figure of 100,000 gallons per day for water demand; the applicant did not supply a single consolidated daily water‑use figure in the materials read into the record. (public comment)

Authorities and records cited in the hearing

- Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) — cited repeatedly during discussion of whether the use is light or heavy industrial.
- County Master Plan and staff report — referenced as the governing framework for the master‑plan amendment and conditions of approval.

Editors' note: The advisory body’s recommendation is advisory and will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at the July 15 hearing. The article uses only statements that appear in the hearing record; where specific technical reports or methodology were referenced but not included in full in the record available to the public at the hearing, the article notes that the underlying inputs were not available for public review at that time.