Palm Beach County Denies Project Tango, 5-1: The 600 MW AI Campus Loses Its Expansion, but the 2016 Data Center Rights Stay

Six hundred megawatts. That is the size news reports gave Project Tango, the AI data center campus PBA Holdings wanted on 202.67 acres off Southern Boulevard in western Palm Beach County ^[3,7]. The county’s 48-page staff report for the July 15 hearing does not contain a megawatt figure at all ^[1]. On Wednesday the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners voted 5-1 to deny the request, with Commissioner Maria Marino the only yes vote and Mayor Sara Baxter, whose district includes the site, recused ^[3,6].

The vote did not end the data center. It ended the expansion.

What the board actually voted on

The application was DOA/ZV-2025-01602, a Development Order Amendment to the master plan of the Central Park Commerce Center, a Multiple Use Planned Development under an Economic Development Center land-use designation, plus a parking variance ^[1]. As revised on April 27, the plan asked for 2,346,564 square feet of warehouse, 1,032,000 square feet of data center and 216,000 square feet of minor utility use, a total of 3,594,564 square feet ^[1]. The approved master plan allows 2,020,000 ^[1].

County staff recommended approval. “Staff recommends approval of the requests subject to the Conditions of Approval as indicated in Exhibit C-1 and C-2,” the report says ^[1]. Those conditions included an 850-foot setback for data center buildings from the east property line, which with the 900 feet already separating the line from the Arden neighborhood and Saddle View Elementary School would give about 1,750 feet ^[1]. Backup generators would sit at least 800 feet from that line and be tested only between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ^[1]. Water from the county utility was capped at 100,000 gallons a day, and data center discharge would be hauled off-site rather than sent to the county sewer ^[1]. Battery storage was limited to lithium iron phosphate containers ^[1].

The Zoning Commission had recommended approval in December and then, on July 2, recommended denial unanimously ^[1,3]. The board followed the second recommendation. Vice Mayor Marci Woodward, who ran the meeting, said after hearing the experts: “If anything I’m more convinced now than ever that it’s not,” meaning the same kind of data center the county approved in 2016 ^[5]. The denial was without prejudice, so the developer can revise and refile ^[4].

The legal hook was land use. The county’s growth plan allows only uses with light industrial characteristics in an Economic Development Center, and it defines light industrial as development that “typically does not create negative impacts on immediately adjoining uses” ^[1]. Staff had classified a data center as light industrial, like a warehouse ^[1]. Opponents, including the Western Palm Beach County Alliance, argued a hyperscale AI campus is a heavy industrial use ^[4].

Where the power and the square footage go from here

Denial leaves the existing entitlement in place. The staff report put it plainly: “denial of the request to increase square footage would not deny the current approval” ^[1]. The current site plan shows two 100,000-square-foot data center buildings, a 1,200,000-square-foot warehouse and a 6,000-square-foot office ^[1]. Project attorney Ernie Cox told WPTV after the vote, “Well, that project goes forward. This vote doesn’t have any effect on that” ^[4].

The larger question is the administrative track. The staff report lists three applications that the Development Review Officer handles without a public hearing ^[1]. One, DRO-2025-01675, PBA’s own site plan for the larger campus, was contingent on the board approving the amendment ^[1]. Another, ABN/DRO-2026-01058, comes from WPB Logistics Owner, which owns about 60 acres of the site; it asks to convert the approved 1,200,000-square-foot warehouse into four data center buildings of 294,250 square feet each, plus a 20,000-square-foot water treatment building and generator yards ^[1,6]. Staff noted that the uses on an Economic Development Center master plan can be changed administratively within the code ^[1]. Stet News reported that the two owners could each convert roughly 1 million square feet of existing rights, about 2 million square feet of data centers in all, without a commission vote ^[6].

That is where Woodward pressed staff after the vote. “To be clear we don’t have say-so but the board has given clear direction at this point about how we feel about this use and its compatibility with our comprehensive plan,” she said, asking whether staff would consider that ^[6].

The power side sits outside the county record. In its justification statement, quoted in the staff report, the applicant said it holds a binding power service agreement with Florida Power & Light: “This FPL power agreement has strict timelines to develop the required substations and AI use needed to accept the power, and to begin utilizing the power” ^[1]. Staff called the reasons for the change mostly “changes in market demand, technological capabilities, and the Applicant’s business objectives” rather than changes to the property ^[1]. The agreement’s size and terms are not in the report.

The state law matters here. Florida’s CS/CS/SB 484, Chapter 2026-65, defines a large load customer as one with an anticipated monthly peak of 50 megawatts or more at one location and requires utility tariffs that “reasonably ensure that each large load customer bears its own full cost of service” ^[2]. Every public utility, FPL included, must file such a tariff by Oct. 1, 2026 ^[2]. The same law leaves siting with local governments: “Local governments shall maintain the authority to exercise the powers and responsibilities for comprehensive planning and land development regulation granted by law with respect to large load customers” ^[2]. Wednesday’s vote used that authority.

Data Center Knowledge reported that Jefferies estimates FPL’s capital plan through 2032 carries roughly 6 GW of prospective data center load, about $12 billion of spending ^[7]. That is the bank’s estimate, not an FPL filing.

Where the sides stand

The developer. PBA Holdings argued the request mostly reallocated rights the land-use ordinance already allowed and would replace an asphalt plant and a concrete plant still operating on the site ^[1,6]. Marino agreed: “I will take the slings and arrows. But I think this is something that we do need” ^[6]. After the vote, Cox said in a statement that the company would be “taking time to evaluate our options moving forward” ^[5]. Stet News reported that the developers valued the full plan at $34.5 billion ^[6].

County staff. Zoning Director Wendy Hernández disputed the developer’s framing that only about 280,000 square feet of data center was being added. “They are approved for 2,020,000 square feet of EDC uses. They are asking for another 1.5 million square feet,” she told the board, according to Stet News ^[6].

Residents and the school district. The Palm Beach County School Board wrote of “the potential long-term consequences of placing a hyperscale artificial intelligence facility in such close proximity to a public school” ^[1]. Ben Brown, an Arden homeowners’ association officer, told WPTV, “Something that size has no business being next to an elementary school or residential community” ^[5]. More than 80 people signed up to speak ^[4].

The land next door. WPB Logistics, the other owner, opposed PBA’s application at the Zoning Commission and asked that it be tabled, while pursuing its own data center conversion ^[1,6].

What I’m watching

Aug. 27, first reading of the county’s data center rules. WLRN reported that the board voted 7-0 this month to advance a moratorium and new regulations for large data centers, with a first reading on Aug. 27 ^[3]. Project Tango was filed before the pause and was heard anyway ^[3]. Whether pending administrative conversions such as ABN/DRO-2026-01058 fall under it is not settled in the record ^[1,6].

Oct. 1, FPL’s large-load tariff. Whatever is built at Central Park Commerce Center will be served under the tariff FPL must file by then ^[2]. The power agreement the applicant cites predates it, and how the two fit together is an open question.