- August 17, 2026
Editor's Note: This story was updated at 6:12 p.m. Aug. 6. See the correction at the bottom of the story.
A marathon City Council meeting that stretched nearly six hours and ended just before midnight culminated in the first approvals for Palm Coast's controversial westward expansion, despite overwhelming opposition from a packed council chamber where dozens of residents urged officials to reject the proposal or delay action.
By the end of Tuesday night's meeting, the Palm Coast City Council had approved the first reading of three annexation ordinances tied to the proposed westward expansion. However, after hours of debate, the council unanimously voted to table the proposed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment and master-planned development (MPD) until its Aug. 25 meeting, delaying action on the broader planning framework that would replace decades-old Development of Regional Impact (DRI) approvals governing roughly 20,000 acres west of the city.
Before the council ever debated the merits of the proposed development, much of the discussion centered on the legal relationship between the annexations, the FLUM amendment and the MPD.
Planning staff explained that although the annexations were the first items on the agenda, they were tied directly to the broader westward expansion proposal. Planning Manager Phong Nguyen told council that if the city ultimately denied either the FLUM amendment or the MPD, the voluntary annexations would not move forward.
"Okay, so the scenario is this, that if you vote, let's say, approval of the annexation, it would be incorporated into the city. But this is the first read. And then if you move forward to basically deny the FLUM or the MPD, basically, the annexation will also fail because part of the ask for the voluntary annexation is contingent upon the approval of the MPD and the flume." Nguyen explained.
That explanation, however, did little to ease Pontieri's concerns.
The vice mayor questioned whether the ordinance language actually accomplished what staff described.
"This does not say that this annexation shall fail if the MPD is not accepted. It simply says that upon this ordinance becoming effective and upon the council's adoption of the future land use amendment, then we have a designation of MPMU, that master plan, Mixed use. That's not the same thing."
Pontieri proposed delaying the annexation votes until the ordinance language clearly stated the annexations would automatically fail if either the MPD or FLUM amendment were rejected.
Rather than delaying the item, City Attorney Marcus Duffy outlined several procedural options, including simply amending the language before second reading. Raydient representative Mike Hahaj agreed to the change on behalf of the landowner.
"We would be comfortable with that condition and happy to make changes to address it appropriately in advance of the second read," Hahaj said.
Councilman Charles Gambaro instead moved to approve the first annexation with amended language making clear the property would not be annexed if either the MPD or FLUM amendment ultimately failed.
That compromise cleared the procedural hurdle, but it did nothing to calm a crowd that filled nearly every seat in council chambers.
Resident after resident urged council to reject the annexations altogether, repeatedly citing concerns over traffic, water supplies, infrastructure capacity, wetlands, wildlife and quality of life.
Many speakers reminded council that the Planning and Land Development Regulation Board had previously recommended denial of the project.
Others questioned why the city appeared to be moving forward before every detail had been settled.
Speaker after speaker urged council to slow down.
The public criticism continued for more than an hour, with numerous residents accusing the city of moving too quickly and placing development interests ahead of residents' concerns.
Despite the sustained opposition, the council ultimately voted to move forward with each annexation on first reading.
The annexation of approximately 440 acres passed 3-2, followed by approval of the roughly 6,601-acre annexation and the city's 1.9-acre well-site annexation by identical 3-2 votes. Norris and Pontieri cast the dissenting votes on each measure, while Gambaro and Councilmen Ty Miller and Dave Sullivan voted in favor.
Responding to a public comment by resident Jeremy Davis, Miller said the proposal had changed since the Planning Board voted to recommend denial.
"Yeah, I was just going to say to Mr. Davis, you're asking, you know, what changed since the Planning Board decision? A lot did,” Miller said, adding that he wanted the residents to see the data from staff and the applicant.
The annexation debate marked only the beginning of the evening.
With the procedural issues settled and the annexations approved on first reading, the council turned to the far broader debate over whether Palm Coast should fundamentally reshape the future of nearly 20,000 acres west of the city through a new future land use map and master-planned development.
Vice Mayor Theresa Pontieri repeatedly questioned whether the city had any meaningful guarantee that the project would not ultimately become predominantly residential, pressing Raydient representatives on how Palm Coast could ensure the promised commercial development and employment opportunities would actually materialize.
"You will have a no from me until the cows come home,” she said. “If we do not have some type of guarantee that, before 2036, there is something besides houses in the westward expansion — and I don't mean a Publix here and there or a Wawa here and there — I mean meaningful jobs that will create the economic development that the whole intent of this development is for."
Miller argued the project should include additional industrial space to improve Palm Coast's long-term economic outlook, saying the city needed to reach a better balance between residential and non-residential development.
"I think 70/30 is the appropriate threshold for when we start to see serious economic benefits for non-residential in terms of the tax base, in terms of jobs, all those things that become multipliers of money spent in our community. Real careers for people," Miller said.
He later asked the applicant to add another 1 million square feet of industrial space, including 500,000 square feet in the first phase of development.
As discussion turned to the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment, Norris moved to table the item after learning Raydient had not yet provided a requested letter of agreement allowing the Palm Coast Historical Society and Flagler County Historical Society access to the property to conduct historical investigations. Norris argued the council had previously reached consensus that the agreement would be completed before moving forward and said the city should not consider the proposal until it was provided.
Following discussion, Norris' motion to table failed on a 3-2 vote, with Norris and Sullivan voting in favor of postponement, while Miller, Gambaro and Pontieri voted against tabling so the council could continue its discussion that evening.
As the six-hour meeting came to an end, council unanimously agreed to table the remaining westward expansion items until its Aug. 25 meeting, allowing additional time for staff and the applicant to address outstanding issues, including the development of a historic preservation ordinance, school mitigation.
The action left the project in an unusual position.
While the three annexation ordinances advanced on first reading by 3-2 votes earlier in the evening, the broader planning documents necessary for the westward expansion remain on hold, ensuring the debate over one of the largest development proposals in Palm Coast's history will continue later this month.
Correction
Two quotes in the original story, which went to print on Aug. 6, were incorrect. In that story, Ty Miller was quoted as saying, "This is not the same project that the Planning Board saw," but that was a paraphrase, not a direct quote. The full quote is now included in the story below. Additionally, this quote was attributed to Miller, but it was actually based on a note about something said by another person in the meeting: "If we don't plan for employment, we'll never get employment." That quote has been removed from the story. Finally, the story originally stated that Miller discussed “the need to preserve flexibility for future industries, including data centers” in the westward expansion. But, Miller’s point was the opposite: He wanted to ensure that data centers will not be allowed without further council approval.
