- February 4, 2026
A developer is seeking more homes in an E Section development but the Palm Coast City Council wants to know: Where is the public benefit?
For 14 years, CP and HG Residential Lots LLC, a subsidiary of local builder ICI Homes, has been approved to build 58 homes in a 37-acre Master Planned Development called Easthampton. The developer is now seeking to increase the number of homes by 13 lots to 71 homes, reducing the minimum lot sizes from 8,250 square feet to 5,500 square feet.
ICI Homes Vice President of Land Development Dick Smith told the council point-blank that it would be cost-prohibitive to build the approved 58 homes, which would each need to be sold at around $600,000 because of the overhead costs.
“That's the bottom line,” Smith said, “That we can't make that work.”
The proposed changes would bring the selling prices down to the $450,000 range, more in line with the neighboring homes, he said.
The Palm Coast City Council tentatively approved the first reading of this application in a 3-2 vote on Feb. 4, with Councilman Ty Miller and Mayor Mike Norris dissenting. Vice Mayor Theresa Carli Pontieri told the developer that she needed to see a public benefit by the second reading, and larger minimum lot sizes that complied with Palm Coast’s land development code. The city's LDC requires a minimum of 6,000 square-foot lots..
“I can’t approve a 5,500 square foot lot,” Pontieri said. “I just can’t do it.”
The development is located just south of Eric Drive, north west of the State Road 100 and Belle Terre Boulevard Intersection, and has had the building entitlements for the 58 homes since 2012. Those entitlements are the result of a lawsuit settlement between the developer and Palm Coast.
In 2009, per the city’s newly adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan, the land was redesignated from residential-low density, which allowed 1-3 units per acre, to City Greenbelt, which only allows 1 unit per acre. The developer sued Palm Coast over the change, and the two parties reached a settlement agreement in 2012.
That agreement ended in a land-swap to protect existing wetlands, and rezoning the developer’s property with the entitlements to build the 58 lots as an MPD. The developer’s application now is to amend that settlement agreement.
The proposed changes drew a crowd of E Section residents opposed to the increase. Miller said at the meeting that its important residents understand there’s nothing the city can do about the previously approved 58 lots.
But, he said, the extra 13 homes are a “new conversation.” There needs to be a clear public benefit for him to consider approving the request.
“I leave that ball in the court of the applicant,” Miller said. “But I'd like to see a public benefit here, aside from just 13, more units because the math doesn't math.”
Pontieri agreed with Miller, but added that she would rather see ICI Homes, a local company that provides a “much higher quality” product, build this than sell it to another company.
Beyond the size of the lots and the extra homes, residents were also concerned about the possibility the developer would, in the future, create a “punch through” road connecting the neighborhood to S.R. 100.
The developer’s attorney Michael Chiumento said that is not at all in the developer’s plans, but agreed to add a city-owned easement into the approval that would prevent the developer from doing so anyway.
The plan for the new neighborhood includes one entrance onto Easthampton Boulevard and has a stormwater retention pond. The Palm Coast Planning Board reviewed that application on Dec. 17 and recommended the council deny the application.
As a potential solution to the public benefit, Chiumento suggested the developer could work with city staff to find a solution, as neighboring residents had stated previously they did not want to see a public park placed there.
Norris was the second dissenting vote. He made it clear from the beginning that he was against the increase. It’s just “taking more bites out of the apple,” he said.
“This runs contrary to the public interest of the city,” Norris said. “I can’t support it at all and I’m not going to. They were allotted 58 houses. That's what you get. I'm not going to budge on that.”
Councilmen Charles Gambaro and Dave Sullivan both approved the application, with Sullivan adding the issues could be worked out in between readings. Pontieri — who has repeatedly over her three-year tenure stated her dislike for cramming as many homes into a development as possible — will likely be the swing vote on whether or not the application dies at the second reading.
She asked the developer to return with lots that are more in compliance with city code and an outlined public benefit.
“I'm just curious as to whether or not there's more work that can be done to make sure that we're not bending the rules and that we're staying within our LDC,” she said.
