Palm Coast
storylines...
Independent Reporting · Palm Coast, Florida
Palm Coast City Council

Workshop Meeting — Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Processed 2026-09-22
Source Documents
Agenda PDF Approved Minutes PDF
Agenda
A
Call To Order
B
Pledge Of Allegiance To The Flag And A Moment Of Silence
C
Roll Call
D
Public Participation
Speaker

Compliment on Palm Coast Parkway repaving, noting visiting friends praised the city's cleanliness and appearance, and inquiry about whether Florida Park Drive is scheduled for repaving.

E
Presentations
E.1
Resolution 2026-xx Amending Policy Relating To The State Housing

Flagler County Health and Human Services Director Joe Hegedus and staff presented two proposed amendments to the SHIP Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP).

The first amendment would add affordable rental development as an eligible use of SHIP funds, funding developers for pre-development and construction costs of deed-restricted units serving households at 80% or below area median income.

Council members expressed significant skepticism, noting the absence of local data on deed-restricted affordable unit vacancy rates and waiting lists, and concern about diverting funds from rehabilitation assistance for elderly residents.

The second amendment would broaden the first-time homebuyer purchase assistance program by removing the restriction to first responders and public employees only, and simplifying resale restrictions back to a 10-year loan repayment model.

Council reached tentative consensus on broadening the eligible population and suggested a 4-to-6-month window for attempting income-eligible resale before reverting to the older repayment model.

Staff agreed to return with more local data and revised language.

E.2
Presentation - Proposed Amendments To The Land Development Code Zoning

Community Development staff presented a comprehensive package of proposed Land Development Code (LDC) amendments scheduled for first reading September 15 and adoption October 6.

Key discussion topics included: data center definitions and prohibitions (currently requiring supermajority council approval via special exception, with a tiered performance standards ordinance to follow); the neighborhood meeting waiver provision in section 2.05.02, where council directed staff to strike the land use administrator's authority to waive meetings for residential developments of 40 or more units; the development order approval thresholds table (Table 2-1) and concerns about project piecemealing through different LLCs to avoid higher tiers of review; a footnote to Table 3-4 on MPD permitted uses to be expanded to clarify that city council approval and compatibility review is required; kennel and pet boarding definitions and their inconsistency across code chapters; and live local mixed-use provisions reflecting state law amendments.

Staff was directed to highlight changes from this workshop session in the first-read package.

E.3
Ordinance 2026-xx Prohibiting The Transfer Of The City Of Palm Coast

Fire Chief Kyle Berryhill provided historical context on the Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department, noting the department predates the city's 1999 incorporation and that fire protection was a primary driver of cityhood following the catastrophic 1985 and 1998 wildfires.

City Attorney Marcus Duffy presented a draft ordinance that would prohibit transfer of the fire department without a supermajority council vote followed by a public referendum, while carving out exceptions for mutual aid agreements, equipment sales, and similar operational matters.

Council expressed unanimous support and no proposed changes; the ordinance will proceed to first and second readings.

E.4
Ordinance 2026-xx Prohibiting Direct Potable Reuse

City Attorney Duffy and Utility Director Roche presented a draft ordinance prohibiting direct potable reuse within the city's water supply system, defining the practice and explicitly banning construction, operation, or funding of any such infrastructure.

The ordinance preserves the city's existing non-potable reclaimed water program for irrigation and industrial uses.

Council members noted no current plans for direct potable reuse exist in Palm Coast but said the ordinance is a proactive protective measure against growing statewide interest in the practice and as an indirect check on overdevelopment.

No changes were requested and the item will proceed to formal readings.

Speaker

Suggestion to reduce the square footage threshold that triggers public notice for data center-type projects, and expression of support for the council's attention to animal welfare issues in the LDC.

F
Public Comments
G
Discussion By City Council Of Matters Not On The Agenda
H
Discussion By City Attorney Of Matters Not On The Agenda
I
Discussion By City Manager Of Matters Not On The Agenda
J
Adjournment
J.1
Agenda Worksheet And Calendar
Advisory Notes
— (context, E.2) A significant portion of the LDC discussion centered on a specific prior incident in which a cable landing station (identified as a Google-affiliated project in Town Center) was approved administratively because it was under 40,000 square feet, despite council members' perception that it was part of a larger phased project involving multiple LLCs with common ownership. Council Member Miller raised concerns that the current code allows applicants to structure ownership across separate entities to avoid higher tiers of public review, and directed staff to research whether other jurisdictions have anti-piecemealing language to address this.
— (context, E.2) Council expressed concern about the pace of drafting a performance-standards ordinance for data centers, with Vice Mayor Brandenburg warning that state legislative preemption of local data center regulation could occur before the city has its more detailed ordinance on the books. Staff indicated the basic prohibition requiring supermajority council approval is included in the current LDC amendment package, with a tiered standards ordinance to follow.
— (context, E.1) Vice Mayor Brandenburg repeatedly requested local-level data — specifically the number of deed-restricted affordable rental units, vacancy rates, and waiting lists — before being willing to support the rental development amendment to the SHIP plan. Staff acknowledged the vacancy and waiting list data is not immediately available and would require outreach to housing providers to compile.
← All Meetings

Heard before · Item E.2 · Sep 8, 2026

Presentation - Proposed Amendments To The Land Development Code

History of this matter

Aug 19, 2026 · Planning board · recommendation — Planning board recommended approval with no additional changes (per the Oct 6 packet). Oct 6 packet p.1654

Sep 8, 2026 · City Council · Item E.2 · this meeting

Sep 15, 2026 · City Council · Item I.1 · first reading — 4-0 (Sullivan yes, Gambaro yes, Pontieri yes, Norris yes) (from the captions; not yet checked against the video)

Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item I.1 · second reading

Related: Historic preservation ordinance — Oct 6, 2026 record →

Score sheet: what was raised, and what happened to it

Concern that the 2-foot freeboard requirement may hurt neighboring properties because of elevation differences. Oct 6 packet p.2004

Raised Sep 15 · by not stated · source: agenda packet

Not made Oct 6: Rule kept. Staff cites the floodplain coordinator: homes already built with 2 feet of freeboard have not affected surrounding structures. Oct 6 packet p.2004

Comment at the Sept 15 hearing; the packet doesn't say who raised it.

No exception for existing platted lots from the cultural resource survey — an added cost to homebuyers. Oct 6 packet p.2004

Raised Sep 15 · by not stated · source: agenda packet

Deferred Oct 6: Staff points to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (H.5 on Oct 6), which as drafted would provide the exception. Deferred to: Historic preservation ordinance. Oct 6 packet p.2004

Comment at the Sept 15 hearing; the packet doesn't say who raised it.

Coastal building visual relief rule (views to the Intracoastal). Oct 6 packet p.2004

Raised Sep 15 · by not stated · source: agenda packet

Clarified Oct 6: Staff clarifies the rule applies to non-residential buildings only. Oct 6 packet p.2004

“Staff further clarifies that this condition applies to non-residential buildings only.”

Whether mechanical equipment must be screened more than before. Oct 6 packet p.2004

Raised Sep 15 · by not stated · source: agenda packet

Clarified Oct 6: Only change is adding back-flow preventers as an example; equipment still screened if visible from the right-of-way or an access easement. Oct 6 packet p.2004

Buffers between new subdivisions and existing homes at a lower elevation. Oct 6 packet p.2005

Raised Sep 15 · by not stated · source: agenda packet

Made Oct 6: New language requires buffers between residential areas because of vertical difference (Section 11.03.05). Oct 6 packet p.2005

“New language to require buffers between residential areas due to vertical difference.”

Staff will add a statutory definition of 'data center' to the glossary (chapter 14) before the first reading.

Raised Sep 8 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 01:47:20

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not mention adding a statutory definition of 'data center' to the glossary (chapter 14).

Not yet checked against the video.

Staff is directed to research how other communities prevent applicants from piecemealing or artificially splitting related projects across separate LLCs to avoid higher-tier public review thresholds.

Raised Sep 8 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 01:26:26

Deferred Oct 6: The packet states that research and analysis to address 'parcelization' of projects to avoid LDC review process will be brought forward after adoption of the LDC updates. Oct 6 packet p.1657

“Research and Analysis to address "parcelization" of projects to avoid LDC review process”
Not yet checked against the video.

Staff will draft expanded language for table 3-4 footnote 1 to clarify that MPD 'permitted' uses require city council approval and are not automatically granted.

Raised Sep 8 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 01:42:14

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not mention any expanded language for table 3-4 footnote 1 clarifying that MPD 'permitted' uses require city council approval.

Not yet checked against the video.

Staff is directed to ensure the definition of 'kennel' is consistent across chapters 8 and 14, to separate 'kennel' from 'pet boarding' in the use table, and to consider precluding residential kennels in MPD zones.

Raised Sep 8 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 01:56:50

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not mention any changes to the definition of 'kennel,' separation of 'kennel' from 'pet boarding' in the use table, or preclusion of residential kennels in MPD zones.

Not yet checked against the video.

Staff will review kennel and pet-related definitions across chapters for consistency, research Flagler County's puppy-mill ordinance language, and bring revised provisions back to council.

Raised Sep 8 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 01:58:55

Not addressed in the pages reviewed Oct 6: The packet pages do not mention review of kennel and pet-related definitions, research of Flagler County's puppy-mill ordinance language, or revised provisions.

Not yet checked against the video.

Staff is asked to delineate in the first-reading packet exactly which changes were made as a result of today's workshop session so council can track them.

Raised Sep 8 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:02:39

Made Oct 6: The packet includes a 'Summary of Amendments from Sept 8 CC Workshop' as an attachment and references that requested changes from the September 15 meeting are summarized in a table attached to the agenda package. Oct 6 packet p.1654

“4. Summary of Amendments from Sept 8 CC Workshop”
Not yet checked against the video.

Staff will clearly mark the amendments arising from the September 8 workshop in the September 15 first-reading document so council can see what changed.

Raised Sep 8 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:03:16

Made Oct 6: The packet includes a 'Summary of Amendments from Sept 8 CC Workshop' attachment intended to show council what changed as a result of the workshop. Oct 6 packet p.1654

“4. Summary of Amendments from Sept 8 CC Workshop”
Not yet checked against the video.

Staff will bring back performance standards for data centers at a future date.

Raised Sep 15 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:16:48

Deferred Oct 6: The packet explicitly states that an ordinance to address performance standards for data centers will be brought forward after adoption of the LDC updates. Oct 6 packet p.1657

“An ordinance to address performance standards for Data Centers”
Not yet checked against the video.

Staff will bring back an ordinance to establish penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal.

Raised Sep 15 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:16:58

Deferred Oct 6: The packet explicitly states that an ordinance to establish penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal will be brought forward after adoption of the LDC updates. Oct 6 packet p.1657

“An ordinance to establish penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal”
Not yet checked against the video.

Staff was directed to highlight in the chart of changes, for the second reading, the location of the buffer language between new subdivisions and existing infill residential lots.

Raised Sep 15 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:24:36

Made Oct 6: The packet includes a response table for September 15 comments, and the buffer language between new subdivisions and existing residential lots is highlighted with the new footnote 1A in Table 11-5. Oct 6 packet p.2005

“Buffer requirements only when the Finished Floor Elevation differs by 2' or more.”
Not yet checked against the video.

Staff confirmed a 15-foot buffer and enhanced landscaping requirement for new subdivisions adjacent to existing residences where elevation is 2 feet or more higher has already been added to Chapter 13 of the LDC.

Raised Sep 15 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:23:24

Made Oct 6: Table 11-5 now includes footnote 1A requiring buffer requirements when the Finished Floor Elevation differs by 2 feet or more between new subdivisions and adjacent residential properties. Oct 6 packet p.2005

“1A Buffer requirements only when the Finished Floor Elevation differs by 2' or more.”
Not yet checked against the video.

The public commenter asked staff to clarify whether the 2-foot local freeboard requirement in Chapter 1002 conflicts with the existing 10-inch-above-neighbor drainage rule.

Raised Sep 15 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:27:40

Partly made Oct 6: The packet addresses the freeboard concern by noting that homes built with 2-foot freeboard have not caused impact to surrounding structures, but does not explicitly resolve the conflict with the 10-inch-above-neighbor rule. Oct 6 packet p.2004

Not yet checked against the video.

The public commenter raised concern that the five-year cap on survey validity in section 1005.02 would require new surveys for all originally platted 80-by-125 lots.

Raised Sep 15 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:28:46

Partly made Oct 6: The packet addresses concern about the five-year survey cap by noting the City Attorney has drafted a Historic Preservation Ordinance that would provide an exception for existing ITT lots, with comprehensive changes deferred to that ordinance. Oct 6 packet p.2004

Not yet checked against the video.

The public commenter raised concern that the coastal view relief ratio in section 1302.03 effectively limits building width to 60 feet on 80-foot intracoastal lots, restricting property rights.

Raised Sep 15 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:29:31

Made Oct 6: The packet clarifies that the coastal building visual relief ratio in section 13.02.03 applies to non-residential buildings only, addressing the commenter's concern about restriction on residential intracoastal lots. Oct 6 packet p.2004

“Staff further clarifies that this condition applies to non-residential buildings only.”
Not yet checked against the video.

The public commenter raised concern that the mechanical equipment screening requirement in section 1303.04 mandates landscaping on neighbor-facing sides, which would impede drainage in tight side-yard spaces.

Raised Sep 15 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:30:28

Made Oct 6: The packet clarifies that mechanical equipment screening in section 13.03.04 only requires screening from public right-of-way and access easements, with no material change for side-yard buffering requirements. Oct 6 packet p.2004

Not yet checked against the video.

Council directed staff to note the public commenter's specific concerns, describing him as an actual builder with valid points, so they could be addressed specifically before second reading.

Raised Sep 15 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:31:24

Made Oct 6: The packet includes a response table specifically addressing each code-section concern raised by the public commenter at the September 15 meeting. Oct 6 packet p.1657

“Staff has addressed comments from the September 15 City Council business meeting (September 15) and response is summarized in Table attached to the Agenda Package.”
Not yet checked against the video.

Staff asked the public commenter to email the specific code-section concerns so staff could review them prior to the second reading.

Raised Sep 15 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:31:43

Made Oct 6: The packet's response table demonstrates that staff reviewed and responded to the specific code-section concerns, consistent with the request that the commenter email them prior to second reading. Oct 6 packet p.1657

“Staff has addressed comments from the September 15 City Council business meeting (September 15) and response is summarized in Table attached to the Agenda Package.”
Not yet checked against the video.

Promised next

Promised An ordinance setting performance standards for data centers, after the code update is adopted. Oct 6 packet p.1657

Promised An ordinance setting penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal, after adoption. Oct 6 packet p.1657

Promised Research and analysis on "parcelization" of projects to avoid code review, after adoption. Oct 6 packet p.1657

Promised Staff will bring forward an ordinance to address performance standards for data centers after the LDC updates are adopted. Oct 6 packet p.1657

Promised Staff will bring forward an ordinance to establish penalties and fines for unpermitted tree removal after the LDC updates are adopted. Oct 6 packet p.1657

Promised Staff will conduct research and analysis to address 'parcelization' of projects to avoid the LDC review process after the LDC updates are adopted. Oct 6 packet p.1657

Sources: the Sep 8, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page). Full packet →

Background · Item E.3 · Sep 8, 2026

Ordinance 2026-xx Prohibiting The Transfer Of The City Of Palm Coast

History of this matter

Sep 8, 2026 · City Council · Item E.3 · this meeting

Sep 15, 2026 · City Council · Item I.2 · first reading — 4-0 (Gambaro yes, Pontieri yes, Sullivan yes, Norris yes) (from the captions; not yet checked against the video)

Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item I.2 · second reading

Score sheet: what was raised, and what happened to it

Staff was directed at a previous business meeting to draft an ordinance prohibiting the transfer of the City of Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department, which is what was presented at this workshop.

Raised Sep 8 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:13:06

Made Oct 6: The packet confirms the City Attorney drafted and presented an ordinance prohibiting the transfer of the City of Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department, as directed at the September 8, 2026 Workshop Meeting. Oct 6 packet p.2339

“City Council directed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance prohibiting the transfer of the City of Palm Coast Fire Rescue Department which is attached to this item for consideration and direction.”
Not yet checked against the video.

Any future transfer of the fire department would require approval by a supermajority of City Council before going to the electors for a ballot vote.

Raised Sep 8 · by staff · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:13:27

Made Oct 6: The ordinance requires a supermajority vote of City Council before calling a citywide referendum, fulfilling the condition that council approval precede any ballot vote on transferring the fire department. Oct 6 packet p.2341

“the City Council approves such action by a supermajority vote and the action is approved by a majority of electors voting in a Citywide referendum. The City Council's vote shall occur before the referendum is called.”
Not yet checked against the video.

Promised next

Promised The ordinance is scheduled for adoption on second reading after due public notice and hearing on October 6, 2026. Oct 6 packet p.2343

Sources: the Sep 8, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page). Full packet →

Background · Item E.4 · Sep 8, 2026

Ordinance 2026-xx Prohibiting Direct Potable Reuse

History of this matter

Sep 8, 2026 · City Council · Item E.4 · this meeting

Sep 15, 2026 · City Council · Item I.3 · first reading — 4-0 (Pontieri yes, Sullivan yes, Gambaro yes, Norris yes) (from the captions; not yet checked against the video)

Oct 6, 2026 · City Council · Item I.3 · second reading

Score sheet: what was raised, and what happened to it

Council directed staff to bring the ordinance forward for first and second reading.

Raised Sep 8 · by council · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:22:08

Made Oct 6: The ordinance was brought forward, approved on first reading September 15, 2026, and is presented for second reading and adoption on October 6, 2026. Oct 6 packet p.2349

“APPROVED on first reading this 15th day of September 2026. ADOPTED on second reading after due public notice and hearing this 6th day of October 2026.”
Not yet checked against the video.

A member of the public asked that the ordinance address indirect potable reuse, arguing that the word 'direct' leaves a loophole allowing treated wastewater to be introduced indirectly into the drinking water supply.

Raised Sep 15 · by public comment · source: meeting video (captions) · 02:39:48

Not made Oct 6: The packet states there were no changes made to the item after the September 15, 2026 meeting, and the ordinance remains limited to prohibiting Direct Potable Reuse only, without addressing indirect potable reuse. Oct 6 packet p.2346

“UPDATED BACKGROUND FROM THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2026, BUSINESS MEETING: City Council reviewed the item at their September 15, 2026, Business Meeting. There were no changes made to the item.”
Not yet checked against the video.

Promised next

Promised The City Utility will continue to utilize reclaimed water exclusively for non-potable applications including landscape irrigation, zero liquid discharge, and brackish groundwater as alternative water supply sources. Oct 6 packet p.2347

Sources: the Sep 8, 2026 agenda packet (page numbers link to the page). Full packet →