Expansion to 71 Homes Reignites Decades-Old Conflict Over ICI Homes’ Easthampton Development

Exactly 14 years ago this week more than 100 people filled the room in the old Community Center that used to serve as the meeting room for the Palm Coast City Council and its planning board, to oppose a 60-home development by ICI Homes on 21 acres  in Cypress Knoll—west of Easthampton Boulevard and south of Eric Drive.  The planning board voted down the proposal.

A month later, the Palm Coast City Council reversed the recommendation and approved a 58-home development, swapping wetlands with valuable uplands that went to the developer. The reason: the city wanted to settle a lawsuit with the developer.

When the land was part of the county, zoning would have allowed up to 86 houses. Palm Coast’s incorporation and new zoning designation lowered that to 28 houses, designating the land as Greenbelt. A subsidiary of ICI, owned by Mori Hosseini, one of the more politically powerful business leaders in the state, sued. Numerous settlements were attempted until the March 2012 settlement, clearing the way for the 58 houses within what became known as the Easthampton Master Planned Development, or MPD.

Tuesday evening, the council in a 3-2 vote  approved on first reading a different ICI subsidiary’s request to increase the development to 71 houses, and to amend the settlement agreement to reflect the higher density. The planning board had previously denied recommending the expansion in a unanimous vote, finding the proposal out of compliance with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.

The first-reading approval is significantly conditional on the developer negotiating further concessions to the city in the form of undefined “public benefits,” maintaining lot sizes at 6,000 square feet, and providing formal assurances that the development will not “punch through” to State Road 100 and U.S. 1. It’s a tall order that, absent compliance, may put the proposal’s success in question at second reading.

“I would not forecast any votes,” Council member Ty Miller said, “but I would say that a second read of this, that needs to be worked out in between, probably.”

The measure passed with Council members Theresa Pontieri, Dave Sullivan and Charles Gambaro in favor, and Miller and Mayor Mike Norris against. Pontieri made it very clear that her vote was a first-reading placeholder.

If ultimately successful, it would be the first expansion to a planned development of any kind that the current City Council has approved since the 2024 election (in contrast to regulatory steps such as plat approvals required for previously ratified developments, or the permitting of construction on previously entitled lots.) The current council has not approved any new developments since November 2024.

Senior Planner Michael Hanson described the proposed development agreement as “unique,” saying city staff was refraining from making a recommendation “because this particular project was tied to a settlement agreement.”

Norris strongly objected to the characterization of the proposal as “unique.”

“I don’t feel that it’s unique at all. Not unique,” the mayor said. “It’s taking more bites from the apple. Is basically what it is. They’re just coming back. Get more and more and more, reducing density.” (He meant increasing density, from y 1.56 to 1.91 houses per acre.)

Pontieri also did not find it “reasonable” that the staff was not making a recommendation.

Michael Chiumento, the land-use attorney representing the developer, said the discussion about the proposal started almost a year ago. He disputed the planning board’s basis for denying the request. He said there was none.

“As far as usable land, the actual development area of the project remains the same,” Chiumento said. “This is just about the 13 units, and whether it complies with the LDC,” the Land Development Code.

Dick Smith, ICI’s vice president for land development, said if 58 homes were built, the cost would be in the $600,000 range. “We can’t make that work,” he said. Allowing the 13 additional houses would lower the cost to a “starting range” of $450,000, “well above what the average cost of the home in the area is. (The median price of a single-family house in Flagler County in October was $375,200, according to the Flagler County Association of Realtors, and a council member cited homes selling in the Easthampton area in the $450,000 range).

Ira Strauss, a homeowner at Ebb Tide Drive since 2001, remembered how in 2012 ICI said “that it was not economical for them to develop their property without increasing the density, as they stated again tonight.” He said the claim that smaller lot sizes will protect or increase surrounding values “can’t be true”–not with lot sizes smaller than surrounding ones.

“Our home values are going to be reduced to increase ICI’s profit,” Strauss said. “We accepted the inevitable development resulting from the 2012 agreement, but we strongly object to this MPD amendment that will negatively impact our neighborhoods.” The dozen or so people who addressed the council spoke in similar opposition to the proposal, some citing traffic, some citing home values, some objecting to the higher density.

The new MPD reduces the minimum lot size from 8,250 square feet to 5,500 square feet and reduces various setbacks. The developer, Hanson said, “at no time whatsoever during the application process has made any indication of punching through East Hampton to Road 100,” and punching through to U.S. 1 would be “impracticable.” Pontieri was interested in securing an easement that would ensure against such punch-throughs regardless, an amendment Chiumento said was workable.

“We have a very strict guideline in terms of legally approving that right,” Council member Ty Miller said, addressing the crowd. “I understand you guys can stand up and say, my traffic is going to be worse because there’s more houses, right? But unless there’s a study that shows that, then we can’t consider your lay opinion about that. That’s just how it is.”

The matter of “rights” was settled in the 2012 agreement with the city. The mayor had asked city staff whether the expansion by 13 homes was a “request,” and was told it is. That’s where it stood Tuesday night–as a request, not an entitlement. The request in essence broke the 2012 agreement, which is also why ICI was requesting that the agreement be amended. Legally, the city was not under any obligation to grant the request. In that context, a traffic study is irrelevant.

Miller moments later conceded that point: “ I agree that any conversation where we’re opening up the settlement and changing the nature of it, that’s a renegotiation, so to speak,” he said. “I would look to see that there’s a clear, measurable benefit for the community, if this was even to be considered. So I leave that ball in the court of the applicant. But I’d like to see a public benefit here, aside from–we just want 13 more units.”

Miller, like Council member Charles Gambaro, also wanted to ensure that the right regulatory boxes were checked. Pontieri underscored the need for a public benefit as well.

“ICI is a good builder. I think that they have built arguably the best product in our county,” Pontieri said. “So I would like to see you stay here, rather than selling this property to a national builder like DR Horton or KB Homes. No offense to them, but they’re just not as good a quality.” Her concern is the smaller lot sizes, not the additional number of houses, even though she favors more affordable homes. Right now she does not consider the proposed sizes to be within the Land Development Code. “if our LDC calls for a minimum of 6,000-square-foot-lots, I think it’s imperative that we remain consistent with that,” she said.

“I think you know the history of the company and ourselves that we’re here to work through those issues,” Chiumento said. “If it takes a little bit of time to get there, then we’ll get there, at least to have a proposal for you to consider.”

Norris, saying he will not budge from the 58 homes previously approved, got a round of applause from the floor. “I wouldn’t care if they said they built a $300,000 skate park. It’s not in the best interest of our city,” he said.

easthampton-mpd-ici-homes