The Palm Coast Planning and Land Development Regulation Board (PLDRB) held a lengthy meeting Wednesday evening, drawing a standing-room crowd of well over 100 residents with strong opinions about a major proposed change to the Lakeview Estates development — a former golf course community on the south side of the city. The meeting, which ran nearly three and a half hours, ended with the board recommending approval of a land use change for one portion of the property while recommending denial of the accompanying zoning amendment, sending a mixed signal to the City Council, which will make the final decision.
Background: A Golf Course Becomes a Community
Lakeview Estates sits on approximately 280 acres of land that was once the Grand Club Matanzas Golf Course, which permanently closed in 2007. The current property owner purchased it in 2009. In 2021, the Palm Coast City Council approved a master plan development (MPD) agreement for the site, setting the total number of homes allowed across the property at 272.
Since then, 200 single-family homes have been built and sold on Track 1, the easternmost portion of the site. Another 21 units are in various stages of approval on other tracks. That leaves 51 remaining residential units allowed under the current plan.
The property is divided into 10 sections, called tracks, each designated for different uses. On Wednesday, the board heard two connected requests from the developer, represented by attorney Michael Chiumento.
The Two Applications
Application 5576 — Land Use Change: The developer requested a change to the future land use designation for approximately 20 acres of Track 9 — the strip of land running along US-1 on the western edge of the property — from “Greenbelt” to “Mixed Use.” This change would allow for commercial development, such as a grocery store or restaurants, on the US-1 corridor.
Application 5575 — Master Plan Development Amendment: The developer asked to amend the existing MPD agreement to formally allow commercial uses on Track 9, build the remaining 39 homes on Track 3 along Lakeview Boulevard, allow recreational vehicle (RV) garages on residential lots of 10,000 square feet or more, and donate Track 8 to the city at no cost as a potential neighborhood park site.
What the Developer Proposed
Chiumento gave a summary of the changes: “Track nine, same intensity, stays there, the same height, stays there, the same traffic, stays there. We’re just adding some additional uses that we think are retail.”
Under the proposal:
- Track 9 would allow general commercial uses — similar to what you’d find along Palm Coast Parkway — with a traffic cap set at the same level already allowed by the Greenbelt designation, a building height limit of 35 feet, and no new residential units.
- The 39 remaining residential homes would be built on Track 3, described by the developer as potential “estate lots” of 60 to 70 feet wide by 200 to 300 feet deep, with optional RV garages.
- Track 8, an 11.2-acre parcel currently zoned for up to 51 townhouses, would be donated to the city for a future neighborhood park at an estimated value of $1.5 million. The developer also agreed not to seek impact fee credits for the donation.
- The view protection zone — a required buffer between development and existing homes — would be reduced on Track 9 from 150 feet to 100 feet, and defined at 50 feet on Tracks 3, 4, and 7 where it was previously undefined.
The applicant noted that if the amendment is denied, the developer retains the right to build 51 townhouses on Track 8, and the existing track limits remain unchanged.
Staff Presentation and Recommendations
Senior Planner Michael Hanson walked the board through both applications in a detailed presentation. Staff recommended approval of the land use change (Application 5576), with a site-specific limiting policy attached to keep traffic, density, and building height no higher than what the Greenbelt designation currently allows. This policy was designed to prevent the mixed-use designation from triggering up to 280 additional residential units or dramatically more commercial square footage.
For the MPD amendment (Application 5575), staff presented no formal recommendation, a neutral stance, but noted the request was “generally consistent” with the comprehensive plan, while acknowledging it was “not totally consistent” with Land Development Code sections governing former golf course communities, particularly around the protection of rear-yard views for existing residents.
Hanson explained the view protection zone language: “The existing golf course views for the rear yards are ultimately maintained,” but noted the proposed amendment would narrow and formally define those zones, while requiring enhanced vegetative screening to the satisfaction of the Land Use Administrator.
Staff also confirmed that the plan would reduce the total remaining residential entitlements from 51 to 39 dwelling units, a roughly 12% reduction.
Public Comment: Residents Raise Concerns
Nearly a dozen residents approached the microphone to express their views, the majority against the proposal. Board members reminded the public that the planning board makes a recommendation only, and the City Council has the final vote.
Among the concerns raised:
View protection and privacy: Several residents living on London Drive, which runs along the eastern edge of Track 9, said the property behind their homes has served as a natural buffer from US-1 traffic, noise, and light. “By reducing the buffer from 150 feet to 100 feet, this will leave nothing to look at except commercial buildings,” said one London Drive resident. Another added: “We bought our house with the premise, and we were told that it was green space. You could not build on it.”
Arsenic contamination: Multiple residents raised concerns about arsenic that was discovered in soils from the former golf course’s chemical storage area. Board Chair Schenck asked for a direct answer on the issue. The applicant confirmed that during the development of Track 1, contaminated soil was identified, removed, and replaced in compliance with state and federal requirements, and the site received a clearance letter. For Track 3, a preliminary study shows no contamination, but the existing MPD agreement already requires a clearance letter before any development begins. Staff confirmed their environmental experts review that documentation as part of any technical site plan or plat approval.
Water and the aquifer: One resident, who lives just north of the site in St. Johns County, urged the board to deny the application on environmental grounds, saying the 65 acres combined between Tracks 9 and 3 serve as recharge land for the Florida aquifer. “If we fail to protect water today, our future three-year-olds will suffer the permanent consequences,” he said.
The park offer: One resident questioned whether the park on Track 8 was genuinely planned. “Has the City Parks and Recreation actually planned, budgeted, or requested a park on tract eight? If the answer is no, then the park is not a park. It’s a sales pitch.” Staff acknowledged that while city staff had initiated the conversation with the developer about Track 8 as a park site, no formal design, budget, or plan for the park exists at this time.
Sidewalk safety: One resident raised concern about the impact on a sidewalk along Lakeview Boulevard — built after a pedestrian fatality — arguing that adding driveways for RV-garage homes would create conflict points along the only safe walking route to Matanzas High School.
The neighborhood notification issue: One resident told the board he received a letter from the developer showing a map with the wrong track labeled. Staff confirmed the city’s own notice contained a transposition — stating Track 8 would be changed when in fact the application affected Track 9. Staff said a corrected postcard was mailed, and the correct maps were shown at the April 14 neighborhood meeting held at Indian Trails Middle School, which approximately 125 people attended.
Growth concerns: Several residents spoke broadly about the pace of development in Palm Coast, expressing frustration about infrastructure, water quality, law enforcement staffing, and quality of life. One speaker noted that when he moved from New York, he chose Palm Coast specifically for peace. Board Chair Schenck addressed the crowd directly: “We cannot make a decision based upon feelings. We have to have the facts… We have a quasi-judicial responsibility.”
Vice Chair Albano also addressed the audience: “We are volunteers. We are citizens in this community. We have faced some of the same issues that you face with developments going up in our backyards… We’re not here to represent the city. We’re here to look at things as a quasi-judicial board and vote based on facts, not heartstrings.”
The Votes
After public comment and deliberation, the board addressed Application 5576 first.
An initial motion to deny failed when the board member who made it withdrew it, citing difficulty citing specific criteria from the comprehensive plan. A second motion was then made to recommend approval of the land use change, subject to the concurrent adoption of the site-specific limiting policy capping traffic, density, and building height. That motion passed 5 to 1.
For Application 5575, the MPD amendment, the board made a motion for denial, citing sections 3.03.04(J1) and 3.03.04(J2) of the Land Development Code — the sections concerning golf course community view protections and the compatibility of new development with existing residential rear yards. That motion passed 6 to 0.
Both recommendations now go to the Palm Coast City Council, tentatively scheduled for a first read on June 17 and a second read on July 7.
No Campaigning at City Hall: A Side Motion
At the end of the meeting, board members briefly noted that campaign materials had been visible in the room during the meeting. City Attorney Marcus Duffy explained that while Florida law prohibits government employees from campaigning on government time, the city currently has no policy against campaigning at City Hall by private citizens.
The board voted unanimously to send a recommendation to the City Council to create a policy prohibiting campaigning at City Hall.
This article is based on the official Planning and Land Development Regulation Board meeting transcript from May 20, 2026.
The post Packed Room, Split Votes: Planning Board Clashes Over Lakeview Estates Development Plan first appeared on Flagler County Buzz.
