Up next
Chris Fehn Net Worth
A week after a unanimous Palm Coast City Council vote to move toward revoking all outside paint-color restrictions, Council member Theresa Pontieri said on Tuesday she’ll request a reconsideration, pausing the process. She will seek either a “more reasonable change to the code” or possibly put the matter to voters in a referendum. At least two other council members are willing to think about a referendum.
“Last week I said I just really, really had an issue with going to the extreme that we were going to, which was to get rid of the paint code in whole,” Pontieri said. “I don’t agree with that. I think that people moved to the city of Palm Coast because it’s beautiful. They moved to the city of Palm Coast because there are certain regulations. I don’t feel that it’s obviously as strict as an HOA. I like living in an infill lot because I’m not in an HOA. But I also still appreciate reasonable regulation so that we don’t create blight down the road.”
The 4-0 vote for repeal bypassed what was to be an amended ordinance that loosened restrictions but kept five colors on the ban list–neon, fuchsia, magenta, orange and purple. Mayor Mike Norris had pushed for the end of restrictions. But he was willing to keep the ban on the five colors if it meant lifting all other restrictions. It was Pontieri who said that “if you’re going to say we’re not going to have exterior colors, then you shouldn’t be picking and choosing prohibited colors.”
She has since been scouring the public reaction on social media and speaking about it with a lot of residents, she said, prompting her to change course. “I really do feel that this is something that deserves to be at a referendum. I think that the residents truly are 50-50 on this,” Pontieri said, underscoring the dozen times that the issue has gone before local regulatory and advisory boards–the planning board, the beautification committee, the City Council.
“Everybody’s had a bite at this except for the residents,” Pontieri said, not quite accurately: every time the issue has been before a board, the public has had ample opportunity to address it, and has, as it did last week. Those who addressed the council last week were unanimously for the repeal of restrictions.
A referendum on a regularly scheduled election would likely not cost the city any money. The cost is determined by the ballot’s page count. If a city referendum were to be the sole reason for the ballot to need an additional page, then the city would be billed for the additional cost. Otherwise, it won’t be. The 2026 ballot will be an off-year election, which limits its length to some degree. On the other hand, the city is likely to have a few referendums of its own on the ballot anyway, resulting from the charter review process underway.
“Any changes to the shit city charter should be during a presidential election, not in ‘26,” Norris said. It wasn’t clear whether he meant to characterize the city charter as “shit” (you can hear the clip here) or if it was a mere, if telling, slip of the tongue. He was speaking in the first council meeting since a judge days earlier ruled against his lawsuit challenging the city’s interpretation of the charter.
Either way, Norris’s statement was a surprise. He had never said that all referendums should be on the 2028 ballot when the council discussed the Charter Review Committee and its likely outcome of several proposed amendments to the charter. The council started that process with the 2026 ballot in mind.
“If you’re going to have some spite, you can do a motion to reconsider if you want,” Norris continued. “But I’m still in the camp of paint your house whatever you want, if we are in this free state of Florida. So you won’t get my consent on that. I don’t know about the rest of the council.”
Council member Dave Sullivan is with Norris on that. Council member Charles Gambaro wanted to be, “but I don’t know, you gave me something to think about, Vice Mayor, as far as referendum.” (Pontieri is the vice mayor.)
Council member Ty Miller was torn, too. He likes to give voters a voice on referendums when an issue is split down the middle. At the same time, “I’ve been very adamant that personal choice is important here,” he said.
If the council were to propose a referendum, residents considered in violation today would not have to face code enforcement, though the current code regulating colors, which is restrictive, would stay in place. The council did not decide which way to go. That will be clearer next Tuesday, since any reconsideration of the July 1 vote has to take place at a business meeting, not a workshop, as was the case last Tuesday.
