Commission hears heated debate over proposed annexation of Lake Wales Country Club and Oakwood

City commissioners spent the longest portion of Tuesday's meeting considering Ordinance 2025-36, a petition to annex approximately 297 acres that include the Lake Wales Country Club and adjacent Oakwood community.

Staff planner Timothy Campbell reviewed the project's history, saying the annexation request dates to 2023 and that earlier master development plans proposed about 1,097 single-family homes. Using the applicant's prior master plan, staff estimated the development could add roughly 2,633 people and increase peak-hour trips by about 1,057 in the a.m. and 1,522 in the p.m.; those trip figures were presented as illustrative, based on the previously proposed MDP rather than a currently approved plan.

Why it matters: annexation would expand the city boundary and could require the city to serve utilities inside the proposed area. Staff noted the tract lies within the city's Chapter 180 utility service area and that several legacy contracts (one from 1986 and additional agreements from 2010) complicate whether the city has an absolute duty to serve. Special counsel for land use, Tom Cloud (cited by staff), advised the duty to serve is conditional on contract provisions and is not absolute.

Speakers at the meeting described mixed departmental reactions. According to staff summaries, police and fire departments recommended against annexation, citing potential response conflicts with Polk County Sheriff's Office and nearby Polk County Fire Station coverage; other departments flagged nuance around operations and maintenance of roads. The planning staff did not forward a recommendation for map amendments because annexation alone does not assign zoning or future land use.

Public reaction and commissioners' stance: staff said the planning and zoning public hearing drew a large turnout, with neighbors largely critical of the property's current maintenance and concerned about habitat disturbance. Commissioner Thompson, a long-time resident, voiced forceful opposition to entertaining annexation under the present ownership, saying the owner had "taken one of the crown jewels" and urging that the commission not reward what she described as neglect. Commissioner Gillespie noted that many advisory voices had opposed the project and questioned why the matter remained before the commission. Several commissioners said they expected to take formal action at the next meeting but indicated skepticism that the annexation would pass.

Next steps: staff told the commission the annexation will remain on the agenda for first reading at the next meeting, giving the commission up to 180 days between readings to consider land-use and zoning assignments should the annexation move forward. No formal vote on annexation was recorded during this session; staff and the applicant will determine whether to proceed to first reading.

Ending: The commission closed the discussion after extensive public comment and commissioner remarks and moved on to other business; the annexation item is scheduled to appear again for potential first-reading action.