Lake Wales commission votes to deny annexation of Lake Wales Country Club after extended public opposition

The City Commission of the City of Lake Wales voted to disapprove Ordinance 2025-36, a first-reading annexation request covering roughly 297± acres north of State Road 60 that included the Lake Wales Country Club and adjoining Oakwood parcels.

Residents who live near the course told commissioners they opposed annexation and possible redevelopment, saying the country club and golf course are community assets that have been neglected by absentee owners. "We beg you all to allow Lake Wales Country Club to go to somebody who appreciates it as a golf course," Rhonda Stewart Carl told the commission, urging elected officials to reject plans she said would replace the course with condos and road cuts that would divide the property and harm the community.

Multiple speakers described the site as in disrepair and said past promises by the owners had not been kept. "They have left the property fall apart," resident Rock Potrickas said, adding the course’s condition has driven events and visitors elsewhere and that annexation would "pave the way" for development that would change the area's character.

Alan Booth, president of Phase 3 in Country Club Village, told commissioners neighbors had made their objections clear and asked the commission to "put an end to it once and for all." Susan Littieri, a long-term resident, said proposed cut-through roads and additional access points would undercut the single‑entry design she bought into and cause years of noise and disruption.

Tim Campbell, a land-use attorney representing the property owners, disputed some residents' characterizations and described a master-planned community that, he said, would preserve most of the golf course, include nature and multi‑use trails, address drainage concerns and complement existing homes. "The golf course isn't going away," Campbell said, adding the owners had engaged planners and engineers and invested in equipment and wetlands work.

Campbell also described alternative requests owners could pursue if the commission did not approve full annexation: annexing only the remainder of certain Oakwood parcels, developing county parcels separately, or seeking de‑annexation of previously annexed, irregularly shaped parcels. He said the group's aim was to produce a thoughtful, master‑planned community rather than ad hoc development.

The commission asked for a motion to approve the annexation and, when none was made, the chair called for a motion to disapprove. The motion to disapprove was seconded; a roll call recorded affirmative votes from Commissioner Thompson, Commissioner Gillespie, Commissioner Williams, Deputy Mayor Gibson and Mayor Hillgoss, and the motion passed. The disapproval at this meeting means the proposed annexation did not advance under Ordinance 2025-36.

The hearing captured a clear split between residents who said past neglect by the property owners disqualified them from expanded rights and the applicant’s attorney, who said the owners had pursued a considered plan to make the property viable. Campbell told the commission the owners would consider other procedural options if the city would not approve full annexation at this time.

Next steps noted in the meeting: the applicant indicated owners might pursue partial annexation of Oakwood parcels or a de‑annexation request for serpentine city boundary areas; any such measures would require separate filings and analysis before the commission.