Home | Save The Golf Course

Save the Golf Course Property Committee Report - October 22, 2025

Good evening, everyone.

I want to take a few minutes to speak plainly about where we are, what we’ve been doing, and what’s at stake for Pine Ridge.

For the past several years, our Committee has worked quietly but consistently to protect the integrity and long-term property values of our community. Everything we’ve done, every meeting, every decision, has been guided by one goal: to uphold Pine Ridge’s Master Plan and the promise it made to every homeowner more than forty years ago.

That promise was clear. The Master Plan and DRI, designated the golf course property as part of the protected framework that defines who we are, a community built on open space, low density, and a distinctive character that makes Pine Ridge special.

But today, the developer who owns the golf course property is attempting to break that forty-year promise by removing its golf course designation so housing can be built where it was never intended to be.

Let me be very clear; the funds spent on attorney fees have not been for property we don’t own. These expenses were part of the Board’s fiduciary duty to protect our Master Plan, which includes the golf course designation, as a key part of the legally protected framework that safeguards Pine Ridge and preserves our property values.

Put simply: the money spent was to defend the Golf Course Designation within our Master Plan. The property has always been privately owned but it has always been part of our grandfathered Master Plan and DRI. This designation is what has protected Pine Ridge’s integrity and value for over forty years. If that protection falls, the rest of our community’s land-use protections weaken right along with it.

When we defend the golf course designation, we are defending our Master Plan, our property values, and every homeowner’s legal protections. This also extends to the future land use of the roughly 100 acres of additional vacant property inside of Pine Ridge that are not covered by our deed restrictions.

Recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) voted to approve the developer’s request to remove the golf course designation, ignoring decades of legal protection under our grandfathered Master Plan. In response, the Pine Ridge Property Owners Association (PRPOA) has filed an appeal to defend those protections and preserve the integrity of our community’s planning framework.

This appeal is not about ownership of the golf course. It’s about defending the Master Plan that protects every homeowner’s investment. Removing this designation would set a dangerous precedent, weakening our entire Master Plan and opening the door to future zoning changes that could permanently damage property values. (Keep in mind the additional 100 acres of property not under PR deed restrictions mentioned earlier).

Not only do we risk property values due to the possibility of future zoning changes, history and research are clear: communities that lose their golf courses to development, suffer significant and lasting declines in property value.

The golf course designation has always been a message to buyers, investors, and lenders that Pine Ridge is a stable, low-density, well-planned community with open space and recreational amenities. Removing this designation undermines that confidence and the value of every home here.

At the same time, there are private investors who have already expressed strong interest in acquiring, restoring, and operating the golf course property as a recreational amenity, with no cost to the POA or its members. But that can only happen if Pine Ridge keeps the golf course designation that defines the property’s lawful use.

For these reasons, it is in Pine Ridge’s best interest now and for the future to defend and preserve the Golf Course Designation. Doing so keeps our promises intact, our property values strong, and our community the kind of place we all chose to call home.

I call on all POA Members, including Mr. JamesDicks, who owns property within Pine Ridge, to come together and work for a viable solution that protects and benefits all of us.

Sincerely,

Ron Walser

Chair - Save the Golf Course Property Committee

President’s Message

October 22, 2025

Good evening,

I want to take this time to address the ever-increasing misinformation circulating on social media and now in the local press.

First, there are accusations that the Board is operating illegally by opposing the rezoning of the golf course property, the impact it has on all properties within Pine Ridge, and by expending community funds on legal expenses to do so.

The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the welfare of all association members — as stated clearly in our governing documents. The Board also has authority under Section 720 of the Florida Statutes to act in this manner.

Addressing Misinformation About the Board’s Authority

The section of the code being misrepresented as a “limit” on the Board’s authority regarding

expenditures, Sec<on 720.303(1), reads as follows:

“After control of the association is obtained by members other than the developer, the association may institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all members concerning matters of common interest to the members… Before commencing litigation against any party in the name of the association involving amounts in controversy in excess of $100,000, the association must obtain the affirmative approval of a majority of the voting interests at a meeting of the membership at which a quorum has been attained.”

The current zoning and land-use issue does not fall under that category. “Amounts in controversy,” as defined by the statute, refer to financial damages sought and/or debts owed to the association — not legal fees. The association has not sought, and is not seeking, any monetary damages in connection with this matter.

We have obtained a legal opinion from our corporate counsel confirming that this statute does not apply.

Furthermore, the Board of Directors may allocate any reasonable amount to professional fees, including attorneys, under applicable law.

You may recall a previous Board’s action proposing a lawsuit against BlueStream for non-performance of a contract with the association. In that instance, the “amount in controversy” clearly exceeded $100,000, and therefore a referendum of the members was properly conducted, as required by the statute.

This Board operates using its collective business judgment in the best interests of the association. We act legally and with the advice of our legal counsel — period. Anything else you may have heard is an attempt to intimidate the Board and its members.

Addressing Misinformation About Legal Expenditures

There have also been exaggerated and misleading claims regarding the amount of the association’s legal expenditures related to the eﬀorts of DIX Developments and their applications to rezone the golf course property. These claims are rooted in ignorance and political motivation by a few individuals.

Here are the facts:

The response to the initial application dates back to mid-2023, when the Board approved a motion to engage legal counsel to oppose the rezoning.

The pro rata legal fees related to the initial application and hearings before the Citrus County Planning Commission and the BOCC in January 2024 amounted to $25.62 per lot.

The legal fees related to the preparation and hearing this past August on the re-application by DIX amounted to $3.19 per lot.

The legal fees related to the appeal of the BOCC decision amounted to $3.40 per lot.

The pro rata total to date of all legal expenditures related to this matter, over three fiscal years, is $32.21 per lot, averaging $10.74 per year per lot.

In total dollars, legal expenditures through the first application were $126,030. Additional expenses for the second application, hearing, and appeal filing totaled $32,460.58, for a grand total of $158,491 over a three-year period.

Any further expenditure will depend on the outcome of the appeal and subsequent actions by DIX Developments. As recent billings indicate, we expect that the most resource-intensive phase is now behind us.

The Board would much rather negotiate than litigate, but we remain firm in holding the County accountable for upholding its ordinances and procedures.

-Tom Russell

President ,Pine Ridge POA

From The Citrus Chronicle Letters to the Editor

Letter to the Editor

11/29/25

The BOCC’s Aug. 26 approval contradicts the established protections of the Land Development Code which has preserved the property value and the unique character of Pine Ridge for 53 years.

Whether you call it rezoning or overlay removal, it’s an attempt to change the protective function of the LDC firewall authorized by previous BOCCs since 1972.

All previous BOCCs maintained low-density development while recognizing homestead and property values as provided by equestrian and golf amenities.

Why did this BOCC change it?

By permitting 80 units where the Master Plan Golf Overlay has protected all of the Pine Ridge culture and character, the BOCC totally disregards the Pine Ridge Estates Master Plan, grandfathered into the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan. Further, they have opened up the possibility for challenges under Florida Statutes §163.3194 which require all land development regulations to align with the plans in place.

This reversal without just cause sends a troubling message to voters about the reliability of our elected officials.

We deserve consistent and evidence-based decisions. The Pine Ridge Property Owners Association with the guidance of legal counsel made the right decision to appeal the egregious reversal of the BOCC.

Paula G Sutton

Pine Ridge

Letter to the Editor

11/18/25

Support for the Pine Ridge Appeal

I am writing to express my unwavering support for the recent update regarding the appeal led by the Pine Ridge Board of Directors against the County Commission’s decision to alter our master plan.

The ruling by the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit on Oct. 28, 2025, is not just a procedural victory; it represents a pivotal moment in our community’s fight to uphold the very foundations of our neighborhood. The court's acknowledgment that our petition has merit is a strong endorsement of our collective voice and commitment to preserving the integrity of Pine Ridge.

The decision not only validates our concerns but also reinforces the importance of the legal protections that have safeguarded our property values and quality of life for over 40 years.

As the legal process unfolds, it is essential for us as residents to remain informed and engaged. The upcoming written responses from Citrus County and the developer will be critical in shaping the course of this appeal.

Our ability to present a robust defense of our master plan is vital for the future of our community.

What is at stake is much greater than just a piece of land; it is the preservation of our community’s character and the promises made to each property owner.

The support and unity of Pine Ridge residents are crucial as we navigate this challenge together. Let us continue to stand together in this fight. Each step we take in presenting our case to the court is a testament to our dedication to ensuring that Pine Ridge remains the vibrant community we cherish.

Together, we can uphold the values that define our home and secure its future for generations to come.

Ken and Susan Clonts Pine Ridge

Letter to the Editor

11/11/25

I support the report

I wholeheartedly support the recent Save the Golf Course Property Committee Report. The work done by the Committee to uphold our Master Plan and the unique character of Pine Ridge cannot be overstated. Their efforts directly impact the long-term property values and quality of life in our community.

The proposed removal of the golf course designation is not just a minor land-use change; it threatens the very framework that has made Pine Ridge a desirable community for more than four decades.

The history is clear: neighborhoods that lose their recreational amenities, like golf courses, face significant declines in property values.

Furthermore, the potential for private investors to restore the golf course as an active recreational site hinges on preserving its designation. This could revitalize the area without costing the Property Owners Association a dime, benefiting all of us.

I encourage every resident to recognize that this issue transcends individual ownership claims; it’s about collectively protecting what makes Pine Ridge a great place to live. I stand with the Pine Ridge Property Owners Association in favor of preserving our community’s integrity.

Together, let us defend the golf course designation and ensure that Pine Ridge remains the charming, stable community we all cherish.

Kerin Resch

Pine Ridge Resident

Letter to the Editor

11/07/25

Helter-skelter Development

Recently our County Commissioners (BOCC) voted to remove the Pine Ridge golf course overlay from the county’s Master Plan.

This decision needs to be reversed. Over the past 30 years the Master Plan has provided security for long-term real-estate decision making. For many, the Master Plan affected life impacting financial decisions.

Recently numerous changes have been made to the Citrus County Master Plan, including the Pine Ridge overlay.

Who do these changes benefit?

We know from the recent hearing on the golf course that the majority of the Pine Ridge residents are against removal of the overlay. A look on Zillow shows us that there are a huge number of houses available in Citrus County at all price levels. There is no compelling need to create more residential land.

Additionally, the Pine Ridge POA Board has taken actions supporting maintaining the golf course overlay. These actions are supported by a majority of Pine Ridge residents.

The board has a fiduciary responsibility to protect property values, as emphasized in the governing documents and backed by Florida Statutes. Whose interests are the BOCC actions protecting?

Our county’s development does now seem to be driven by helter-skelter change requests to the Master Plan rather than having and using a long-term plan for controlled and disciplined development.

Walter Pike

Pine Ridge

Letter to the Editor

10/29/25

Trust The Pine Ridge Board

As a proud member of the Pine Ridge Estates community I want to applaud POA President Tom Russell and the Board for their recent message regarding the MISINFORMATION plaguing our community regarding the golf course property Master Plan (zoning) issue.

It is essential that we acknowledge the Board's commitment to acting in the best interest of all association members. The detailed explanation about the Board's LEGAL AUTHORITY and spending highlights their dedication to protecting our shared values and assets.

Misrepresentations regarding legal expenditures can create unnecessary panic among property owners and the Board's proactive approach to dispel this misinformation is commendable.

It is encouraging to see how REASONABLE LEGAL FEES, totaling just $32.21 per lot over three years and authorized by three different Boards have been managed thoughtfully.

This careful oversight demonstrates the Board's prudent use of Association funds, prioritizing effective advocacy over unnecessary conflict.

I encourage fellow members to trust in our Board's leadership and support their efforts to maintain the integrity of our community.

Together, we can safeguard the interests of Pine Ridge against any attempts to distort the facts.

Violet Langieri

Pine Ridge

Letter to the Editor

10/29/25

Dear Editor:

I am writing to express my strong support for the Pine Ridge POA Board's recent actions as outlined in President Tom Russell's message to the Pine Ridge Community on 10-22-25. T

The Board's clarification regarding MISINFORMATION surrounding their authority and legal expenditures is imperative for maintaining transparency in our community.

The board has a fiduciary responsibility to protect property values, as emphasized in our governing documents and backed by Florida Statutes. Claims that the Board is operating illegally are not only unfounded but also are misleading to the community. The boards decision to retain legal counsel is a necessary step to safeguard our property values and ensure that the land use laws are upheld.

Moreover, the breakdown o f legal expenses demonstrates a minimal financial impact on individual lots, averaging just over $10.00 per year. This modest investment in our community's well-being is a small price to pay for the

potential long term benefits.

I urge all residents to support our Board in its efforts to oppose the land use changes to the Master Plan of the golf course property, recognizing the importance of standing firm against misinformation. It is vital that we rally behind those who are working diligently for our collective interests.

Sincerely,

J. Gaskill

Pine Ridge Estates Resident

Letter to the Editor

11/11/25

​

​

I support the report

​

Letter to the Editor

11/07/25​

​

​

11/07/25