Village Council - Regular Meeting

If you're gonna stay, have a

seat and keep it down. If you're

not gonna stay, see you

next time. We're gonna call to order this meeting of village council for 04/14/2026 with our two newly installed council members and a change of seating position. At this time, please rise for the invocation by Deacon Bob Rodriguez followed by the pledge.

Please bow your heads. Heavenly Father, we thank you for the gift of everyone in this room. We thank you for the council people on the dais that they've given their time and service to others. We thank you for the people that come here to participate in process of democracy. We thank you for the policemen that are here. Heavenly Father, give all of us in this room wisdom, compassion, courage, and the ability to actually listen to one another. We pray for your blessing. We ask all this in your holy name. Amen.

All right, mister Barnes. We're done with the ceremony. Let's get to work.

First item on our agenda this evening before we approve the agenda is the appointment of the vice mayor. And at this point, the floor will be open for nominations for who will be serving as the next vice mayor for the village.

I'd like to nominate Maria Antonia as the vice mayor.

A second.

Arm wrestle. You go first.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing none, congratulations, Vice Mayor Antonia.

Easiest vote of the night.

Alright. At this point, that brings us to approval of the agenda. We have a couple of following amendments that are proposed. One is, we're adding as item, Senator Lori Burma's presentation on legislative session, and that will be the first item under presentations and proclamations, and the rest will then follow respectively after that. And the second addition is to approval add the approval of the site access and construction at risk license agreement for pre closing work at Wellington Cape Park by Wellington Property Owner LLC. And that will be added as regular agenda item 10C. And with those changes, we will recommend approval of the agenda.

Is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Amendment is approved as amended. Back to you, Jim.

And at this point, we have consideration of extended time by interested parties for our quasi judicial proceeding this evening. And that will be for Items 9A and 9B and requested by Mr. Volpe.

So Mr. Volpe, on behalf of his clients, under our rules of procedure, would receive fifteen minutes, and he has the ability to and has requested an additional ten minutes. If at the beginning of his presentation he wanted to request additional time, you would decide that at that time. This issue that you're voting on now is just for the extended ten minute request.

So twenty five minutes?

Correct.

Okay. Anyone oppose that? No. Seeing none? Okay. Time is granted.

Brings us to presentations from proclamations. And the first item is a presentation by Senator Lori Berman on legislative session update. Senator Berman, thank you for being here.

Good evening.

Good evening, everyone. And we have Representative Gerwig here with me also. First, I want to congratulate the new members, members Steven Levine and Johnny Muir. Thank you. Very happy to have both of you up here, and happy to be a part of this. As a lot of, well, okay, a couple different things I want to go over real quickly. We have one responsibility in the legislature, and that is to pass a balanced budget, and we failed. So we will be going back. We don't know when. We were originally, our budget in the Senate was $115,000,000,000 which is a little bit less than last year.

In the House, their budget was $113,600,000,000 so we were $1,400,000,000 apart, which is less than 1%. I'm hearing it's not the difference between the money, it's how it's being allocated. And we don't seem to be any closer to getting there. We have to have a budget by July 1. We went through the same situation with the same actors last year, and we did get a budget by July 1.

And I do anticipate that, but we could be doing it the June. We have no idea about that. We do have term limits in the Florida legislature. We have eight years in the House and eight years in the Senate, and I have done both. And so I am now at the end of my sixteen years, and I will be done in November.

So it's been my honor and pleasure to represent you for the last eight years. But I know I'm leaving you in good hands with Representative Gerwig moving forward. I like to talk a little bit about preemption. So to give you a little bit of a heads up, I'm sure you'll be hearing, and I'm sure you've heard a lot about what we did in Tallahassee. It was a a very lot of bills on preemption this year. Really unfortunate. I'm a strong believer in home rule. I always fight for you guys. But this was a really tough year, and I am the Democratic minority leader. And so I met with the League of Cities every single week.

And I will tell you, they did an amazing job. It's just that they were so under attack. So they tried to take bills that were really horrible on home rule and make them a little bit more palatable. So I'll give you an example. We changed the sovereign immunity limits in the state of Florida. And we raised it to $350,000 per individual, and $500,000 per incident. In the House, they had over $1,000,000 per incident. So they got the numbers a little more palatable, but it is going to be difficult. You're now, when you are sued, people will probably ask for those limits, and your insurance will probably go up

for

that amount. So other things that we did. In the agriculture bill, it says that you cannot prohibit gas powered lawn blowers. We also spent an inordinate amount of time on an ordinance for banning diversity, equity, and inclusion. So you cannot do anything, and you can have fines if you do anything that promotes the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The bill is very confusing. There are tons of exceptions. So, for instance, people said, well, can the city support Black History Month? So eventually, the exception that they did said that if it's a national holiday, yes, the city can support it. But where you're going to be able to draw the line gets really difficult.

Because if you do anything for one particular group, for instance, supporting a St. Patrick's Day parade, you may be in trouble. So you're going to have to keep referring to your attorney every time you want to do anything that supports one particular group. Other things that we did, I don't know if you have any utility services outside of your area. But if you do, you are you're only allowed oh, you do. Okay. Then you're only allowed to charge up to 25% for people who are outside of your area.

Which were already in that.

Are you? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's troubling. We also passed a law that you can't have any policies that are net zero for carbon emissions.

So if you want to do something that's specifically targeted on the environmental impacts, you have to make sure that it has an economic reason, and not just an environmental reason. So for instance, if support electric buses, you're going to have to prove that it was done for an economic reason, and not necessarily for a carbon emission reason. Other things that we did. Oh, yes. You have to put more information on your websites.

And as part of that same bill, you have to do a cost cutting exercise where you cut 10% of your budget in the exercise, but you don't actually have to go through with it. You just have to show what would happen, how you could do a potential 10% cost cutting exercise. And that's not even everything. So just want you to know, it was a really tough year on preemption. And I'm really sorry that there was so much, but this seemed to be a theme of this legislative session. And I'll let my colleagues speak a little.

Thank you, Senator Berman. And you have been an awesome leader, and I've enjoyed getting to know you a little bit better and seeing you up there. I will say that it's not easy. One thing I want to talk about is, like the mayor was texting me while I was on the floor, and I'm like, Senator Berman, once something gets on the floor, is there anything that Representative Gerwig is going to be able to do or say about it? Too late. Late. Too late. So that's part of this process, is by the time it gets to the floor, it's too late. I want to talk about a couple of the bills that I got passed. They're still waiting for the governor.

He hasn't signed any of these yet. But I did one for Palm Beach County, which will allow it's been this way forever. It's those little plants in here. They have those bugs in them. Pardon me. No, it's been this way forever. I think it's the plants. But anyways, we did a bill for child care where the State of Palm Beach County used the health department's rules for child care for the number of children you could watch at a home. And we changed it to the same thing that 64 other counties use, which is Department of Children and Families. Just makes a lot more sense.

So we corrected that. That was a local bill. And I want to talk about a local bill, because a local bill is something that we can pass. The delegation here does locally. It still has to get approved up there. So we'll be talking about a local bill for now that bugs are over here. Brought him over. But I'm going to be talking about a local bill for Lake Wellington, because there was not another municipality in the state of Florida that had an issue with the thing that we've had an issue here with, which is gasoline powered engines on our lake. So I'll be proposing it as a local bill since I got zero traction across the state for that one. It is a unique setting that we have.

So that's, you know, if I get back up there, I'll be doing that one as a local bill. Also, my favorite bill was the teacher certification. And by chance, it came out to be HB five sixty one. So and you know I didn't pick No, yeah, it was HB five sixty one. And it's going to help us get qualified teachers back into the classroom and let them get their certifications back for no cost through the David C. Anken Center for Teacher Excellence out of USF. So it's a great bill. I got a lot of attention for that one. Also, one I got more attention for was the one I didn't get passed, which was my Department of Health bill. It had cousin marriage in it.

So, yes, so when you hear people talking about About

in favor of it or opposed to it?

Well, you know what, I'm just saying, if you have a hot cousin, it's time to do that, to marry her now or him now, because I think next year it probably will get through. But yeah, it was a train. And I didn't know, you know this, and you've experienced it, but I didn't know, a train is a bill you have that has seven or eight different things in one department, which is the Department of Health. And everybody, when your bill is still alive and theirs isn't, they all want to add something onto it. So I think my train, the cousin

They crash

a lot.

They crash. They get derailed. But in the meantime, that's not the reason it derailed. It really had a lot of things added on and it became off the rails. So next year I'm going to try again. Hopefully the Department of Health will let me carry that bill because I worked pretty hard on it. One I did get passed is clinical laboratory personnel bill, which is right now the state of Florida has criteria for clinical lab workers that is different than the federal. And it's not necessarily stricter or looser, it's just different. So we have difficulty getting lab technicians to work in the state of Florida. And I said, well, I don't want to do something that's going to get less quality.

Right now, if you have any tests run, they're going to send your results to Tennessee and read them by someone with that other certification. So this is not going to affect anything other than make it easier for you to get your results quicker and closer to home. So the other thing I wanted to talk about, because it's happened here locally, and I know the senator has probably seen this too, the e bike issue. We've had a very tragic accident here recently with a young person on a motorized skateboard, I believe, and an e bike. So we started that one.

We got into really mostly a study it situation and find out how we can make it safer. Honestly, on the way over here I saw an e bike popping a wheelie down Forest Hill Boulevard in three lanes of traffic. You saw it too, yeah. It was you, it was you. Yeah, probably was. But in the meantime we're seeing more and more of those accidents. So we're trying to get some control over that one. And I think that's one of the things that you guys can help us with. You know, send that data in when you see those accidents that are so tragic. Wasn't in the village, it was east of the village.

It's closer to my office. But in the meantime, that's something that we are really trying to get a handle on, but we want to get it right. We don't want to do something statewide that creates a bigger problem than it solves. And my favorite thing I did? The tax package. You don't even know this. You probably didn't know this. In the tax package, they set up the dates for the school supply tax holiday, and it was set up for the month of August. School starts August 6 in some counties, and here it's usually around the eleventh or twelfth. And that didn't give the moms enough time to shop, so we got it moved I got it moved to July 20 to August 20.

Same amount of days, just move it up a little bit to give the moms a little more time, because that's something I heard a lot about when it happened. It was great, but it needed to be done sooner when I could still have some paycheck money in between. So do you have any questions? You guys have questions about what we did?

One, on your e bike, what you're working on, are you also including the e scooters?

Yes. Yes, it's all those. It's all that. And those things are I'll hard to just do. Say we'll talk.

Yeah, yeah.

I just wanted to real briefly talk a little bit about property tax, because you might have all heard about this. So we are going back for a session to do the budget at some point. We have been called back on Monday to do a congressional redistricting. There are rumors that it might be pushed back. We don't know. We'll find out. We have not gotten any more information. And then the third big special session item probably will be property taxes. There may be some AI in, which actually we should talk about that data center bill a little bit also. So on the issue of property taxes, the House did pass a bill.

I think it eliminates pretty much all property taxes. The schools. Oh, except for schools. And emergency Fire department, yes, fire and police. But that did not pass in the Senate, so don't get nervous about it. We don't know what the final proposal could be. It could be raising the homestead exemption. A lot of people would love to see a change on the portability. I mean, there's some good ideas out there, and then there's some ideas that are really gonna handicap our cities and counties. So what and and, as everyone should know, it does have to be on the ballot.

So it will be on the November ballot. And if you're gonna change anything with property tax, everybody gets to vote on it. But I ask all of you here in the audience, especially, to understand the ramifications of any changes that we make on property taxes. Does it mean that your, parks are only going to be open one day a week? Does it mean that your trash is not gonna be picked up as often? Does it mean that your roads won't be paved as often? So, we don't know what the final bill is. We don't know what the impact. We're asking the League of Cities to continue to work and give us the impact of whatever final bill is passed. But just be aware that it will have ramifications. And if you want to just talk about the data center also.

Yes. And we had, there were several versions of the data center. And what happens is, like the property tax bill, there was no property tax proposal from the Senate. There was only from the House. And there were six of them.

And they got whittled down to one, which I've already talked to all of you about that I did not support, because I didn't think it made any sense. So we were waiting for the Senate to come up with one, and they started talking about raising homestead exemption. So that's the latest thing I heard from that side, was talking about raising So homestead we have to try to get all these things working together, and it really didn't happen. But on the issue of the property taxes, that one, the governor actually required us to take it up and still hasn't really had a proposal of his own in the process. So we're still working on those ideas to try to figure out a way to give tax relief.

But the one that the House passed does not offer any relief. It offers a shift where if you're a homesteaded property, you don't pay anything but school and the fire rescue MSTU would stay in. Everything else would have to be done with that other number that you just have to go without. So it really wasn't functional, depending on what city you were in. Some cities have no everything's homestead exempt. Very high numbers. So what are they going to operate on? So it'll be interesting if we actually do get that conversation going again, if we actually do get called back up there. And we don't really get to plan our summer. No.

No. We don't. No. And the redistricting conversation, too. I mean, all of that gets done behind closed doors. Laurie, you're in leadership, so you know more about that. Tell them how that happens, and then we find out after the decision is This

is going be a map drawn by the governor's office, is what I was told. And we have not had any input or seen anything.

Nothing.

When that happens, it's yay or nay?

Yes.

And the data center, we

did pass a bill.

Do you want to talk

about it Okay. So there was a conversation about whether it would have a sighting distance. And I'll tell you, when you think about the state of Florida, you guys know this better than anyone, we're very different. And we talked about how many feet it should be from a home. Well, in areas that only have one home, that might have been okay with some people. It didn't work statewide to do the siding element. So just getting it actually in the house heard was, I think, the third to the last day of session. So we did get it heard and we did pass it. But it only had some issues of when transparency had to happen. The rest of it got taken out.

Similar to the Live Local bill that was on there, SB. I think you guys might have wanted to ask about that one. That one had a lot of things in it that most of us didn't like. And most of them got shipped out by the Senate. So sometimes we hope that they take things out, and sometimes we hope they leave them in. So in that regard, the Live Local bill, really the parts that cities were mostly worried about, were taken out by the upper chamber.

What happened with SB 180? You guys were going to make changes to it. I

know what Senator Burman, happened to

no changes on SB 180. We had a great bill in the Senate, and we passed it. And it went all the way through, and it did not pass in the House. And it would have made it easier for governments to function the way they're supposed to function. But it did not pass.

And three ninety nine, like I said, a lot of that got taken out. The one that did go through that was supposed to be the Live Local update took out a lot of the really scary things for the city. So it wasn't as bad as it could have been. It really could have been a lot worse.

Happy to answer any questions. We

appreciate you both coming. I mean, we have another former House member behind you waiting to talk as well. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Senator Byrne, for your service for sixteen years. It's a long time. And thank you, former mayor, current representative Grover, for your service. You might be there sixteen years as well. I know you probably want

to be.

I don't know if

you have sixteen years left of me, Mayor.

Alan wants you to serve sixteen years. Anyway, thank you both for being here. We appreciate your service and your information.

That brings us to the next presentation item, and we have Clerk of Court and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Mike Caruso here. Mr. Caruso?

Good evening. All I have to say is I'm so glad I'm not in Florida House anymore. Wow, what a nightmare. And things used to run so smoothly. It's not them. They are great leaders in the Florida House. They do an excellent job. And they represent Wellington well. They do a great job. Mayor Napolion, thank you

for I'm inviting me here not Purcell.

Paisans, right? Thank you for inviting me here today. Other council members, thank you. Congratulations to Councilmember Meyer and Levin. Congratulations. I saw the sweet taste of victory on your faces while you were getting your pictures taken. It was a beautiful thing. And you were well loved. You know, when I was appointed clerk of court and comptroller back in August by the governor, I set out five priorities for for the position. One was to modernize vendor payments in our in our county.

Insanely enough, at the county level, all invoices, 10,000,000,000 a year of invoices are processed by hand. They get to my office, the clerk's office, and we download them onto a system, and then approve them finally, and go from there. But I wanted to get that. And we're in process of doing that. It's gonna take a little bit.

Advocate for a statewide, unified, searchable database. Tying in all the databases from all 67 counties. So that if you're an attorney, or you need to look up something, say a criminal record on a certain individual, you can search all 67 counties in the state of Florida with one search. Not having to do 67 of them, as you have to do now. And I'm working with the Florida Clerks and Comptroller's Association to get that underway.

Maintain sound investments. I'm in responsible for all the investments of the county. Currently, have about $6,000,000,000 under my signature, and we invest that. Last year, we earned $222,000,000 on those investments, And which are very regulated and what I'm allowed to invest in. So we were proud of that.

And then to protect our citizens from guardianship fraud, and from property deed frauds, and other scams. And that's what I'm here to talk about today. And to quote Anne Gagas of the Palm Beach Post, 'Tis the season for scamming. And it's sad, but I'm sure everyone in this room today got texts, emails, and phone calls from all scams, right? We're all subject to it every single minute of every single day. And it's got to stop. It's getting out of hand. So know, throughout, that's what's happening. It's coming in from every direction. And these calls, they focus group their scripts.

So they're trained professionals going after us rookies. And their scripts are flawless. They're perfect. They're they're written to motivate and incentivize, and and to put fear in you, and put a sense of urgency in you, so that you make a rash decision, and give them your money when they shouldn't be getting it. According to the Federal Trade Commission, it was $12,500,000,000 in scams stolen from citizens of The United States this year.

But they also continue to go on, about 95%, 90 to 90 five percent of those that are not reported, of individuals that get scammed, because they're embarrassed. So, the number's really like $160,000,000,000 And of course, where does Florida land? Number one in the country of scams. We have, per 100,000 people, we are first, with the highest number. In fact, we had over 21,300 reported scams last year alone.

Well, in the first three quarters of last year, which is insane. And no longer are they obvious. No longer is it some body calling you regarding an inheritance from a prince in Uganda, okay? And if you pay the tax on the inheritance, you'll get the $10,000,000 transferred due, as long as you pay that $20,000 tax. Nor is it the old, you owe the IRS, and if you meet us in the parking lot of Walgreens with gift cards, we'll take care of that liability for you.

No, they are trained professionals. It would be like, if anybody plays baseball, it would be like you, any one of us walking up to the plate, Nolan Ryan pitching a 102 mile an hour fastball. You're not just not gonna hit it. Not a chance. And so that's kind of the chance we have. So, give me an idea how, where they are, what types are out there. There's that concern the clerk's office. Those include the, there's a scam for driving citations. Anybody get a driving citation here? No?

Okay, yeah. We all get them. Eventually, we've all had one, somewhere, somewhere. I'm gonna say most of us, I know I have. And that citation, it's the clerk's office.

Hi, this is Mike Caruso, your county clerk, and just a courtesy call, you have a outstanding traffic citation. And, but before I get started, and it's due tomorrow at 05:00, and if it's not paid by, and we don't receive payment by 05:00 tomorrow, you'll lose, your license will be suspended, the fines will double, and next time you get pulled over, you could be arrested. Okay, they put fear in you, and they have a sense of urgency, right in that one sentence there. That's what they're doing. What people don't know is they're gonna confirm who you are.

So they're is this Mike Caruso? Do you live at 111 Dixie Highway in West Palm Beach, Florida? And you say, yes, yes, yes. Are you, were you born in 1958? Yes, I was.

And on and on and on about all the information that's already on your driver's license, but they know it because what people don't know is traffic citations are public record. And so, know all this information, and they dupe you into passing on your credit card information onto eventually you've given that information to a felon. They even charge you the 4% fee for your credit card to make it legit, okay? And it's just wrong. What I tell people, no matter how good it sounds, no matter how much truth they give you, like all that information on your traffic citation, which is public record, okay, no matter how good that is, if you have a mustard seed of doubt, and that should flare up when they ask you for a credit card, don't give your info out.

Just don't give it out. So, when in doubt, don't give your info out. And in fact, here's another general rule. If anybody ever calls you, texts you, or emails you

Never answer.

Well, yeah, never answer. That's a good thing too, but if anybody communicates to you, and eventually asks for a credit card, hang up. It's not maybe a scam, it's always a scam. Always, a 100% of the time, Because legitimate organizations don't do that. And another one, jury duty scam.

Okay, and you know, if you got a jury notice, a summons recently, it's got my name on it, okay. And they call and they say, this is so and so from the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office. There's an outstanding warrant for your arrest for failure to show up for jury duty. And your response, nine out of 10 times, is I never got the summons. And they say, well, that may be the case, but it was sent out, and you failed to respond to it, and nonetheless there's a warrant out for your arrest.

And then they work you through the system, and using the real names of real Palm Beach sheriff deputies, okay. And they work you through the system, and eventually they ask for your credit card. Dollars 1,200 on this one, okay. They're so good. They're so good that while I got I got a call a week after I became clerk of court, okay. And I'm not allowed to serve jury duty, okay. But a week after I I became clerk of court, in August, I get a call from this scammer. And it's so good. The script is perfect. And I'm sitting there, I'm just freaking out that I can't have a warrant out for my arrest.

I'm the freaking clerk, you know. And so I I pick up my wife's phone and I call Rick Bradshaw, Okay? And and I go, Rick, but you know, I tell him, got them on hold, and I tell him, he says, Mike, hang up the phone. Hang up the phone, it's a scam. I said, Rick, no, it's really good. He says, yeah, it's really good, and it's really a scam. He says, Mike, let me put it to you this way. If there's a warrant out for your arrest, I'm not gonna give you a courtesy call. I'm gonna send my deputies out to your home, knock on the door, if you don't answer we're gonna bang it down, we'll throw you on the ground, put your hands behind your back, drag you to a squad car, and take you to Dunclub Road, lock you up. No courtesy calls.

Is the sheriff here? Is that the way it works, right? That is the way it works. So, yeah, so, but here's the worst one. Because if you get caught on those, they've taken $500 a thousand, maybe $5,000, because they got your credit card information. I don't know what your limits are on your credit card. But here's, that that's a bad day, that's a bad week, that's a bad month, but that's not gonna change your life. Here's what does change your life. These crooks are no longer happy. They're no longer satisfied with taking the junk in your home.

They don't want your TVs, they don't want your VCRs, they, does anybody have a VCR still? No, I see a few hands. Representative, don't admit to that. Okay. We need to know our representatives, or more in today's time.

He's coming tomorrow, one

to check some more.

Okay, okay. But they don't want your VCRs. They want the title to your property. And they file a quitclaim deed, it takes them an hour. They file the deed in the courthouse. Within a week they borrow money against it. Within a month they sell it. Somebody knocks on your door, okay, and they say, who are you? And you say, I'm Mike Caruso, I'm the homeowner. And they say, no, we just purchased this property this morning.

Okay, of course it's a dad, it's a mom, it's two little kids, okay, because they're they're the innocent ones that bought it from the bad guy who stole your property. And of course, the the little girl's looking up goes, Daddy, Daddy, is is there a problem? Are we moving into our home? You know, and and and if you're nice, if if you're lucky, you're the one, you get to, they give you two hours to get your stuff, okay, before you go to the hotel. Because you're going to call the police, and they're going to call the police. But all the paperwork that's filed shows that they own the home, not you. And so you end up having to live in the hotel. It's not pretty. What do we have to stop that? Okay.

Yes, please. This is the good news.

We'd like the good news.

Okay. And I'm working with the legislature, and I'll be back next year to try to get a bill passed. It gives me more tools in my toolbox to fight this at the inception before the property is stolen. But in the meantime, we've got what we call property fraud alert. And I've got some flyers. I think they're back on the table there. And my deputy chief's over there. Shannon Chespin. You all know Shannon? She's local here in Wellington.

But it looks like this, it's called property fraud alert. What we do is we attach your email address to your property. And if there's any activity on your property, okay, what we do is then we email you immediately. Tell you that there's, here's the activity, we show you, you click on the link, we show you the activity. Now, if it's, if you click on it, and it's your plumber, and he filed mechanics lien on your home, because he's doing your kitchen, you go, okay, good, good, I'm glad I got this, because now I know before I pay him his last payment, I need to make sure I get a release of lien.

That's good. But if it's Fernando Hernandez from Venezuela, that you transferred your property to for $10 another consideration, you got a problem. And so we instruct you to call us, and we're gonna end up having you file a police report with the sheriff's office, come into the clerk's office, the courthouse, and file and fill out an application for a quiet title. Once you file a quiet title, we'll get a judge to review it and sign off on it, and that locks your property down. And then you can rest assured that nobody's going anywhere with your home.

And then we'd show you how to undo that bad title that's been filed against your home. So I encourage everybody to sign up for property fraud alert. You go to mypalmbeachclerk.com/pfa. And it's all written on this little flyer, and we're gonna pass those out. But mypalmbeachclerk.com/pfa.

And you can add your email address, your spouse's email address, your attorney's email address, your CPA's email address, and anybody else you want on there. And everybody will get notified. I recommend that you tell people that you're putting their email on there, so that they do see it, they get ahold of you immediately. Because you don't want a week to go by. And the last thing there, you know, we're out here in Wellington. And I know a lot of people think they've got to go to Downtown West Palm Beach in order to get services that we offer, okay? But you could go right to Royal Palm. We have an office in Royal Palm. We have an office in Belgrade, a courthouse in Belgrade. And there's less waiting, there's less traffic, and there's free parking.

Okay? And when I say less waiting, you won't wait an hour to get to see a deputy clerk. You'll get walked, you'll get right in. If you go to Royal Palm, they'll they'll hold a party if you show up, okay? And I know that's not far from here. So, and what kind of services you can make a payment on, your traffic tickets, your court fees, your child support, or established payment plans. And we've got payment plans as small as 1.5 so don't don't let your traffic citation go past the date due, when you could just put down 1.5 and get a payment plan, and you don't get your license suspended. Record a document, file mortgages, deeds, notice of commitments, and more. We do weddings at both those locations. You can get your marriage license and get married there.

And if you call me up, I'll marry you. And obtain and file legal forms. We have all the forms there. We'll even help you fill them out. And then domestic violence petitions, and we help you with that. And apply for a passport. We've got it all. And it's right there at Royal Palm and out there in Belgrade. And I appreciate the opportunity. I give my cell phone number out, if that's okay.

It's (561) 702-9319. That's 5617029319. If you have any any question, or you need any help with anything, especially this property fraud alert, I don't care if it's Sunday night at 10:00, and you're trying to fill it out and you can't figure it out, I want you to call me, okay, or text me. And you say, why would you do that, clerk? There's a million six people here.

It's because I'd rather get that call on a Sunday night at 10:00, than get the call two months later, where you tried to do it but you didn't do it. And then two months later you're calling me from a motel room crying that somebody has stolen your property, and that's life changing. And I don't, I've gotten those calls, I don't want those calls ever again. So please sign up on property fraud alert. 650,000,000, thousand properties in Palm Beach County, according to Alexia Cox, our state prosecutor.

Two years ago we had four cases. Four cases, four properties stolen, that's 650,000, not too bad. A year ago we had 32 cases. Last year, 09/30/2025, we had 184 cases. We're five months into this year, we're at five fifteen cases. We'll have 1,500 by the end of the year. Next year we'll have about 8,000. 8,000 cases, meaning two of you in here will not be here at the 2027, because somebody will have stolen your Wellington home. Okay? And we don't want that to happen. Okay? So please sign up for property fraud alert. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council members.

Thank you for the information. We appreciate you coming out. Thank you. Thank you. Well, on that light note, Mr. Barnes.

Ponder some good news, we have this evening on third item for presentations is we have the Wellington Community Foundation with a check presentation and funding approval for some of our great community programs. Mr. Williams will kick us off with this item.

Now we're talking. Mr. Williams, the floor is yours.

Good evening council. I'd like to say congratulations to our two newly appointed council members, and I'd also like to say congratulations to our new vice mayor. The village of Wellington is proud to work alongside an organization that truly embodies their mission of building stronger communities. The Wellington Community Foundation is that organization. And they recently approved funding for a number of initiatives that will impact our children, our seniors, as well as our veterans.

Let's get into it. The holiday toy drive, $4,000, which will bring joy in the lives of over 300 children within our community. The boys and girls club summer camp, $6,000, which provides a safe space for our children to feel like they can grow, they can learn and they can build lasting connections. The back to school drive in which we were awarded $7,500 in which we provide children the necessary essentials for their first day of class for them to feel confident and prepared. The Vince Ramos Therapeutic Riding Center, if you don't know about that program, it is absolutely amazing.

And they've awarded us $20,000 and that's going to be equine therapy for our uniquely abled children at both Palm Beach Central High School and Wellington High School. Our Village Park Summer Camp scholarships was awarded $8,000 in which we're providing children regardless of their financial situation, the opportunity to have a meaningful summer experience. And then we have our senior monthly luncheons. We love our seniors in community services and we love the opportunity to hang out with them, connect and socialize. And we truly believe that this allows them to enhance the quality of their lives.

And then we were also awarded $2,000 for our bicycle assistance program and $1,000 for our youth council. All this being said, I just want to share with you that the Wellington Community Foundation truly is a community partner. And on behalf of the village of Wellington, we would like to extend our gratitude and say thank you, thank you, thank you for your dedication to our community. And with that said, I'd like to bring up Jim Sackett to say a few words.

He's much better than Clerk Caruso.

Thank you very much for that introduction. Good evening all. How are you? Congratulations to our new council members here this evening. My name is Jim Sackett, and I have the distinct pleasure of serving as the chair of the Wellington Community Foundation. And as I introduce myself, I'd like to take a moment to ask my fellow foundation board members to stand so that I may introduce them as well. Now, not all of them were able to make it, but I want to run down all of the names of our board members. Our vice chair is Pam Tehan. Our treasurer is Hope Baron. Secretary is Terry Cain.

The immediate past chair of the foundation is Barry Manning. James Cedar, Kevin Shapiro, Maggie Zeller, JP Viverigos, Michael Gauger, Roxanne Stein, Joanna Boynton, and the board's two newest directors, Joe Gibbons and Jeff Frommecht. And the board's executive director is with us this evening, Don Rivera. Our foundation was founded on the principle of building a stronger community by supporting initiatives uplifting our seniors, our children, and our veterans, ensuring our neighbors in need have access to opportunities that enhance their quality of life. Tonight, I am pleased and honored to announce that the Wellington Community Foundation's Board of Directors has approved and will be awarding the village of Wellington $56,000 in funding to support multiple initiatives in collaboration with the village of Wellington.

Our foundation believes in the transformative power of community driven initiatives, and are delighted to support the village's efforts. And you heard Ian mention some of these. I'll just run down them very, very quickly. The Holiday Toy Program, the Boys and Girls Club Summer Camp, the back to school events, the Vince A Ramos Therapeutic Riding Center Program, the Village Park Summer Camps, the monthly luncheons for our seniors here in Wellington, the bike assist program, the youth council. Now these are these are programs that help youngsters and others in our community help make them make decisions in their lives.

But these are not just programs that we are funding. They are lifelines. They represent our commitment to addressing the hidden needs in our community. A place where affluence and need can go and coexist in very surprising ways. This is only possible because of the dedication and the leadership of the Wellington Village Council and the community services department here in the village, which aligns seamlessly with the vision and the mission of the foundation.

So on behalf of the Wellington Community Foundation, I extend our deepest gratitude for your commitment, your collaboration, and your service. We look forward to continuing this effort and making, working together to make an even greater impact in 2026 and beyond. And thank you for listening this evening. Have a nice day.

We have a big novelty check here from you guys, which I hope is can I hope we can cash it? But we appreciate so much what the foundation has done since your inception in 2015 and just, you know, almost 11. You guys have become such an institution, and you've done so much good for the community. And people should know, this is a check they're giving us. We're not giving them the check. They've collected money, and they're giving it to us to spend on all these programs. So what you guys do is amazing. We appreciate you. We appreciate all of your board members, your past and present board members, and all the members. So thank you all so much for what you do. And I think we'll take a photo with the check.

Yes. And thank you for all of your support.

Thank you.

The rest of the council.

It doesn't fit in the ATM though.

No.

Good to see

Jim, any more checks?

Not anymore checks, but we have one more presentation this evening.

CareerSource. It will be clear.

So I'm begin vice mayor.

Oh, yeah. I gotta help her a little bit. Where's yours?

Nope. Help her. Alright.

Brings us to our next and last presentation item, which is presentation by the resource of Palm Beach County. And we have mister Charles Duvall here as a resource to make a presentation this evening. Jim, is your mic on?

Is it? All right.

Yes, it is. The light's on. I don't know what to do.

Sure someone will be out to I'm help you

running up any second.

Anyway, good evening. Evening, counsel.

My name is

Charles Duvall. I'm the associate vice president for business development at CareerSource Palm Beach County and also the apprenticeship navigator for CareerSource Palm Beach County. The during the week of April 26 through May 2 is National Apprenticeship Week. And to celebrate, CareerSource Palm Beach County in partnership with the village of Wellington is putting on our apprenticeship and skilled trades fair. Now, we are putting this event on specifically to address the shortage of talent in the skilled trades areas.

Nationwide, this area is experiencing a gap in skills and also a gap in labor. And we aim to address that by doing what we can to address those needs in Palm Beach County. Our event will have more than 20 vendors there, all representing our apprenticeship sponsors, employers, and educational institutions who all work in trades or educate on the trades as well. Apprenticeships are a wonderful way to address the skills gap that we are experiencing in several industries. And the key features of apprenticeship programs that address those types of skills gaps are that apprentices are able to learn while they earn.

They're paired with a journeyman mentor who's able to teach them the trade. They get a industry recognized credential upon completion, and they are able to increase their wages as they gain more experience. So apprenticeships are really a key to addressing some of these shortages. And they're part of CareerSource Palm Beach County's broader plan to address the workforce here in Palm Beach County. One population that apprenticeships work very well for are young people.

They also work very well for veterans, people and other people who may have traditional barriers to employment. And so we're very delighted to be able to offer this opportunity. We are going to have several vendors, including Florida Crystals and FinFroc and other companies who hire. We're also going to have representatives from the plumbing trades, electrical trades, as well as HVAC as well. This event is going to be on April 30 at 09:00 here at the Wellington Community Center. And once again, the partnership that we've developed with the Village of Wellington has been wonderful. You all have been wonderful. We appreciate it. And we look forward to holding this event on the thirtieth.

Thank you so much. We appreciate everything CareerSource does and especially what you do for us. Here a lot. We love everything you guys do. Thank you for coming.

We look

forward to that program. Do we have any cards for consent?

None for consent. No cards for consent.

We don't have any cards for consent. We do not.

I'm helping the vice mayor her first night with the cards. Okay. Mister Barnes.

That brings us to the consent agenda and staff recommends approval of the consent agenda as presented.

Is there a motion?

So moved. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Consent agenda is approved, five zero.

That brings us to our public hearings this evening and first item is ordinance number twenty twenty five dash 26, which is the 14833 50th Street comprehensive plan amendment And a companion item with that is ordinance number twenty twenty five dash 27, 14833 50th Street rezoning.

Ordinance number twenty twenty five dash 26, an ordinance of Wellington, Florida's council amending the site specific conditions of the future land use map approval for certain property known as 14833 50th Street South, totaling approximately 59.3 acres, more or less, located on the Northeast Corner of 50th Street South and Owsley Farms Road, as more specifically described herein deleting the site specific conditions adopted by ordinance two thousand five nineteen as part of the future land use map designation updating the legal description referenced in ordinance number two thousand five nineteen, providing a conflicts clause, providing a severability clause, and providing an effective date, ordinance number '20 25 dash '27 and ordinance of Wellington, Florida's council approving a rezoning to modify Wellington's official zoning map for certain property known as 14833 50th Street South from Equestrian Residential to Equestrian Commercial recreation, totaling approximately 49.273 acres, more or less, located on the Northeast Corner of 50th Street South and Owsley Farms Road, as more specifically described herein, providing a conflicts clause, providing a severability clause, and providing an effective effective date. Date.

Before we start, one of the items is legislative. One of the items is quasi judicial. Does the applicant wish to combine those hearings into one hearing? Yes? Okay. So if you intend to be heard tonight on this issue, would you raise your right hand? Mr. Volpe, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And ex party disclosures, please.

What's that oh, you all show on the pie. You know what that means. You've done this.

The story with me?

Yeah. I spoke with the applicant's representative, Ash Atkins, doctor Lund, Lauren Brody, Jill Talison, Rick Marshall, Phoebe Wesley, Aurora Galba, and Marie Brennan. And I could be fair and impartial.

Can you generally describe the substance

of Sure.

So the applicant representative went through the the the request with me through a Zoom call. And the other individuals I spoke to, spoke to them about what their thoughts were for the applicant for the application.

And you can bear

with very impartial.

Thank you.

Vice mayor?

Staff, David Milledge. And I can be very impartial. We discussed the

presentation of what they're going to present tonight. Thank you.

This has been percolating for a long time, so I think I've spoken to the applicant, to staff, to Scott and Lord Lyons, to Kathleen Gannon, to the woman who owns Aaron Holdings, whose name I can never remember, and she's here. I'm sorry of that. And Katie thank you. And Katie Edwards. And I can be fair and impartial. We spoke generally about the application. Please don't yell out from the crowd. Thank you.

I spoke with David Milledge, Kristi Lund, Gail Bailey, and staff about the rezoning and the application, and I can be fair and impartial.

I spoke with the applicant's representative, David Millage. I spoke with staff. I spoke with Glenn Fleisher of the Equestrian Preserve Committee. Content of the application, I can be fair and impartial.

Thank you.

Evening. Kelly Ferriolo, Planning and Zoning. Before you tonight are the Comprehensive Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Petition Number twenty twenty five-three DOA and Rezoning, Petition Number twenty twenty five-two REZ for 14833 50th Street South, which I would like to enter all files into the record. The 59.3 acre property is located on the Northeast corner of Austley Farms Road And 50th Street South. The eastern portion of the property has a future land use map designation of residential B shown in yellow.

And the remaining of the the remainder of the property is equestrian commercial wreck, which is the green hatching. The entire property has a zoning designation of Equestrian Residential and is within sub area C of the Equestrian Overlay Zoning District. The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to eliminate the site specific conditions of the future land use map approval associated with ordinance number 22,000 five-nineteen under section two and to update the legal description referenced in this ordinance. NRE zoning to rezone a 49.3 acre portion of the site that has a future land use map designation of equestrian commercial rec from equestrian residential, Equestrian Overlay Zoning District to Equestrian Commercial Rec Equestrian Overlay Zoning District to make the zoning designation consistent with the future land use map. The agent, Schmidt Nichols, and their team will be making their presentation first on behalf of the applicant, and staff will follow-up with the presentation after.

Great. Good evening, counsel. David Millich for the record here on behalf of the applicant. And let's walk you through this presentation. So as Kelly had mentioned, we are we do have two applications tonight.

One is a development order amendment for the ordinance February as well as a rezoning of the property or a portion of the property from ER to ECR. We've been to EPC and PZAB where we received recommendations of approval. This is the location of the property. It's at the Southwest quadrant of the village. It's approximately 60 acres, and it's mostly vacant today with some activity in the southwest corner of the property.

So historically, in 2007, there was a future land use map amendment where the property was the designation was changed from residential A to ECR as well as residential B. On the left is the aerial of this portion of the village, really quite rural. There was some development, but really not a lot. With this ordinance, 10,000 square feet of restaurant, 7,500 square feet of office, a 5,000 square foot vet, 2,000 stalls, 60 RVs, and two residences were approved through the ordinance. And just as context, Pod F of Wellington International was approved with 1,500 stalls on nearly 80 acres, where this was 2,000 stalls on six or approximately 50 acres.

On the right hand side is an aerial of 2,005 or sorry, twenty twenty five, which shows you how much this area has grown. And with any growth, services are needed. With the 2005, or was approved in 2007, ordinance, what this did was this created an inconsistency between the future land use map and the zoning. And also there, as Kelly had mentioned, there is a error in the legal description, so the proposal tonight will fix that error. So tonight, what this ordinance to twenty twenty twenty five dash 26, this will remove the use limitations that were passed nearly twenty years ago.

And at this time of the village, the village didn't look at the zoning as related to uses, it looked at the land use. And then with an application coming in, they looked specifically at the uses that were being proposed. So these are the reasons why these limitations were included within that ordinance, not because the village was trying to restrict this to only a show venue, which there is no market for a show venue here anymore with expansion of Wellington International. But that was the way that the village did it back in 2020 or sorry, 2007. Again, this ordinance will fix this legal description error.

It actually brings things into regulatory alignment because the future land use map will now be consistent with the rezoning, and it allows for the village to impose conditions not on this ordinance, but actually on a future master plan or site plan approval. Graphically, this is what would change on the map by fixing that surveying error, But it's important to note that the acreages are remaining the same. So for the next request, we have the rezoning. So this is rezoning approximately 49 acres. This is consistent with the existing ECR land use.

So the purpose here is that it resolves this regulatory inconsistency and it also eliminates potential financing difficulties by having this inconsistency. The Florida courts believe that the land use and zoning should be consistent. Your own LDRs mandate that this rezoning happen based off of section one point six point one point e point seven, where it requires the village council to assign a zoning designation consistent with the land use, and then also within LDR Section six point one point two. So with this, the scope of the application, this is rezoning only that specific portion that has a current ECR land use. The remaining 10 acres remain ER and residential B.

And the impact of this rezoning is that it makes them consistent and also brings it into compliance with section six point one point two point k. Graphically, again, this is what the zoning map will look like. The ECR zoning would be the exact same as the ECR land use. We meet all the requirements and criteria of the village council's code and comprehensive plan and happy to answer any questions as it relates to these requests.

Thank you. You were brief on time. What we've been generally doing is allowing you guys to go, then staff to make comments, then public comment, and then we would question everyone.

We do have interested parties, so we'll need to incorporate

Should we go before staff or after this gentleman?

The interested parties would go after

After staff? After staff. Okay. Before public. I didn't get that.

Could you try again?

Should I repeat it? No. Mister Sillings. Speak

into the microphone. I

got it.

Okay. So we'll have staff, interest parties, then public comment, then questions.

Okay. Just a little history on the property. The the property is also known as Littlewood Equestrian Center. In 2007, ordinance number 2,005 dash 19 was approved, which amended the future land use map designation of 47.9 acres of the property from residential a to commercial rec and 10 acres from residential A to residential B. Throughout the public hearing discussions, the applicant at the time agreed to record a restrictive covenant on the property that was to be released in ten years that included site specific use limitations for the property.

The restrictive covenant was prepared. However, instead of being recorded, it was included in the land use ordinance, which was a typical practice at the time. The uses allowed on the property included equestrian show related facilities, a maximum of 2,000 permanent and temporary stalls, up to 60 RVs and two five acre equestrian residential properties. The zoning of the property was not changed at that time. In 2008, the property was purchased by its current owner who made various development order requests throughout the year but were eventually withdrawn.

In 2021, Wellington updated the comprehensive plan, which renamed Equestrian Commercial Properties I'm sorry, Commercial Recreation Properties within the EPA to Equestrian Commercial Recreation. The zoning map also renamed agricultural residential properties to Equestrian Residential. Like previously mentioned, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request is to eliminate the site specific conditions associated with Ordinance 2,000 and five-nineteen, which are shown on the right side of the slide. Putting development conditions on a comprehensive plan approval was a common practice at that time, which is no longer done today. In fact, staff typically clean up any past projects with entitlements set up this way as they are better placed on development orders, approving the projects such as master plans and site plans.

The original intent twenty years ago was to build an equestrian venue at this site. However, all venues today are located within Subarea D, and the property owner has no intention of developing an additional venue at this site. The request also includes updating the legal descriptions shown in the ordinance, which contain ambiguities that prevent boundary closures in accurately mapping the property. A letter provided by the surveyor has been included in the staff report depicting the best interpretation of the boundary. The development order requests are simply a cleanup, and no other entitlements are being requested tonight.

This slide shows the current future land use map on the left, showing an odd spike in the 10 acre residential portion of the property, and the proposed future land use on the right updates the boundary on the residential portion with a 90 degree angle, allowing the boundary to close. This slide shows the current zoning map on the left with the entire property identified with the equestrian residential zoning district. The proposed zoning map on the right shows the 49.3 acre portion of the property equestrian commercial rec. The 10 acre residential portion will remain equestrian residential. Part of staff's analysis is to determine if the request complies with Wellington's comprehensive plan, the land development regulations and other requirements.

A detailed analysis is included in the staff report. However, some key points are included in the next few slides. To implement the comprehensive plan, zoning districts are established in Section six point one point two of Wellington's LDR. All zoning districts shall be consistent with the respective future land use map designations of the comprehensive plan. The current zoning district of ER is not consistent with the property's future land use map designation as shown in the highlighted section of the slide, but is consistent with the ECR zoning district.

The request meets development requirements within Table 6.8-one shown on the right of the slide is consistent and compatible with the existing uses and surrounding zoning as this request is only a cleanup. There are change conditions that require the rezoning as the land use is not consistent with the zoning and the zoning should have changed when property's land use was modified in 2007. And the request would not result in adverse impacts on the environment as no entitlements are being requested. Both EPC and PZAB unanimously recommend approval of all requests, and the staff analysis concludes that the proposed requests comply with the requirements for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning. And this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you. Interested party, you've got twenty five minutes. Either microphone. If you have a PowerPoint, you want to be here.

And Mr. Volfbee, before you start, you had requested that the PowerPoint be entered into evidence. Do you want that to be entered?

Yes. I would like the PowerPoint to be entered into evidence in the record. And also, I provided the clerk with copy of the adoption documents for ordinance 2,005 dash 19 for the Littlewood Equestrian Center that were sent to the Department of Commerce is what it's currently called. But at the time, the state's land planning agency, which include all the background, the transcript of the hearings, the staff report. And I will touch on some of those items in my presentation.

So thank you, commissioners, council members. And my name is Robert Volpe. I'm with the law firm of Holtzman Vogel. I represent seven property owners that surround the the subject property. The interested parties are Ariane Holdings LLC, Happy Horse LLC, the William Edward Stitt revocable trust, Hiras La Mejicana Stables Florida LLC, StefX USA Inc, PPP forty LLC, and PPP forty one LLC.

And all of these, you can see on this map, the subject property is in the middle in blue and these are the properties that I represent as interested parties and there are many more that are outside of that 500 foot range that are

have

been engaged and interested in this amendment. I can say with certainty that all of these property owners object to these amendments. I believe there was a question earlier about additional time. I'm sure that I can cover everything in twenty five minutes. But I appreciate if I get to that time, if I could have few I more don't anticipate that taking so long. So first I want to address a few things that were made in the applicant's presentation and staff presentation. First, there are two amendments in front of you. A comprehensive plan future land use map amendment. And it's important to note that that's distinct from a text amendment. This is a change to the future land use map.

And a rezoning. You heard the applicant say that this was a development order amendment. That's because originally when this application was brought, the box was checked for this to be a development order amendment. It was processed as a development order amendment. It was found complete as a development order amendment.

It was presented to the Equestrian Preserve Committee and to the PZA and B, the Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board, as a development order amendment. It was not until we informed the village that this was actually a comprehensive plan amendment that the title was changed, but nothing in the background history or report has changed. So this item was not found complete as a comprehensive plan amendment. There are different standards in your code for what is required. It was found complete as a development order amendment.

There is no development order. A comprehensive plan amendment under Florida law is not a development order. There's specific definitions and a comprehensive plan amendment is not one of them. And so procedurally, this item is deficient. At the very least, it should be remanded back to the EPC and to the PZAB for review as a comprehensive plan amendment because it was presented to them incorrectly and it was presented as something that it is not.

And you heard that in the applicant's presentation when he mentioned that this was a development order amendment. I also want to mention that there was some mention of this being a cleanup item. This change, especially in the comprehensive plan amendment, is substantive. In 2005 or in 2007, when the Littlewood Equestrian Center ordinance was adopted, and I will show in my presentation, there was specific text that the commission, this council at the time, was concerned about full ECR development. They were concerned about commercial development being in this area and being not compatible with the surrounding adjacent uses.

You heard staff mention that this meets compatibility. There is no compatibility analysis at all in the application. Compatibility is standard under Florida law. There's case law and there are definitions of what is compatible uses residential against industrial. There's incompatibilities.

Usually residential against residential is compatible. There's no analysis anywhere in this application for compatibility. So the finding of compatibility doesn't have any basis. And that was the concern of this council in 2007 when they took two years to adopt the Littlewood Equestrian Center ordinance because they went through a detailed consideration of what could be used in this area. This was not equestrian commercial recreation.

It has never been complete equestrian commercial recreation. So if you were to remove these conditions, the proper move would be to revert back to the residential classification, the future land use classification that is on all of the surrounding properties. So this is what is in your staff report. This is the changes from that are proposed from the existing land use map to the future land use map, the proposed, and the existing zoning map to the proposed zoning map. But I wanna show you a zoomed out version.

This is your future future land use map. And if you can see all of this area in the light yellow is the residential A area. That is your most restrictive future land use map designation. It is one dwelling unit per 10 acres. The closest, and you can see this property, is an island within that area.

That's because it has these restrictions that are in this Littlewood Equestrian Center ordinance. This is not the same as the other parcels, the other properties that have ECR. It is a different specific designation. You don't look at the colors on the map to decide what the future land use is. You look at the ordinances that adopted that. And the ordinance that adopted this has specific restrictions. But this is an island. Right now, this is your zoning map. You can see there's nothing this is all equestrian residential low low density. There's no property that's any other designation within three quarters of a mile of this property to the north within three plus miles to the east.

This would create essentially a spot zoning. I know that it has been stated that this is to bring the zoning to be consistent with the future land use. But like I said, the current future land use is not full ECR. It is not full equestrian commercial recreation. Both of these ordinances or these proposals would expand those uses and would expand those allowances.

So you would create a zoning that is unlike anything around it, and that's the compatibility issue. I spoke about the ordinance. Really, this all comes back to what was adopted in 2007. Now it's not necessarily our our position that 2007, that council should be locked in stone. But it is our position that they had purpose behind what they did and the restrictions had meaning.

They were not a mistake. It was not something that they just did and now it should be undone. There was purpose behind it. The applicant voluntarily proposed these conditions after two years of working through these these issues. The village staff sought assurances from the applicant that the subject site would only be used for equestrian horse shows.

This was not something that was done by accident and should be cleaned up. This was something that the council at the time did not adopt this ordinance without those restrictions. And knowing that, any changes to that future land use map would be expanding the allowable uses and would be expanding the entitlements. I believe it was mentioned that there are no new entitlements. That's just unfortunately, that's just not true.

This would expand the entitlements in both the future land use designation and in the zoning. And an important point on that, your code requires a super majority vote for anything that expands the entitlements on a property. So there are some inconsistencies. And I know it was mentioned that it was found that there was a complete consistency between this application and the comprehensive plan. But there's nothing in the record, there's nothing in the application, and there's nothing in the staff report that conducts a consistency analysis.

A consistency analysis would normally look at every provision in your comprehensive plan and say, yes, this is consistent, or no, it's inconsistent. And those would either be addressed through a process of adopting a planned unit development or adopting a variance or finding some way to establish consistency. But there's no definite there's no nowhere in the record was that analysis done. It was just stated that it is consistent. So here's a specific substantive inconsistency.

Your equestrian commercial recreation land use, this is policy one point three point three of your comprehensive plan, says that equestrian commercial recreation use is limited to areas located within the equestrian preserve area located with frontage on an arterial or collector roadway. This is your map of this is your roadway classification map. The pink roads are minor collectors. The teal roads are arterials, and then the green are principal arterials. There is not a collector or arterial roadway within nearly two miles of this property.

There's no frontage. As comprehensive plan requires, there is no frontage on an arterial collector roadway. Now, the applicant might say that this is already ECR, and so therefore it is somehow grandfathered in. But we go back to the ordinance that was adopted did not establish full ECR use. So any increase or any expansion of entitlements must be consistent with your comprehensive plan, even if it is just a minor increase in entitlements.

And this policy shows that it's inconsistent. It does not have frontage on an arterial or collector roadway. That is a clear inconsistency with your comprehensive plan. Another inconsistency is with the bridal path requirements and your comprehensive plan. You this community, as you know, is established with an equestrian to preserve the equestrian lifestyle.

And part of that is the the network of bridal paths that runs throughout Wellington. Your comprehensive plan designates Owsley Farms Road, which is on the west side of this property as part of the bridal path network. And 50th Street South is also designated as a bridal path, allowing full commercial use with the the the traffic that is proposed with those commercial the possible commercial uses with the increase in intensity that would be allowed would have a negative impact on your bridle path network. That is in policy 2.3.2 of your equestrian element of your comprehensive plan. That's another inconsistency.

There are certainly more inconsistencies in this application. Like I mentioned, it is there is no consistency analysis anywhere in this application that would demonstrate what is required, which is full consistency. Second, I want to talk just for a second about the rezoning. We talked about compatibility. We talked about residential A.

This entire area is equestrian residential. You would be creating an incompatibility in that rezoning by putting full commercial uses next to your most restrictive residential designation. And finally, I want to talk about site plans. Now this is not a site plan. But I think it's important to know what is intended for this property.

This is a site plan that was submitted well, there is a site plan as part of the rezoning application. It's in the application materials. It's on your application website, and it's part of the record. This is an application that was submitted in February 2025 for both a development order amendment, which we've already established this is not, and a rezoning. It was then withdrawn one month later.

And in April, a new rezoning and new comprehensive plan amendment applications were filed. And those were the ones we hear today. So this shows what is labeled multiple times on this site plan as a biochar facility, which would essentially a facility that takes horse manure, burns it, and turns it into biochar. It's a manufacturing operation. It was then withdrawn and refiled a month later with this site plan.

Now this site plan, you can barely see it, but it labels these two pads as Ag exempt building one and Ag exempt building two. There's nothing in the application anywhere that cites to any exemption. There are specific exemptions for agricultural operations in Florida statute. 604.5 is an ag exemption. 823.14 is another ag exemption.

There's no references to any agricultural exemption. It's merely stamped on these two buildings. And several times in the staff report and in the applicant's report, they mention that this rezoning and this comprehensive plan amendment have nothing to do with the ag exempt operations. But certainly they would allow these operations and they're not ag exempt. There's no justification provided for this ag exemption.

So it's just taken on faith. But fortunately, Florida law requires justification for these type of amendments. So again, we urge you first, at the very least, to remand these to the EPC and the PZAB because it was presented incorrectly. But with the blatant inconsistencies with your comprehensive plan that could not be cured, I mean these are the bridal pass and the frontage on arterial and collector roadways, we would ask you to deny these applications. And again, I appreciate BERNANKE. Your

time. I'm available for questions. And I speak on behalf of all these interested parties. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Before we get to the cards, you got the cards handled? You're on top of it? Excellent. Ms. Cohen, these two applications, what's the vote required for each? Are they both three-two as one-four-one? What's the vote required for the comp plan and the rezoning?

I believe it's a three-two vote, just a majority, because you're not changing the you're not increasing the density or intensity of the use of the property.

Okay. So your position is that both these take a three-two vote?

Yes.

Okay. Let's get to the cards.

When I call your name, please step up to the podium, state your name and address.

Do you want to move

to open the public hearing?

We should do that. Make a motion.

Motion to open public hearing. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Public hearing is now open. Now you can get to the cards.

Mr. John Rosenberg?

Mayor and counsel?

Address.

Yes. My name is Johan Rosenberg. I'm an EPA resident and equestrian property owner at 4591 South Road. I stood in this chamber and supported the Podf zoning change. The community benefit was real.

Tonight, you're asked to grant the same equestrian commercial designation to a feed store, a manure transfer station, a biochar facility, and a vehicle repair base. The designation is identical. The community benefit is not. Your comprehensive plan restricts to properties fronting an question commercial to properties fronting arterial or collector roads. All the streets here that this property fronts are local.

Every other ECR property in Wellington sits on a collector road. This application fails on your comprehensive plan on its face. Once granted, this designation cannot be ungranted. The feed store is a foot in the door. The manure facility, the biochar plant, and the vehicle repair base tells you what follows.

Vehicle maintenance introduces oil discharge and chemical runoff requiring separate environmental permitting not addressed here. These roads are designated bridle paths. And your policy states that motorized traffic on these trails shall be strongly discouraged. In November 2022, this village denied six to zero a master plan amendment for a single home at 977 Cindy Drive in Little Ranches because the parcel served a bridal trail connection. If a house on a quarter acre is too damaging, how does this council justify an industrial waste operation with daily commercial trucks on a bridle path?

West Palm TV obtained public records showing that showed that the applicant's old words said, it would be helpful if you could include verbiage that our business is agriculture and not industrial. They called it a yard trash station. Three agencies, three classifications do not retroactively legitimize an operation built on fabricated regulatory classification, two procedural defects require remand. First, development order amendment, not a comprehensive plan amendment. EPC and PCAB applied the wrong standard.

Second, the 500 foot notice radius is suburban. My property line is six sixty feet from this parcel, and I did not receive notice. That is a due process defect. Tonight, deny this. The road classification alone is disqualifying. If you do not deny it, remand it. Three conditions, a Florida Department of Environmental Protection classification, an approved manure management plan under code chapter nine, and a traffic study on bridal trail conflicts. This application fails on the law, on process, and on notice. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Next up, we've got Sherry Moretta Carr and William Stitt.

And let's use both microphones. When she calls you, come up and pick a microphone. They both work. Whoever gets here first speaks first. Good evening, sir. Name and address, three minutes.

My name is William Stitt, 14627 Hunter Lane, Wellington. I moved to this area twenty five years ago. I've been adjacent to this property for twenty five years. And I was thrilled when I chose this location because it was the lowest density in the area. And would but I was thrilled when the Littlewood Horse Show said they were going to move to move to that parcel because my kids loved to go to it, and, you know, I thought it was just a great place to go.

But, you know, to have this, you know, turned into a commercial, industrial, light industrial, heavy industrial, you know, area is just inconsistent with the rest of the area. Everything else, as you Robert has explained, is low density. And, you know, to put this there is absurd, I think. The all of the three roads that front on this property are designated in the equestrian trail system. And to just, you know nobody rides on those trails anymore because of the truck traffic that's there.

We used to ride it, you know, quite frequently to get to the other sections of the trail system, and now you won't see a horse on there. I haven't seen a horse on there in over two years. So that's what I have to add. Thank you, sir.

Counsel, I just want to point out that Mr. Stitt is one of the interested parties and under our rules, he is not to be afforded an additional period of time to speak on the matter. I didn't realize that until he was at actually had begun his comments, so I just wanted to point that out.

He can always do public comment for three minutes.

He didn't ask for time, so it's fine.

What I'm saying to you

is Was included in Mr. Volpe's time.

Is he part of your presentation?

He is an interested party, and I just I'll put on the record that we object to the the rules. I'd represent seven different interested parties. If they had seven representatives, they would have fifteen minutes each. Certainly, I kept my comments well short of an hour and a half.

If I'm inclined to let the individuals have their three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. But thank you for bringing that to our attention. Ma'am, three minutes, your name and address.

Hello. My name is Sherry Moretta Carfi. I live at 14990 Palm Beach Point Boulevard, which is exactly 20 feet north of this property. I strongly oppose this. I've watched trucks come down Osprey Road. I used to drive my horses down that road. I can't do that now. These trucks come and do lots of damage. They never slow down. I can't wait to see somebody get killed if they have horses down there.

This property, Littlewoods property, I objected for it in 2007 because they were telling we were going to have 60 RVs. And I wanted cell phones of every one of the council members at the time. So if they put those grooms RVs there, I could call them at two in the morning and they could also enjoy the Spanish music. This is not good for this equestrian area. We are residential.

I have 20 acres. I have a 40 stall barn. And I work horses. So I strongly oppose it. And each one of you should really think hard before they put this through. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next up we have Gisela Marzada and Jill Townsend.

Ma'am, you could take this microphone.

Good evening. I'm Gisela Mercedez. I reside at 4788 Garden Point Trail, part of Palm Beach Point. My property is about 500 feet off the, what I'll call, the manure project. And I'll tell you how it is affecting us right now.

There is a lot of noise coming down Ausli, there is a lot of dust being brought up that goes over all the properties, There's road deterioration. I don't know why all those trucks are allowed to go up and down that road. Besides that, there is a lot of smell of manure. There are days when you have ammonia in the air, which we all know it can be good for you, it's not good for you. And I would say that my husband has respiratory issues like allergies, sinusitis, that he has to stay indoors because you don't know how the air is going to blow that day and come over to us.

And a very big concern is that we are all in well water and we know what it could happen if phosphorus, pesticides, fertilizers, bacterial overload can go into our water supply. So I definitely oppose that project. That's it.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Ms. Townsend?

Hi, I'm Jill Townsend, 2040 Appaloosa Trail. Thank you. Congratulations.

I'm not sure that was for you.

I'm so excited

to see this new group of people up here. And this is a perfect example tonight of why your jobs are important. I was around in February. I've been around a long time. Mark Bellissimo and Dave Burton were in court fighting each other back and forth, back and forth.

Bellissimo's taken the show dates away from Littlewood, which was a lovely little horse show, which is now where Grand Prix Village is. And the compromise was Littlewood, if you'll go over there, we'll give you this ground, and we'll change the zoning so you can put a horse show over there. Because if you have a horse show, you can have a Mallet Hill, Saddle Trail Park around the horse show. People will be happy. It can still be horses, right?

So that's why it got moved. Because Mr. Bellissimo won again. And so now he owns this property that used to belong to Dave Burton, which is really interesting. And so now he wants to put on a commercial enterprise on a piece of property right now that's zoned residential. Who's been doing the taxes on this property? This guy's been running a business on this residential. It's like on the South Ring at the horse show, for over ten years, went on, it was residential. Who's taking care of those taxes that should have been commercial on those properties? It's overlooked all the time.

Why? I don't understand that. So you need to look at what they're going to do there. I think the product that they want to produce is amazing. But it's industrial. It needs to be out on Southern Boulevard. It needs to be on 441. It doesn't need to be in the middle of our equestrian preserve. All of these let's just make do end up, twenty years later, hurting us as a community. So the equestrian preserve, protect it.

Protect it from developers. Protect it from commercial. Make sure that when people say they're going to do something, it's going to get done. The WLP project still has a lot to do. And you guys need to keep we had the governor here. We will dot those I's and cross those T's. I'll make sure of it. Well, he's not sitting here. You guys are sitting here. We need everything dotted and crossed. This project should not change the zoning in our preserve. Okay? Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Good luck.

Up next we have Matthew Lopardo and Maureen Brennan.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening. Let's see. I represent Name and address first. Address right. Excuse me. 4700 Garden Point Trail in the Palm Beach Point. I represent Neal and Deborah Rigaud, who are long term residents of Wellington. As a matter of fact, Mr. Rigaud has been coming here. He started investing and participating in the equestrian community probably almost fifty years now, from what he's told me.

And the Regos bought this parcel. And when they purchased this parcel, it was a very modest structure on the property. They totally tore it down and built one of many barns that could be considered equestrian farms that could be considered a jewel. And they've completed that. Now, unfortunately, with the proposal, their farm to the baro char, to the parcel in question, is 142 yards.

So obviously, they're very much concerned with the effects that if these amendments are granted, how it's going to negatively affect their property in the sense of a traditional nuisance or more importantly, negative health consequences. I I sent a I sent a letter to all the all the council people a while ago. It's included in the package. But tonight, they just asked that I make a simple and respectful request that these amendments be denied just basically on a common sense basis. And obviously, don't want to have had invested time, sweat, money developing a beautiful place to live and and then ending up with negative health consequences.

I mean, just a simple search, just a simple search anyone can do, you know, with their iPhone now. Burning horse manure produces smoke containing hazardous fine particulate matter, toxic pollutants, and nitrogen dioxide. This smoke can cause significant respiratory irritation, exacerbate asthma or COPD, and cause iron orientation in humans. Horses may experience respiratory distress, persistent coughing, nasal discharge, or wheezing. So I mean, just basically on a common sense basis, my clients would ask that the counsel deny these amendments.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Ms. Brennan?

No. That's not for me. Maureen Brennan, 13481 Fountain View Boulevard. Good to see everyone, and congratulations on our new councilman. A little first of all, mister Volpe did the legal aspects. I'm not going to try to be an attorney up here, and I think that was really well presented. But I like the gentleman just said, a little common sense. To go back in history not long ago, we just changed 10 acres on 1 20th And 50th from Equestrian Commercial to Residential. Put 27 units on 10 acres. And the point being the aisles were not happy because that was incompatible, and so housing was compatible.

Now here we are with this section that is in amongst farms, equestrian residential. Why do those people not have the same right to say this should stay compatible with what we are here? And so that right there alone, I think, for compatibility sake, is a no go. But also, for some of these other reasons that just living here since 1990 with my horses, feed service is not an issue. We do not need a feed store right there.

We have the most amazing delivery, second to none, anywhere in the world. You want grain, it's delivered that day. That's not a problem. We don't have to have anything like that right there. To say there's no market for a show venue, I find that to be a false statement because what if another entity wanted to actually have a horse show outside of WEF?

A Littlewood perhaps. Why do we have to have a monopoly here with everything? So also, what I just want to say for the record, and it's not the first time I'm saying this, that is an illegal operation there. It has been currently operating as a manure transfer station, and it's not zoned for that. Supposed to be an ad blending, and it just right in front of our eyes, it's the most disrespectful thing to do to the community. We all know this is going on, and it's just been going on, and going on, and going on. And it's like a joke. So what's next with this group here? Not this group. This group of this particular acreage.

So it's frustrating. We come up here, and I really appreciate that you guys listen. It gets long, these meetings, but we have a problem with the history and foreshadowing. Next thing you know, we're going to have paved roads because everyone's going to complain about the dust, and rightfully so. We have paved roads. It's all gonna get developed back there. Up Flying Cow, that whole section, it's just one thing to the next. That's what happened with June 20, and here we are with 42 homes, Pulte, and the 27 right down the street, not even a mile, for shaken downs or whatever it's called. So anyway, I thank you for listening.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next we have Sarah Goose and Phoebe Wesley.

My name is Sarah Goose, and I reside at 1532046 Lane South, Wellington. I'm a member of the Equestrian Preserve Committee as well. When this matter was previously discussed by the EPC, I was advised to recuse myself. I left the meeting, but I observed it via closed circuit television and therefore did not participate in any discussions or vote. At that time, the proposal was described as a cleanup of a scrivener's error, specifically the 10 acres that had been incorrectly designated as residential rather than commercial equestrian use.

There was little to no discussion regarding the 49 acres unless I miss something. Now they want to keep the 10 acres residential, and I'm a little confused. It is my understanding that the intent was actually the opposite. The 10 acres were meant to remain equestrian residential, and the 49 acres were changed to allow horse show use only, not broad commercial equestrian use. This distinction is critical.

I live in the back of Palm Beach Point, a quiet horse farm community, very close to this area. Expanding the designation to unrestricted commercial equestrian use would open the door to a wide range of commercial activities far beyond a horseshoe. The term commercial equestrian is extremely broad and can be interpreted to include almost any type of use by simply placing the word equestrian in front of it. We already know that a large distribution type facility referred to as a feed store is part of the plan, with multiple bays designed for truck traffic. This is not a small scale or limited equestrian use.

It represents a significant commercial operation. The impacts will be substantial: increased truck traffic, which is already disruptive due to the nearby manure facility increased daily vehicular traffic, especially given the proximity to the new Horse Show entrance greater road congestion safety concerns noise pollution quality of life issues, including more rodents, flies associated with fee stores and distribution use. This is within the Crushstream Preserve, where protecting horse farms and preserving quiet enjoyment should be the highest priority. Horse Show is specific, controlled use and very, very different from open ended commercial equestrian zoning. Allowing broader commercial equestrian use without strict limitations risk fundamentally changing the character of this equestrian area.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote against this, to change the land use and rezoning, and at the very least, remand it back to the EPC.

So Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Wesley.

Phoebe Wesley, 2522 Windsor Way Court. I also own a farm around the corner from this 14710 Palm Beach Point Boulevard. The village of Wellington's string of bad land use decisions, the beginning of their granting zoning changes to developers like Candy, began with Lotus one and two in 2022. And now, almost four years later, every Wellington resident I know shudders when they drive by the hideously ugly construction and garish, gaudy Lennar signs flapping around on 7441 like some cheap carnival display. Fast forward to the WLP applications.

Presented by WLP to counsel as the only way to save the horse show, land was taken out of the Equestrian Preserve for the first time. Now every Wellington resident I know shutters when they come to the intersection of South Shore and Pearson and see what the result of the council's zoning change gift to the developer looks like. And it's not pretty. Including all annexation, zoning changes, and council selling off parks and green space, Wellington has over 2,000 new units coming its way. Our mayor told the South Florida Business Journal, no sweat, Wellington can handle it.

We shall see. Why do I bring up this history now? Because it's obvious our council can't say no to a developer, unless saying no will help another, more favored developer. And this application is the latest opportunity for counsel to make a disastrous land use and zoning change decision. If you are not angry at what the council is doing here in Wellington, you're not paying attention.

I hope that at least one of the new council members has the soundness of mind and the strength of character to vote no to this application. That one person on the dais has the ability to think of Wellington first instead of gaming for future campaign donations from developer applicants. I would urge all of you with whom we, the residents, have entrusted the power to control Wellington's future to do the right thing tonight. For better or for worse, the future of Wellington lies in your hands, as always. Thank you.

Next we have Melinda Roshner and Ann Haile. We're not speaking to her. Oh, okay. You're speaking right?

Is it? Yeah. I can't see your strap. Because I can't see anything. They

don't wish to speak.

Can you see Melinda's first name?

Mhmm. Do not wish to speak and do not wish to speak.

Right. But Melinda Rockwell's here, we'll read her card. She opposes? Well, I would read your card. But I can't read your card. Nobody trusts zoning in Wellington. Speak to the mic. I'm not sure if I'm reading correctly. Nobody trusts zoning in Wellington all a something for developers? Whim. Ah. And then Anne Haile, are you here?

Okay.

Cheapens the town. Pose. There you go. Back to you.

And we have Richard Haile. Are you in the audience? They both left. Okay. Now we have Victoria McCullough and Kathleen Garner.

You're walking better.

Good evening, counsel. Mr. Mayor, my name is Victoria McCullough. I live at 13801 Gracita Street, Maeda Farm. A very good point is that, no, it's very possible a horse show's coming, I'm going to bring it.

We have driving in Florida has become quite popular. Terra Nova opened a world class event, which they hosted recently, and it was spectacular. It is, I mean, the greatest athlete we have in Ocala, Live Oak's owner, Chester Weber, was so complimentary. So we have Live Oak, we have Terra Nova, and Wellington is perfect. I have engaged my professional to look for a location for me to put a driving show.

I have had one previously at Frank McCourt's property in Mr. Jacobs, and it was wildly popular. 18 hitches came from all over the country in February to show here. I am a world champion. I won the world championship show and the world show. And I can tell you that combined driving, and the draft horses, and a driving event is something very lovely here. These people are wonderful and charming. And we can fit it. It doesn't take that much. And I am looking presently to do such as that.

Secondly, I'm a little confused. When I bought my property, you asked me to build two horsehair receptors at $10,000 apiece. So heaven forbid, a horsehair did not end up in the Everglades. So I'm confused. I think I would rather have horsehair than perhaps what's proposed presently. I don't know why you took that seriously, guard. And here it seems lighter. I also don't know what happened. What happened to us when it became us versus them? It didn't used to be like that.

And it doesn't have to be. This location you have, people do still want to live in Wellington, even if they show in Ocala, because we have the greatest community and access to some of the greatest things. Palm Beach County is not Marion County. We love it here. So it's just, why are we taking away farm possibilities and placing industrial and commercial where they could be? I'm in the oil business. I wouldn't want less cars. I don't understand. I would like a better relationship with this council. I'd like you all to come to MIDA, like our mayor did, and say, wow, I didn't know this was back here.

I think we all need to invite you back there so you see what we have. But please take consideration of us. We do love it here. We don't want to leave. We want protection. We want communication. And we don't want to fight or hurt anybody. The equestrian community doesn't hurt people. We don't like people. Thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am.

Ms. Gannon.

Hi. I'm Kathleen Gannon. I am an equestrian broker. I live in Palm Beach Point. I sit on the board of the community there.

I also sit on the board of the Boys and Girls Club, which I had the mayor to that event. I also sit on the board of the sheriff's department for Wellington. I sit on so much and here I have my whole community here and they are all represented and we had the mayor come out to our community to see the residents and see what we experienced. And I'm honestly appalled by the staff and how they are pushing this forward and how they wanted to go forward without knowing that 90% of their residents do not want this. So I'm quite appalled and shocked that this is still going forward after I had the mayor come.

And the fact that Cohen doesn't even know whether it's a three two vote before is just appalling to me. Yes, appalling that we don't even know whether it's three two, four one, you know, when here we are, trying to have our community the best that we can make it. And it's just shocking to me that you're not listening to your residents. Your residents are who elected you. Thank you for looking at me because I tried my very hardest for all of my people that I represent to have you come in and see how we live and how we want it to continue to stay.

I'm an equestrian, I ride on the streets. It's dangerous for me now to ride on the streets. And it's gonna get even more dangerous if you have a commercial industry right in our backyard, when that was never what we bought into. I traveled the world. I go to the best shows in the world, and I say that Wellington is the best zip code in the world to live in. Because I've been around the world, and I want it to stay that way. And so I'm asking you to please keep it that way. And for the staff to please listen to the residents. Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, have Sean and Lori Lyons, and Robin Parsky.

You filled out one card, I assume you each want three minutes? Yep. Okay. So we'll get another card.

Good assumption. Sean Lyons live at four thousand six hundred Garden Point Trail, about 800 feet from the north end of this property. We moved from Southwest Ranches to Wellington two point five years ago because of really poor zoning and what they did in Southwest Ranches. And it was an absolute disaster. So we took all our earnings, and I bought one of the nicest houses across the street from Mr. Rigo in the entire area for $8,500,000 for which I pay about a $100,000 a year in taxes to all of you. So I would appreciate a few things. Number one, this bait and switch that you guys are falling for is absolutely astonishing. Okay. The thing that they filed on if any of you have read the 137 pages that they filed with the state for what's supposed to go on here.

But what they're really trying to do is a biochar facility with vibrating conveyor belts that run twenty four hours a day, smokestacks polluting the air 20 fourseven, a three cogeneration power plants in an uncovered building, in a covered building but with open sides, it's 36 feet tall. By the way, when they went to the state for the health department, the response was that this particular operation will put out eight point o seven tons per year of volatile organic compounds, 73.9 tons a year into the air. This is right next to my house, next to hundreds of millions of dollars of horses next to this entire community. Okay? 72.9 tons tons of particulate matter per year into the air, 15.9 tons of sulfur dioxide into the air, and another 1.03 tons of hazardous air pollutants.

Let me tell you what these things do. These cause headaches, dizziness, eye, ears and throat irritation. They damage your kidneys, your liver. They cause cancer numerous of these things. They are hazardous even at very low levels, cause cancer birth defects and, organ damage on a long term basis. Okay. This is what you're asking to put in a residential community. This is a bait and switch. I sat with the mayor and asked specifically about the solid waste transfer. He said, Nope, they don't need it. It's a horse agricultural thing. Now they're trying to apply for a solid waste transfer station. They knew what they bought when they bought this property. They knew exactly what it was zoned for. They knew exactly that was the value they were paying for.

If this gets changed, they could sell it to waste management. They could sell it to coastal waste for a true trash solid waste transfer facility. Do you realize this? So they're getting a huge benefit for the party of one to the detriment of the entire community. How is that even possible? How is this going to affect the Everglades Preserve? We're talking about, again, like she was saying, we have to have all these horse hair things. I have to have my manure pile inspected every year to make sure it's not leaching. There's 52 foot trucks there, sitting there full of manure, that when it rains, it's leaching into the ground. No one is watching this stuff. It's absolutely ridiculous. The the Everglades Preserve is feet away from this. Things are stored. This this building is a a thin piece of plastic with a hope and end. What happens when a hurricane comes?

By the way, they're going to truck, according to their things that they file with the state, 500 to a thousand tons a day. That's 4,000 cubic yards a day into here. Once it goes through this biochar machine, it all has to come out. What gets shaken out also has to be hauled out. What gets done in pellets also has to be hauled out. You're talking thousands of trucks through a community of roads. Are you guys gonna pave all the roads more? Are you gonna pave those those dirt roads? Are you gonna drag them five times a day to get rid of the trucks? Who is considering the cost here to both the community and the village? This stuff needs to be very seriously considered. There shouldn't even be a vote on this tonight. And so you guys really understand what they're really applying for here. Because what they've done is they've done They a bait and file one thing and switch it to something else. Thank you.

I'm Laurie Lyons, 4600 Garden Point Trail. You just heard my husband speak very passionately. We don't come from money. My husband earned every penny that we have to have our dream home. And if you guys allow this to go through, not only will you be sacrificing our health, the value of our home will go down, the whole community for one person. Who wants a of your neighborhood. Would you want this in your neighborhood? Would you right across the street from you, right next to you? This is what you what what you guys are being asked to allow in my neighborhood. It's ridiculous.

Think of the birds in the Everglades, the animals. The other day, I was going I take my golf cart to the farm that I ride down the road. Dump trucks just flying by me going 50 miles an hour. No cops. All this the roads are shell based. They're not made for these heavy trucks coming in and out. That's why it's supposed to be have be off of a main artery highway like 441, not in the neighborhood, not off of 50th Street. It's gonna be tearing up our roads. There was a German shepherd on the side of the road with a a collar. I see him all the time.

Animals are gonna hit. Kids are gonna get hit. Kids are taking golf carts to the horse show. I mean, I don't, I would hate for every single one of you to sit here and regret when a child or a horse or a person gets hit and killed because you guys allowed a garbage dump in a neighborhood. There's a million other places that this dump can go. It does not need to be in our backyard. And I would ask that you guys would read the 100 and whatever many pages? A 137.

A 137

pages so that you guys can really know what you will be voting on and what you will be allowing in a community. You wouldn't have people standing here protesting this for one person. One person wants this done. And you guys are going to sacrifice an entire community? Is there anything else you want me

to add?

All right.

Well, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Robin Parsky and Lori Stilwells.

Good evening.

Robin Parskey, 2910 Winding Oak Lane in Palm Beach Pillow. One more time. I do hope and I think you have heard it in the last few speakers in particular that you understand how many residents here are becoming very, very unhappy and dissatisfied with the actions, primarily of this council, but of the actions of people trying to get things done in this community in an illegal fashion. The people who are here tonight are Victoria McCulloch, such an accomplished equestrian, such an important part of our community. I

hope

that you spend time with these people and understand the operation here. Because there are options that all of us have as far as moving our horses and moving our homes are very valuable homes, which I think are valuable to this community. Obviously, our property taxes are valuable to you. But it's not going to take much more to force people to leave if they're this uncomfortable. And this is as offensive as has been proposed to most of us who have horses and ride outdoors in this community.

This is offensive. And it was brought in without permission, without presentation to you, without presentation to the community why they are doing this. And why would they want to do this. And why do they not pay attention to the dissatisfaction of their own customers? Because they don't care. It's obvious that they don't care. The question is, do you care? Does it matter to you that people are this unhappy and that so many people have moved to Ocala already? It should matter. It should, because it's going to have a detrimental effect on this community. That's what I wanted to say.

Thank you. Thank you. That

was our last card on the item, but I see someone else wants to speak. Oh, yes. Did you fill out a card?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Okay. So My name's Laurie Stevens. This is my husband, Doctor. Hain Stevens. We have two parcels, so I should get six minutes.

Can each have three.

Have 4751

South Road and 14870 Palm Beach Point.

Speak up to the mic.

Okay. I'm sorry. We have two parcels at 4751 South Road and 14870 Palm Beach Point. We are next to the Carfees. We are directly across the canal from this proposed site.

Over two decades ago, we relocated from Chicago with our children, and purchased and developed our combined 10 acre property into both a professional equine veterinary clinic and horse hospital, as well as a seasonal training facility. My husband, Haynes, is a prominent equine sports medicine veterinary surgeon, and our facility play an active role in supporting the health and performance of horses in this community. During the winter season, we host approximately 40 horses through seasonal trainers and their clients. During the off seasons, our horses remain on the property along with a smaller number of boarders. In the afternoons lately, I hear loud trucks crashing down the street.

The horses are spooking. It's making it dangerous for us to be riding because we are directly across from where these trucks are flying down. I can hear them flying down, flying cow or owsley, whatever that's called, crashing for hours. Commercial traffic and operations immediately adjacent to an active riding arena and horse hospital increase the likelihood of threat and danger. This is not a theoretical concern.

It presents a direct risk to riders, handlers, veterinarians for falls, serious injury, and also for the health of our horses. In addition to clear safety implications, our disruption would have a measurable impact on our operations. Clients and trainers expect a safe and controlled environment for riding and training, persistent exposure to disruptive commercial activity and toxicity make it difficult to maintain that standard, resulting in loss of borders, reduced seasonal participation, and corresponding loss of income. This piece of property is an essential asset of our personal estate and commercial development next door, and to our arena, and will seriously diminish the value of not only our property, but every property surrounding it. Commercial encroachment and operational challenges that are fundamentally incompatible with the equestrian residential zoning that protects at use.

This includes increased runoff, disruption of quiet conditions necessary for training, and the gradual erosion of the rural character that supports these operations. These impacts are direct, cumulative, and once introduced, difficult to mitigate. Equally important approval of commercial uses in traditionally equestrian agricultural areas establishes a precedent that will inevitably invite further similar applications. This parcel is an island surrounded by residences, and over time this incremental shift risks permanently altering the landscape of Wellington and undermining the very qualities that have made it internationally recognized. Thank you. Need

I'm you to wrap up. Sorry. I'm

sorry. We've invested decades of work to, and we, okay. We respectfully urge the board to consider denying these applications for the betterment of the equestrian community. Decisions made at this level carry lasting consequences for land use patterns and property owners. Denial is the only way. Wellington's identity to protect established requestions and agricultural uses from incompatible commercial encroachment. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration.

You. Any more cards? Any more cards? This is public form. All right. No more cards. If anyone wishes to speak, this is your last chance. So we're going to close public hearing. If someone wants to make a motion to close public hearing.

Move to close public hearing.

Second.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Public hearing is now closed. Now, counsel can ask questions of the applicant, the interested party or staff.

First and foremost, does this vote tonight have any bearing on the manure blending site?

Excuse me. The applicant is entitled to some rebuttal. Would you want to hear that before your questions?

We usually do questioning first, rebuttals at the end, because he's going to want to rebut all the stuff we ask about probably. You can have some time now before we get to that, but it cuts against your other time. So if you want to rebut some things before we ask questions, you can do that.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I think I would

clarify some of the comments that you received from the adverse parties and public comment. As it relates to the type of application, Florida law does and I have a slide, but I'll just read it to you. Florida Statute Section 163.6164, a development permit includes building permits, zoning permits, subdivision approvals, rezonings, certifications, or any other official action of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land. And then what is a development order? It means any order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit.

So this is a development order amendment based off of Florida law. Then as it relates to the actual request, this is not a future land use map change. It is ECR today. We're not changing that. Happy to walk you through the ECR zoning uses versus ER uses.

I can actually show how the ER uses, at times, are more intensive than ECR uses. And then opposing counsel did mention something about spot zoning. This is not spot zoning pursuant to the town of Juno Beach versus McLoyd, where it said that when the property's land use designation was changed to commercial, this is in that case, the existing zoning category became inconsistent and the rezoning was proper and did not constitute spot zoning, meaning that there is an inconsistency today. And by rezoning the property to ECR is not spot zoning based off of Florida law. As it relates to the supermajority, as Ms.

Cohen had mentioned, there is your policy that refers to increases in intensity. Intensity is based off of floor area ratio, FAR. That is not changing. The floor area ratio for any use remains the same, so it's not an increase in intensity. Again, to opposing councils, references to inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan LU and CD 1.3.3, that's relating to the roadway requirement for ECR.

In 2005, the village council determined that the ECR was acceptable at that time. I'm not even sure if this policy was around twenty years ago. So it's important to note that we are not changing the land use. And then for EQ 2.3.2, which relates to the bridal trails, it's important to read the entire policy because it only refers to trails with close proximity to competition venues. This is not close to the competition venues because if this is close to a competition venue, the entire Wellington would be close to competition venues.

And then also 50th Street is existing. There's already vehicular traffic on it today. That's not changing.

And then sorry.

Two last two last comments. Everything you heard from public comment, their opinions. No one claimed to be an expert. No evidence was provided. But most importantly, no one spoke to the merits of the actual applications that are before you tonight. They refer to the manure blending facility. That's not before you tonight. That's existing. That's a vested use. That has been reviewed by FDEP, by South Florida Water Management District, by the Palm Beach County Inspector General, and a jury of your peers.

All have said that it's a bona fide operation, and it's allowed to exist today, and it will continue to exist regardless of the actions of the council with the first reading or the second reading. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Silvestri, do you want

to So he

Go ahead.

I'm not raising hands.

I would no. You can't ask questions. We can't ask questions, though. Everyone else had their time to talk. Do you want to talk? That's too late. Sorry, we closed public hearing. So now we're just in our discussion boards. Sorry, you can't you're not allowed to speak anymore. That's not how the meeting works. It's not an open forum. I'm sorry. Ms. Silvestri?

Okay. So I'll just ask my question again, even though it was kind of answered. What we're voting on tonight, does the manure blending site will our vote have any effect if we're a yes or a no at all whatsoever on the manure blending site that everyone seems to have the biggest issue with?

No, that is not part of your vote tonight.

Okay.

And not that this weighs on my vote at all whatsoever, but a lot of people mentioned that the manure blending site is illegal. Does the Council have any say or anything that we can do regarding a manure blending site, whether it's legal or illegal? Is there anything that we could do up here today?

No. I mean, it's been determined to be an agricultural use, which is a permitted use within all areas of the equestrian preserve.

So it's a

legal renewal funding thing? By the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Okay. It's not permitted by Wellington?

We we don't permit permitted uses.

Okay. And Florida DEP issued a permit to allow that operation to exist on that site?

Yes.

Okay. What do we do to monitor that it's in compliance with the permit? Do we monitor whether it's in compliance with the permit? I know that's not the issue for the night, but I want to just get the elephant in the room. Do we monitor whether it's in compliance with the permit?

We monitor that they have a current permit, and we receive reports of the inspections that are done by both FDEP and the Department of Health. And we also do our biannual BMP inspection.

Is that typical biannual?

That is now the requirement for all manure storage areas in the cushion area.

If you found issues, what would be the next step? If you found issues, what would be the next step with that?

Mitigation, remediation.

And would you come to us at some point with that?

No. Okay.

Is this truly a cleanup item? A lot of people say it's not a cleanup item. Is this truly a cleanup item that we're voting on tonight?

I mean, whether you call it a cleanup or not, it is removing conditions that were placed on the property more than twenty years ago for a use that the property owner at that time never implemented and the current property owner does not want to implement. And the rezoning, yes, is a cleanup. That should have been done upon the change of the land use. At that point, it was inconsistent It has been inconsistent since. But as the property owner has not really done anything up until recently on the property except store trailers on it, they found no need to correct the inconsistency.

And the land land use supersedes. So even if we didn't do this, they could potentially still do everything that they want to do. It would just be more hurdles for them and us not doing our job.

Correct.

Okay. And if we voted no on this in any way, does this stop trucks from so the trucks are coming from something else. So what we're voting on tonight has nothing to do with the manure blending site or anything like that. So all these trucks and all these disturbances truly don't there there's no effect on what's happening now if we vote yes or no tonight.

That's correct. Okay.

Is the manure blending site contiguous with this this application for the zoning change? Is it all same parcel of land connected together?

Yes. The 59 acres includes 49 acres, which the two acres in the southeast or southwest corner of the property is the manure blending site. So two of the 49 is part of this 49 acre property.

And the jury of our peers that was referenced earlier, is that done, or is there an appeal that's going on? Are there is there more to that case? Is it still open, or is it completely dead with the county?

I I don't know the facts around the case, but it has no relevance to the

Not relevant to this case.

Land use or zoning? Okay. No.

Don't There there are some, I believe, remaining issues, but they're they're they don't relate to this application.

Understood. Thank you.

Mr. Steele, there was one word that was just consistently said tonight, and that was inconsistent. Can you elaborate why there's such a drastic of the inconsistent on this side versus this side? It just seems like there's, Well some a piece missing somewhere. There's a disconnect of

Sure.

I

think how everybody's seeing the reality of it all. Well,

I'll speak to at least the inconsistencies that mister Volpe presented, which we we disagree with. One is the original change of the land use was to commercial recreation. Now commercial recreation at that time was a land use that was throughout the village. So the golf courses in the community were commercial recreation, including the showgrounds, the polo center, and a property on the South Side Of Pearson where there is a tax shop. Those were all commercial recreation.

And commercial recreation had a very broad list of uses that were permitted, some equestrian, some non equestrian. In 2020, we changed and distinguished between those commercial recreation in the equestrian area, labeling them equestrian commercial recreation, and reducing the uses that were permitted within the community to equestrian and equestrian oriented industry. So we believe too at the time that the land use was changed in 2005. Now I can't speak to the quality of the analysis by the staff at that time, but as a planner who's been practicing in Florida since 1995, I can tell you that the state would have reviewed that land use change on the full merits of the land use change with the use restrictions applied to it. And so there is always that underlying land use that has to be has to be accounted for.

And now with the changes in statutes that would have prompted those changes or that would have prompted the conditions at the time, those no longer exist. We tend not to condition land use. We condition master plans and we condition site plans. Occasionally we condition zoning, but only when it's a planned unit development. But we rarely condition land uses.

The other issue relative to what was sent to the DCA is that the applicant's request at the time was for commercial activities customarily associated with the equestrian industry. And so they initially came in wanting the full commercial rec for equestrian commercial activities, including vet clinics, tax shops, all of the things that you would think would be part of an equestrian industry. The staff was concerned about those, but still if you look at the list within the uses that were approved as a part of that show grounds, it included a vet clinic. I think it was 7,500 square feet. It included a restaurant at 10,000 square feet.

Other retail and accessory uses. And if you compare, this was on 59 acres, the number of stalls, the number of rings and the amount of use they had proposed is the same, in some instances less, notwithstanding the main arena, than what was recently approved on pod F. So a fairly significant list of uses and intensities when it came to the commercial recreation. The other is the limitation on a question of commercial recreation and the location adjacent to collector and arterial roadways. That was a standard that was put in the comp plan in 2020.

It did not exist in 2005. And so to say that that that property that has that land use is now in that's inconsistent, I think, is incorrect.

Are you referencing the one dot three dot three portion of mister Volpe's comments?

I I don't remember.

The arterial and collector road frontage?

I believe so.

Yes. Inconsistency that he what he was saying? Yes. So you're saying it's not inconsistent?

No. I'm saying that would be applied to anyone asking to establish a question of commercial recreational land use on a property today. In 2005, that standard did not exist.

Mhmm.

Just so to say that that property is not so you could say it's legally nonconforming relative to the comp plan, but it's not inconsistent because at the time, it did not exist. The other is relative to the condition on or the policy on the bridal trails. Dirt roads or unpaved roads within Wellington, in many cases, are considered bridal trails. And so, yes, we try to discourage motor vehicles on those, but it's also referring to the bridal trails that aren't roadways where we actually do restrict motor vehicles on those trails and we only limit them to village vehicles. With any proposed development of this site for commercial activity, they would need to pave Owsley and 50th.

And within that cross section of the roadway, provide a bridal trail adjacent to the roadway like we have throughout the community. And so, yes, in its current condition, it would the road shares the trail with the horses, but in a full development of the site, those roadways would need to be modified.

I'm trying

to see if I make sure. And in terms of the yes, initially, item with EPC, rather, and PZAB for the comp plan amendment was advertised as a development order amendment. And that's because within our LDR, we refer to applications that are changing conditions of approval, which is effectively all this is changing, as development order amendments.

That's the striking of the second condition that requires all the horse show components.

Correct. And so but as we progressed, and we were having the same conversations at the staff level that Mr. Volpe mentioned, he also mentioned to us, and we agreed that, yes, in terms of the public, the communication was better to refer to it as a comp plan amendment, not a development order amendment. But if you look at the staff report, the analysis within it remained the same throughout the process, and the presentation remained the same as what you received this evening.

So if this went back to EPC, it would be the exact same thing that they've already seen and voted on? Yes. And it was explained to them the same way?

Yes. Okay.

So what we've heard here tonight is the same thing that PZIB and EPC has heard in the same presentation that they showed to us tonight?

MR. I don't believe I mean, Mr. Volpe submitted objections, but he did not attend those meetings. MR.

The presentation from Mr. Volpe showed that basically this parcel of land would be an island zone this particular way if we were to say yes to this versus all the surrounding area of it being a equestrian residential. Can you address that inconsistency or what appear would appear to

be an inconsistency if it's an island surrounded by equestrian residential? I think the island was created when the in 2007 when the council changed the land use to Equestrian Commercial Recreation. And, again, the zoning should follow, and the only zoning that is consistent with equestrian commercial recreation is equestrian commercial recreation zoning. Okay.

Now please don't yell out from the back. Don't that's not how we do these meetings.

And that's based upon if you look at our LDR, we establish what zoning districts are consistent with what land uses. And so a residential land use has, you know, multiple zoning districts that can be applied to it depending on the location. We have mixed use. We have multiple commercial land uses. And within commercial, you can have several zoning districts. But in for equestrian commercial recreation, there's one land use, one zoning district.

Okay. Mr. Stillings, when this was changed in 2007 with the February ordinance, and they changed the land use to equestrian commercial to allow for this specific horse show, What would be the impact on the property today if we approved the zoning to harmonize with the land use but did not remove the conditions of approval that were granted because they were going build the horse show?

One, was commercial recreation, just to be clear.

Right. But it became yeah. I think when you look at the legislative history and even the staff report and the ordinance, the council was approving the commercial recreation at the time because they wanted a horse show there. Right? That's why they put the conditions on it to be a horse show.

And I think if the application before council then was this, they would not have granted that land use change to allow commercial rec, which is now a question of commercial rec, to be this type of project on that site. So my question is, if the land use already exists and it's a question of commercial residential, which we're not changing because we can't change it, and recreation. And we harmonize the zoning to match that, but we don't take off the conditions of approval on the comp plan, what is the impact on the property if we did that?

Well, one, I think the staff was trying to protect against other uses that were allowed within commercial recreation. That again, we can share with you what those uses were, again, much more than what are the equestrian commercial. We think we, in changing to equestrian commercial, we've somewhat removed some of that concern. But in terms of keeping the condition, our practice has been in the question area that the land use dictates what the permitted uses are. And so I find it very challenging to tell a property owner in an equestrian area that has a permitted use that's agricultural or equestrian oriented that they can't do it because they have these use limitations.

I think the use limitations were specific to the extent of the showgrounds that was proposed and not if someone wanted to do something that was permitted as part of the land use.

But that's also why they changed the land use to commercial recreation at the time, because they weren't contemplating any potential commercial use. They were contemplating an equestrian showground with ancillary uses like a restaurant and a vet and those type of things, which is why I think this approval happened and created this island that we're now looking at on this map. It's like, why is there commercial in the middle of all this residential? It's because it was gonna be a commercial showground. It wasn't gonna be a commercial industrial operation, which now if you take away condition two from that land use approval, which we did then, which we don't do anymore, I understand that.

But then that opens this property up to the slippery slope concern that that council and staff had at the time that if you allow wide open unfettered equestrian or commercial rec now, equestrian rec in this area, you can get almost anything. And some of the anything is what all the neighbors would hate because it's incompatible with residential. So my question again is if we were to change the zoning because I think the land use already exists. It was changed. It's not getting changed back.

If you change the zoning to match the land use, that is not as problematic as ripping off the conditions that restricted the use of that property to what got them the approvals in the first place. And that's where I'm struggling with it. It's two different pieces here, I think they're both separate. And I think the zoning is probably a much better argument for the applicant than taking off the conditions of approval. So maybe the applicant or Mr. Volpe can tell me what they're they can't come up. You can tell me what your opinion would be if we were to approve the zoning but not approve the comp plan application. Can either you can go.

Who's that here first?

Is that

your question to me?

Sure. I'm going to ask a question for both of you, you and Mr. Millich.

Sure. Thank you. Well, if you were to deny the future land use map change and approve the zoning to change the ECR, would still be limited by those conditions. Because as I mentioned earlier, you don't just look at the colors or designations on a map. You look at the ordinance, the ordinance that adopted is the law.

So those restrictions are in place for that property based on that ordinance. The changing of the zoning would, I guess, allow what is allowed in that future land use map designation. I also want to mention that every other question in commercial recreation land use property in Wellington has a PUD zoning. And what was anticipated at the time in this property was a PUD zoning. It wasn't a mistake to not change the zoning at the time.

It was anticipated that they would come back with a planned unit development because that is the appropriate way or the best way to have those site specific type zoning requirements. And there's a case, it's the Palm Beach Polo case with Wellington that the intent of the owner is not justification for not developing a PUD or changing a PUD just because they don't want to do that anymore. So I guess a long way to answer your question is it would be restricted to those conditions. The PUD would have been the appropriate mechanism for zoning at the time, and that would be how it would develop or could develop.

Mr. Milledge? Yeah. I have two responses. First off, I'll start with the PUD.

PUD's are used for the purpose of actually providing developers incentives to develop the property. They provide flexibility on development standards, smaller setbacks, smaller landscape buffers. The reason for a PUD is to encourage innovative development. So if a PUD was actually going to be proposed, it was probably going to be proposed because they needed smaller setbacks, because they're proposing 2,000 stalls, a 10,000 square foot restaurant, 7,500 square feet of office, and a 5,000 square foot vet on four fifty acres. So they probably needed these incentives to actually go.

What the village should have done at that time was actually rezone the ECR. And then whenever the developer was coming in with their plan and they needed these additional benefits that are provided through a PUD, they would have requested it at that time with a master plan. And just for to Mr. Silling's point regarding commercial rec and ECR, The additional uses that would be available for this property are incredibly limited. As compared to ER, the additional uses are the following: catering, personal service, restaurant, office, ag retail, and equestrian services.

They're already allowed to do almost all of actually, probably all of these today based off of the vested entitlement of the ordinance. They can do restaurant. They can do office. They can do retail. They can do equestrian services. I guess they can probably do catering at the show venue, too. So you release these restrictions, you're not adding any entitlements. You're not adding any uses. What you're doing is that, again, you're creating this consistency. And if anything, I would say that you're removing entitlements, not giving entitlements.

Because any development wouldn't have these vested uses within the ordinance. They would still have to come to the village and do their master plans or site plans to get anything consistent with today's regulations of ECR, which again, as I stated, have incredibly limited uses.

But your point begs the question, if you don't need Section two of that condition removed to do anything, why are you asking to have it removed? So

what I would say is this, it depends on the interpretation of the village because our concern is if the village is holding to a twenty year old restriction that your staff has said it was specific to the development that was being proposed. And if there truly is no market for another major equestrian venue, which is a conditional use, then there is no value or economic value to this property. And I would be concerned that it would then be a taking by the village.

So if we if we leave the site specific conditions on the property, which you said allow you to do almost all the things you wanna do anyway, your position is also that might amount to a taking.

I would point the counsels of Palm Beach poll.

Wait, wait, I would Okay. One at a time. We questions, you guys answer them.

Again, it's based off the interpretation of the village, right? So if Mr. Stillings said that the uses on the property are based off of the land use and that we could do all of these uses, there wouldn't be a problem, right? But if the village has a different interpretation and says that all of these uses have to be associated with an actual show venue, then the only way that you would get these uses are the show venue. The purpose of me explaining these uses is that if you're worried about a slippery slope, right?

Or you're worried about these additional intensive uses that might be affordable, you're already looking at the same thing today, right? So if you're worried about traffic, you already have these uses uses today. So do they need to be associated with the equestrian venue? The traffic would still be there. And traffic has already been analyzed whenever the future land use map came in, because they don't look at specific uses. They look at the maximum intensity that would be allowed by the future land use map amendment. So that's already been analyzed at that time.

Okay. Thank you. I don't have questions with you right now. Anyone else have questions before I go back through my list? Go ahead, Mr. Levin. Anything?

Much of what I have has already been covered. Mr. Milledge, before you sit down, sorry. You mentioned the applicant might have finance issues if these restrictions aren't removed?

It's possible. So whenever any developer comes in for funding a project, the lender will do a their own due diligence. Then typically, the developer will hire land use counsel. They will prepare an opinion letter. The opinion letter will actually go through all of the municipalities regulations, their LDRs, their comprehensive plan, their prior approvals, code violations.

They would analyze it to essentially determine the risk of it being developed. Now, a lender, if I was drafting the opinion letter, I would have to identify that there's an inconsistency between the land use and the comprehensive plan. A lender is going to see that red flag and start asking a lot of questions. How does this affect the viability of the project? Could it go through? There's a lot of uncertainty there. So it could be an issue with getting financing for a project if there is that inconsistency.

So by changing the code, that inconsistency is cleared up so it helps with financing. With

that

being said, has there been any loans issued so far?

Not that I know of.

Related to the future development? Right.

You've got to come to the mic.

Related to the application in front of you now.

Meaning there's no loans related to the current application. Well, the application is for a zoning change. There wouldn't be loans attached to that. Are there I think the question is, are there loans being sought for your anticipated future uses of the property, which would be the FEED CHO or the Biochar or all the

other Or have there been loans already issued for this property for whatever future use that you guys have potentially requested?

Biochar is a separate use. It's, you know, a vested use. It's not part of this application. It's a completely different pocket of financing. It's under ag. You know, potential future stuff, maybe a feed store, there's no loan associated with that collateral or that development.

But there's a loan with the biochar that has nothing to do with this

so far? Nothing to do whatsoever.

But there's been a loan? Yes. Is there an inconsistency in that location even though it's because it's contiguous, right?

Our approach was related to the lenders is that this is an ag facility. It's a bona fide ag operation. We've been able to support that with state law, Palm Beach County municipal law, registrations, permits from DOH, FDT, all the affiliated agencies. We've been able to clear that up pretty consistently. And where it relates to that function, which, again, is not related to this application, that hasn't been an issue. Where it relates to future development related to the zoning and the comprehensive plan, that would be something where it's an awkward question to answer.

Well, I mean, I guess, to simplify the question is, the zoning inconsistent where the Biochar location is currently? And has there been a

loan issued for that? Because it's Please don't talk in the back.