Architectural Review Board - Regular Meeting

Being 07:00, I'd like to call to order the 12/18/2025 Planning Zone and Adjustment Board meeting. We'll start, please, by saying

flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, everyone. So it's good to see everybody. Holiday season. I know we're all really busy, so I appreciate full attendance. That's really great. Thank you, guys. Do we have any changes, deletions, anything that oh, actually, we need to approve the minutes first.

Yes. And there were minutes. I will go ahead and recommend approval this time. Are there

a motion? Second? Second. Hearing a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. Now, are there any additions, deletions, changes to the agenda?

No additions, deletions or changes. However, we are going to present both items at once. And you then just need to take two separate actions for the two items.

Okay. Sounds good to me.

Assuming the applicant's agreement? Yeah.

Ms. Cohen, is this quasi judicial?

Yes, it is.

All right. So do we need to start by just disclosing any ex parte communications?

Well, hang on. Let me two things. Ms. Yakas has an announcement that she needs to make, and then I'll swear the witnesses, and then we can do the ex party. Yes. Thank you.

I've spoken with Ms. Cohen, and upon her advice as the attorney for the village of Wellington, I'm going to recuse myself from these items. And the reason is because I am an attorney. I have not actively practiced law with a law firm since 2019. But two of the previous firms that I worked for represented various farniente stables entities and other unrelated matters.

And the property owner of the items today is Farniente Stables nine. And so for that reason, because there's a potential for a conflict, either under the Florida state ethics rules that govern our board, the local ethics rules that govern our board, or the Florida bar rules governing attorneys. I'm going to recuse myself. Okay.

Thank you, Ms.

Singer. Happy holidays.

Thank you.

Happy holidays. You

still stick around, really.

She got off easy tonight. So if you want to give testimony regarding this issue tonight, would you raise your right hand? If you want to be heard on either of the two items that are on the agenda?

Excuse me, I understand. Is this the meeting for Owlsley And 50 Street? Yes.

Yes. Okay. Alright. If you wanna be heard on the items, you need to to take a note. 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? I do. Yes. Okay. And so now we'll go ahead and do ex party disclosures.

Thank you. Sure.

I did speak with the applicant, and that is it. I didn't speak with staff, and I believe I can be

Could you summarize generally what the Yes.

We we went over the application, and I asked just for some history, which I was given high level overview of the history of the the property. And that's really it. It wasn't I think we spoke for maybe ten or fifteen minutes by phone. And I believe I can be fair and impartial.

CHAIRMAN Thank you. Yes. So I had a virtual meeting with the applicant. It was about ten minutes in length. He showed me a map of the property. We did discuss the history of it, and I can be fair and impartial.

Met with the applicant for about ten minutes on Zoom. Same thing, just reviewed the application, and I

can be fair and impartial.

I did not have any disclosures. I apologize. I was swamped busy, and so I didn't have a chance to meet with the applicant.

I also met with the applicant for a few minutes over Zoom. We went over the history of the site a little bit, the application, and I can be fair and impartial.

Thank you.

I met with the applicant over Zoom as well. Went over the application, and I can be fair and impartial.

Thank you.

Who's presenting?

Good evening. Kelly Ferriolo, Planning and Zoning. Before you tonight are the applications for 14833FiftiethStreet. The first application is development order amendment, petition number 2020Five-three DOA. And the request is to eliminate the site specific conditions of the future land use map approval associated with ordinance number 2,005 dash 19 under section two and to update the legal description referenced in this ordinance.

And the second application is a rezoning, petition number twenty twenty five-four REZ. And it is to rezone a 49.3 acre portion of the site that has a future land use map designation of equestrian commercial residential from equestrian commercial I'm sorry, equestrian commercial recreation, sorry, designation of Equestrian Commercial Recreation from Equestrian Residential Equestrian Overlay Zoning District to make the zoning designation consistent with the future land use map designation. The applicant is Matthew Bellissimo, and the agent is Schmidt Nichols. And I would like to enter all these records into the file. And they will be doing their presentation first, and staff will follow.

And Mr. Chair, if I could just make a preliminary statement just for the benefit of the board. So basically, you're hearing two matters. One is cleanup of development conditions that were placed on the comp plan back when it was Littlewood. And the second is a rezoning to make the current zoning match the future land use map.

So they shouldn't be inconsistent. You're not hearing matters that are related to the operation of the manure blending site. And so because these are quasi judicial, the evidence that you need to rely on has to be, you know, competent, substantial, meaning has to be relevant. It has to be the kind of evidence that would normally be relied upon by reasonable people. And so anything that's not relevant to what you're determining tonight is not competent, substantial evidence. I'm not going to say that the public can't speak on that, but your reliance has to be based on competent, substantial evidence that relates to these applications. Okay?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for Ms. Cohen before we proceed? Okay.

Hi, good evening, Board. David Milledge, for the record, here on behalf applicant. I'm here to present these two items. There are two applications before the Board. One is a rezoning request, and the other one is a development order amendment. Microphone.

Just move the microphone so you're speaking Got it. Thank you.

I can everyone hear me, or do I need a okay. You're good. So the I'll walk you through these two applications. We did go to EPC back in November. We did receive a recommendation of approval from that board, and we're here before you tonight.

This is the location of the property. It's approximately 60 acres at the end of 50th Street in Osley. There are for the development order amendment, there are two requests relating to this development order amendment. One is that in 2005, there's a legal description that identified the property that had its land use changed. And within that legal description, there was an error where the boundary would not close.

As with this request, we're revising the legal description to be consistent with the intent of the original ordinance, which closes the boundary, the acreage stays the same. So they're not increasing acreage of residential B as it might appear visually on the screen. It's just fixing a legal description, and this was always what the land use was supposed to be. The second one relates to within the ordinance. There was a list of limited uses within the ordinance.

This isn't commonplace. For the most part, the common way that uses are regulated within the village or other municipalities is through their land development regulation code. However, these limited uses at the time related to really a major equestrian show venue. With the expansion of Wellington International, there really is no market for yet another major equestrian venue at this portion of the village. So we're requesting for these uses to be released.

Also, from my understanding on how the village operated at this time in 2005 is that the applicant at the time, the owner at the time came in, requested the land use change, and the uses that were included within that ordinance were really specific to their development program. And so it shouldn't really be viewed as a prohibition of any other use. It was just that was how the village at the time regulated the permissible uses on the site. The next application relates to a rezoning. Currently, the zoning for this is ER.

And unknown to our research and from my discussions with staff, we don't understand why the property wasn't rezoned back in 2005 with the land use change. That is typically a common process where if you have a comprehensive plan amendment, it's also rezoned at the same time. That did not occur. And what you have today is an inconsistent zoning district with the land use of ECR. With this request, that portion that is currently has a land use of ECR will have a zoning of ECR, which is consistent with the village's comprehensive plan.

And then also, just to note, within the village's LDRs, which is section one point six point one point E point seven, it says that essentially that the village, whenever inadvertently excluded a district in any manner, that the subject land shall be given a zoning designation by the village council that is consistent with the future land use designation. So the code for the village pretty much is saying, hey, this really should be ECR for a zoning district to be consistent with the land use. We've reviewed the criteria for development order amendment and rezoning, and happy to answer any further questions from the board.

Can you just what was helpful to me when we spoke was to just show me that go over the timeline, the 2005 when that was the first change was made, but that was prior, if understood you correctly, to the LDRs being in place. Correct. And so that point as to tying the land use or the it was a list of, like, intended uses to

Yes.

And how that's changed. Can you just kind of give a history of that and the dates? Because that helped me understand Yes.

So back in 02/2005, Yeah. The owner at the time submitted an application for a future land use map amendment. And it from my understanding, it it request the request was for I can show the map. Hold on. The request was for approximately 50 acres to be ECR and then 10 acres to be Residential B.

For my understanding, I wasn't around at that time. But the village determined the uses for a property specifically on the land use. It wasn't until and Tim or Kelly could opine when the LDRs the LDRs that you have today were adopted sometime thereafter. I don't know if they have a date. But that was at that time. That's when the villages started to look at the zoning and the LDRs for the purposes of determining uses.

And the point because there was a change made from A to B. And I think you were saying that that should have been, could have been the time DAY: where the zoning

Correct. JAMES

would have been JAMES

Correct. Yeah. Typically, the way that it works is whenever someone submits for a land use change,

it

usually is following with a zoning application Because as at the end of the day, it's a requirement for properties to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the LDRs. And inherently, by the nature of what exists today, they are incompatible. You can't have an ECR land use and an ER zoning district. Those are incompatible. The village's comprehensive plan actually states that the ECR land use is compatible with the ECR zoning district.

So that's what should have happened back in 2005. I'm not sure why it didn't happen that way. But this is correcting that issue.

Mister Milledge, I I just want to double check with staff. I I think there may be a misunderstanding, because in 2005, the village did have LDRs. Is that correct, Tim? Yeah.

I think what was being explained is that in 2005, the LDR within the, what we call our permitted use table or permitted use land use matrix, the permitted uses were based upon the land uses. And and at that time, that would have been a number of projects were conditioned. The land use approvals were conditioned much like we do master plans today. And it only recently in the 2021 change did we change from land uses to the zoning and or master plan requirements. And so, yeah, that's It was common practice at that

time to place conditions on a comp plan amendment, but we don't do that anymore. We place the conditions on the master plan.

We we try not

to. Right.

And and more often than not, the conditions, because there were other statutory requirements related to transportation concurrency, as well as other public facilities. And so as a way not to trigger those requirements, you often had conditions that reduced or limited the intensity and density of a particular land use, rather than just giving it whole scale use uses within that within the land use, if I'm making sense.

Yeah. Okay. So so I did misunderstand that that part about, you know, when in fact the LDRs became in use here in Wellington. So all right. Thank you for clarifying that.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I mean, so essentially you're just basically cleaning up some inconsistencies?

That's how I view it. Yeah. So we're cleaning up the zoning to be consistent with the land use and cleaning up the old 2005 ordinance relating to the land use.

Just the formality?

Yeah. So no new just for the board to know, there's no new entitlements. There's no you're not giving the property more entitlements. It's still going to have to rely on the LDRs for any permissible uses that are identified in that in your regulations. They still have to go through and get site plan approval for whatever they might do.

One question that came up during my discussions with some of the members was, what about housing? Mhmm. ECR does not allow housing. If the my client, mister Bellissimo, or the landowner ever wanted to do any type of housing outside of that residential b area, they would have to come before the village again to do a future land use map amendment to a different land use to seek any of that. And then they would still have to go through the process with potentially master plans or site plans for any type of housing there.

So just to reiterate, this doesn't allow your client to do anything additional other than I mean, if he decided he wanted to, he'd still have to go through the same process, coming here, going through the board, having approvals and all that stuff to build housing or otherwise, right?

That is correct. Yeah. For housing, you would have to come back before the board for a future land use map amendment. Otherwise, whatever's permissible based off of your existing LTRs. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. If

you could move your phones away from your microphone.

Someone's got a phone that's interfering. Okay. The staff have a presentation? I got it.

Okay. So just go over the history a little bit. The property was previously known as Littlewood Equestrian Center and held equestrian events prior to Wellington's incorporation. 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 that 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. And again, 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 years but were eventually withdrawn.

In 2021, Wellington updated the comprehensive plan, which renames commercial recreation properties within the Equestrian Preserve area to Equestrian Commercial Recreation. And the zoning map also renamed Equestrian Residential to Properties to or I'm sorry, Agricultural Residential Properties to Equestrian Residential. Like previously mentioned, the development order amendment request is to eliminate the site specific conditions associated with ordinance number 2,000 and five-nineteen, which are shown on the right side of this 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 the 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 the site. However, all venues today are located within Subarea D, and the property owner has no intention of developing an additional venue at this location. The request also includes updating legal descriptions shown in the ordinance as they contain ambiguities oh, I can't say that word that prevent boundary closure and 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. And the proposed future land use on the right updates the boundary of 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. And 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 the 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 twelve 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 designation of Equestrian Residential is not consistent with the property's future land use map designation of Equestrian Commercial Rec, as shown in the highlighted section of the slide, but is consistent with the Equestrian Commercial Rec zoning District. The request meets development requirements within Table six-eight-one shown on the right side of the slide. The request is also consistent and compatible with the existing uses and surrounding zoning, as this is only a cleanup. There are change conditions that require the rezoning, as the land use is not consistent with the land use and zoning and should have changed when the property's land use was modified. The request would not result in adverse impacts on the environment as no entitlements are being requested.

And concurrency will be reviewed during the site plan process for all future developments. EPC recommended approval, four-zero, at the 11/05/2025 EPC meeting. And the staff analysis concludes that the proposed requests comply with the requirements for development order amendment and rezoning. And this concludes staff's presentation.

Okay. Any questions for staff?

So you guys are behind it for it? Do you agree with

the proposal?

:It meets the requirements of the code. So the requirements of the code in the land development regulations and the comprehensive plan. Can

you talk me through the site specific requirements that were instituted back in 2005, and what that does to the think that I read something where it was like that was supposed to exist for ten years or something from the date, but obviously it was recorded. I'm just curious about the Section two items and what it does to the property currently. Like, that limit the use of the property as it currently functions?

So back in 2000 based off of research that I did when I was creating the staff report and reviewing the application, there was talk between the applicant and counsel regarding creating a restrictive covenant and it expiring within ten years. And all the information within the restrictive covenant was shown in Section two on this slide. But once it was approved, instead of the restrictive covenant being recorded, they included it in the land use approval instead. I don't know why. But it was presented to counsel at the time. But it somehow ended in the land use approval.

And the effect of that is that rather than expiring after the ten

Made it years permanent, effectively.

Exactly.

Yeah. So my question is regarding how the site currently operates, right? Does is it being bound? I mean, technically it's being bound, but is it limiting its practical use currently? Or is it able to operate outside of the limitations placed by Section two currently?

Well, currently it can only operate what's in Section two or anything that's considered agricultural exempt or bona fide ag.

Yeah, we're agricultural. Okay.

So in those conditions, as you can see, were really focused on

It'd be a showground.

Yeah, the Leawood Equestrian Center. Mean, it was entirely designed as a showground. As you can see, included vendor facilities, an RV park or component, VIP lounge with restaurant, and ancillary facilities. But it would not would not limit agricultural use of the property.

Which is obviously why the maneuver aspect of this is not up for discussion today. It doesn't apply to anything that we're talking about. That's correct. Okay.

Should we open Yeah.

I was going to ask for a motion to open public comment.

I'll make a motion to open public comments.

Second. Motion to second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? None. Motion passes. We are now open for public comment. Ma'am, you raised your hand earlier. Do you have to fill out a card, which you've done? Great. Yes, if you wouldn't mind, please.

Hi, my name is Gisela Mercedez. I reside at 4788 Garden Point Trail. I'm a block opposite Owsley And Fiftieth. I don't know if I'm at the right point of the meetings. They had a manure transfer station there, which had been causing a lot of problems. Is that still operational is my question?

So we're not here to answer those this Board does not answer those types of questions. This is the manure aspect of that property is not subject to what we're reviewing today.

Okay. So well, then I'm just going to say why I'm opposed to it and whatever happens. Okay. So far, there's a lot of noise from trucks going up and down the road. The smell is terrible. If the wind is toward my house, you can even smell ammonia. We are all in that area in well water And there are little canals going through which could be affected if the manure place goes into effect. There is air pollution from the smell. I mentioned the water. There is the noise.

There are trucks cutting through from Flying Cow through Owsley. I believe that dirt road belongs to ACME. It's not supposed to be for trucks, but they go up and down. And that's my thing. So I don't know if there will be another meeting. What will be the land use if they get approved? What would they use it for? And just giving my take on that project. Thank Completely opposed to it.

You. Okay.

Any other comment cards? Anyone else from the public wish to speak? Now is your chance. Thank you.

Hi. Syracuse, 1532046 zoning was separate and it was not supposed to be a commercial zoning in that area for that parcel, I do not feel that we should be changing it now. Because as we know that they always have plans to do more than they say they're doing. And I just think it's going to turn into an incredibly commercial area in the middle of all residential houses and beautiful communities and the traffic, the dust, because it's all non paved roads, Flying Cow, and that part of 50th Street. And it's going to be a horrible place, a dangerous corner, and an incredible pollutant for all the houses around there.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Anyone else from the public wish to speak? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to close.

I'll make a motion to close public comments.

Thank I'll second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, we are closed for public comment. Okay. Any other questions, comments, Motions? Make a there we go.

Motion to approve ordinance number twenty twenty five dash 26.

Okay. There's a motion. Hear a second?

I'll second.

Motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously.

Make a motion to approve ordinance number twenty twenty five-twenty seven.

I'll second.

Motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. Okay. Any further comments from the public? Okay. Hearing none, comments from staff?

I just want to wish everyone a happy holiday and a safe New Year and encourage you, if you'd like to join us January 2 for the thirtieth anniversary celebration here at Village Town Center. On January 3, we're having the aquatics ribbon cutting at the new Aquatics Complex at 9AM that January 3. And rest up because 2026, at least the first part, is going to be a rather busy year. Your first meeting you're going to have, which is the January 21, you're to see K Park, the rezoning and master plan. We have a zoning text amendment regarding the equestrian development section of the EOZD and a water supply plan update.

And we may have a fourth item that is still tentative at the moment.

That's all in the January 21?

That's all in January. Okay.

That's going to be a big one.

Block off your evenings.

Yeah, I'm putting it on my calendar right now. Thank you Mr. Stillings. Ms. Cohen? Anything you're

Just wishing everyone happy holidays. And if you get a chance to go to the Aquatics Center, it's amazing. It's really nice.

Have they changed the colors of the umbrellas yet? Those of you that don't know

I'll let the string Ryan's old answer that.

One of the last things I said on the council was I didn't like the orange and blue. The entire sector of that property is now all orange and blue. So thanks a lot, guys.

Go Gators. Perfect.

Use a little garnet and gold. Who am I? All right. Any other comments from the board?

I just want to thank everyone and especially staff and wish you all, everybody. Holidays safe. Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year.

Very well. Happy holidays to all. Hope you all have a safe and Happy See New you back here in February. Meeting's adjourned.

Thank you.