Architectural Review Board - Regular Meeting

Go ahead and call the 11/19/2025 planning zoning and adjustment board meeting to order. Why don't we go ahead and start with the Pledge of Allegiance, please?

I pledge allegiance to the 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.

Okay. I'm bypassing comments by the chair. I'm sure you all will be heartbroken over that. And why don't we just dive right into approval of the minutes, please?

Will We

don't have minutes. There are no minutes in this particular Oh, right.

So what were you going to approve, Ms. Mariotta? It's trick.

Okay. All

right. Yeah. Saving that embarrassment, let's just go ahead and move on. And I think we talked a little bit about moving this around a little bit. So why don't we talk about that and let's see if we can

Sure. We would like to move item PZ dash zero three eight six, the ordinance for Rustic Ranches Overlay Zoning District, the RV regulations, and the PZ zero three nine one discussion on the Land and Water Conservation Fund grant application to the front, starting with the grant, and then going into the text amendment, and then going back to normal business.

Okay. So moving 91 up to first, 86 to second, Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to agree with those changes, To rearrange to recommend the agenda. Yeah, to rearrange the agenda.

Seconded. A motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. The motion passes unanimously. Let's just dive right into 91 then.

So this first one, we are going to be applying for a twenty twenty five-twenty six Land and Water Conservation Fund grant for $1,550,000 for improvements to Village Park. One of the requirements of the grant application is that we place it on a board or committee agenda for just review. And so if you look at the second page of the item, it gives you a little explanation that the funds can be used for acquisition of land for open space park sites, conservation areas and trails. It can also be used for various facilities within the park itself. And so we will if we receive the funds, I believe that's when we'll determine what we can use the funds for at Village Park in terms of improvements.

There is a 100% match and the deadline is next month.

Okay. Great.

Is this No action is required by the Board.

Cool. Great.

Go ahead, Mr.

Barratt. I was just going to say one thing. I was just asking, is this for because obviously, we've done a lot of improvements to the park right now. Would we be eligible to use these funds to support those? Or would it have to be new improvements? New improvements,

Unfortunately, there's always improvements to be had. And we've done well with getting these grants over the years and offsetting the cost to taxpayers. And so, I mean, it's commendable that staff is always constantly looking out for these types of things and being proactive for them. So it's been a benefit over the years and it will continue to be. So hopefully we'll have some luck with this one. Okay. Great. Any further comments on that one? No? Okay. Very good. Let's move on to the next one.

Good evening. Kelly Ferriolo, Senior Planner. Before you tonight is Ordinance Number 2020 five-twenty, Rustic Ranch's overlay zoning district zoning text amendment relating to RVs, which I would like to officially enter into the record. The proposed zoning text amendment is a staff initiated request to amend Article six, Section 10 of Wellington's land development regulations as it relates to the requirements for the use of recreational vehicles within the Rustic Ranches overlay. Rustic Ranches is within sub area E of Equestrian Overlay Zoning District and is located along Flying Cow Road approximately two miles south of Southern Boulevard.

For a little background on Rustic Ranches, the area was annexed into Wellington in 2004. Shortly after annexation, planning charrettes occurred with residents and staff to create a neighborhood plan, which later guided the implementation of the Rustic Ranches overlay. The overlay was adopted in 2006 in addition to the Equestrian overlay zoning district and provided unique land development regulations for the neighborhood. The language included the limited use of RVs as temporary residences to only two consecutive weeks per calendar year within Rustic Ranches. At that time, the rest of the equestrian overlay prohibited the use of RVs.

In 2019, the equestrian overlay was amended to allow RVs as a temporary residence on five acres or more for a six month period with the issuance of a special use permit. However, due to a conflicts clause in the Rustic Ranches overlay language, the new RV restrictions did not apply to properties within Rustic Ranches. Staff had received interest from Rustic Ranches residents to modify the RV regulations to allow the use of RVs as temporary residences consistent with the rest of the equestrian overlay. This slide shows the conflicts clause within the rustic ranches overlay, which states that any conflict between the rustic ranches overlay and any other regulation of the land development regulations that the ranches overlay shall govern. And that in the absence of any conflict, the Equestrian overlay and the LDR shall be applicable.

This slide just provides summary of the proposed modifications to Section six ten-six which simply removes the language limiting the use of RVs to two weeks within the Rustic Ranches overlay and makes the section reserved for future use. Removal of this section eliminates the conflicts between the Rustic Ranches overlay and the equestrian overlay. If the proposed zoning text amendment is approved, then Rustic Ranches properties will be will follow the requirements of the equestrian overlay section six eight nine p, which will allow the use of RVs as temporary overnight residents from November to April with an approved equestrian permit. All properties within Restock Ranches are five acres in size, which will allow for one RV per property and unified properties of 10 acres or more are permitted to have two RVs. It's important to note that the language is not new and no changes are being proposed for this section.

At the October 22 EPC meeting, the committee recommended approval of the proposed zoning text amendment. And this concludes staff's presentation.

Okay. Any questions for staff?

Just one quick question. Do we look at any of the other are there any other special overlay zoning districts in any of the other sub areas there that would be that might have something like this? We examine that as part of this other than Rustic Ranches? So in the East

Well, Rustic Ranches was the only sub area that was

You had the call out?

Yes. Correct.

And as far as RVs, is that ones with motors as well as trailers that are pulled by trucks and things of that nature? Is it just the ones with engines?

It's really a matter of living in them. So the RVs that people actually have hookups and living in electricity are the ones that

So that falls under both categories, right?

Yes. What Correct.

Gave rise to this? Was this Rustic Ranches was affected by that tornado last year, right?

Yes. We did have one property that had a code compliance issue relative to the number of RVs they had on it. But so in speaking with that property owner, but also the pine tree board, which represents Rustic, had contacted us and said they would like us to consider it. The village manager directed us to bring forward this. Staff initiated to put them on level playing field with the rest of the equestrian area. But my understanding is the rustic community may be coming back in the future as a neighborhood wanting to have even more ability to use RVs for temporary residences.

So I assume the Pine Tree Board has the authority then to make this request to the village.

It formal wasn't request in that way, but as Kelly said, when they created their neighborhood plan, it was done through a survey

or a

vote. And so we have essentially notified those property owners and have not received any objections. In fact, the few emails we did receive were in support of the proposal.

Okay. Do we have to open this for public comment?

I'll make a motion to open for public comment. Second.

Motion and second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion passes unanimously. We're now open for public comment. Anyone here from Rusty Ranches who wants to speak on this tonight?

I'll make a motion to close public

Second. Motion to close in this. Second? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none.

Make a motion to approve ordinance twenty twenty five-twenty for the change of the Rustic Ranches overlay zoning district to remove the two week maximum for the RVs.

Second. Okay.

There's a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, passes unanimously.

Okay. So this is quasi judicial. Yes. You need to swear in speakers first?

Yes. Okay. Is this going to be a combined hearing? Yes. Okay. So if you intend to be heard on either of these items, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. Okay.

Let's start with I think we need to reveal any conversations.

Oh, I'm sorry, ex party.

Ex

party. Okay. Who wants to start? Ms. Fakis?

Yeah, I can start.

Okay. Go ahead. We're going to just for everyone's sake, we're going go ahead and reveal any ex party communications.

I had discussions with Neal Schiller and other agents of the applicant, discussions with our Village of Wellington planning and zoning staff and legal counsel, Doctor. Kristi Lund, Jane Cleveland, Maureen Brennan. I received an email from Ellie Trubenbach. And I also read the various public comments and emails that were attached and sent to us as part of our packet. And notwithstanding, I can be fair and impartial.

And generally, could you just summarize the substance of those communications, please?

The communications were about the applications that were submitted by the applicant.

Thank you. I spoke with Ms. Kramer. I spoke with Doctor. Lund. She had reached out to me, and so I spoke with her. And then I met with the, well, did a Zoom with the applicant to just go over tonight's agenda and the changes in their presentation. And

I can be fair and impartial. Thank you.

So I met with the applicant and Mr. Stiller. I had not yet even seen the application yet, so that was a very introductory presentation. I met with staff today to go over any questions discussed this with the mayor. I talked with Councilman McGovern. I spoke with Annabel Garrett very briefly. I did speak with Doctor. Lund, and I reviewed some emails that she had exchanged between herself and the village staff. And I spoke to Andrew Carduner. Again, just very general in nature. And I can be fair and impartial. I

had a conversation, a meeting with the applicant to go over the proposal. I talked to Doctor. Lund. Notwithstanding that, can be fair and impartial. I

had a meeting with the applicant. I also spoke with Councilwoman Silvestri, Councilman McGovern and Mayor Napolione, all in discussions around the project. I also spoke with staff, Corey specifically, and Lori, just about the nature of mostly about Section 6.8.8 and the application. Notwithstanding that, I can be fair and impartial.

I also spoke with the applicant via Zoom. I spoke with mayor Napione and councilman McGovern. We spoke about a little bit about the history of the site. I got the presentation, and notwithstanding that, I can be fair and impartial.

Thank you.

I had a Zoom meeting with Neil Schiller and the rest

of the

applicants. Few text messages with Marie Brennan. Emails between myself and doctor Lund and Jane Cleveland. Also spoke to councilwoman Silvestri, and I can be fair and impartial.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

Before you tonight are the rezoning and master plan applications for Isla Carol Polo And Residences, petition number 2025Dash0004DashREZ and 2025Dash-twoMP, which I would like to officially enter all files into the record. The applicant is 120th Avenue South LLC, and the agent is Seth Bain with Lewis, Longman and Walker. The agent's team is going to be presenting their presentation first, and then staff's presentation will follow.

You ready for me? I am. Okay.

Well, thank you, mister chair. Good

evening. Good evening, Mr. Chair, honorable board members, village attorney and staff. My name is Neal Schiller, Government Law Group, 137 Northwest 1st Avenue in Delray Beach, Florida. Here tonight representing the applicant. We have a presentation. I want to introduce Tom Lucid, Ed Devita and Seth Bain, part of our team. And we are going

to get

started. Oops. I screwed up. I pressed this button by accident, sorry. And I will apologize in advance. I'm in the middle of a sinus infection so please don't hold my voice against me. We're here tonight seeking a rezoning from Equestrian Residential in the EOZD to planned unit development in the EOZD. And then the associated master plan approval. Now I'm going to introduce Ed to come and talk to you a little bit about Discovery Land Company.

Thank you, Neil. I'm Ed Devita. I'm a founding partner of Discovery Land Company. Discovery, it's nice to see everybody again. And I would like to emphasize our appreciation for your service to Wellington and especially your attention to our application.

Thank you for that. Discovery has had 40 successful residential projects since inception. And our projects are proven contributors to the economic development and stature of the towns and villages that we work within. For Isle Of Carroll, Discovery will guide the long term operations and bring our Discovery experience and quality to the community. On behalf of my partners, I want to express our sincere appreciation for this opportunity, especially to partner together with McCourt, as well as the USPA to bring Isla Carroll back to a premium polo competition arena.

So thank you for your consideration. I'd like to turn it over to Thomas Luceid, who represents our partner, McCourt.

Thank you, Ed, and thank you, echoing Ed's sentiments for your service and for your attention tonight. My name is Tom Lusset. I'm Senior Vice President of Development with McCourt Partners. McCourt Partners is a family owned real estate development and investment firm with more than $1,000,000,000 in permanent capital committed to our platform. Our founder, Frank McCourt, and his wife, Monica, are proud South Florida residents.

They have a home here in Wellington and a 10 acre farm in Grand Prix Village. When Frank acquired ILEC Carroll in 2022, his goal was clear. It was to create a place in Wellington where the equestrian lifestyle is not just preserved, but it's also elevated and celebrated. From this aerial, you can see the 80 acre Ily Carol property just West of 120th Avenue South and directly north of the National Polo Center. Frank purchased the property in June 2022, just about a week before the USPA acquired what is now NPC and now known, as their website says, as the, quote, perpetual home of polo in The United States.

The area shown in red is Islec Harrell located at the Northeast end of Sub Area D in the Equestrian Overlay Zoning District. This location naturally transitions between Wellington's denser residential areas to the North and the broader Equestrian District to the South. It's also worth noting that Sub Area D allows some of the highest as of right density in the entire EOZD, with one unit permitted per two acres. In January, we presented an earlier version of this project to this board and the Equestrian Preserve Committee. Before showing where we landed today, we want to briefly reflect on the feedback that shaped this new plan.

So the old proposal focused on a community barn and a multi discipline equestrian amenity. The key things we heard from this board were that community barns are difficult to sustain in Wellington, long term sustainable equestrian offerings are essential, and a broad multi discipline program doesn't fit Wellington's high performance competition focused community. So we stepped back and rather than push this old plan forward, we withdrew the application and we committed to rethinking the project from the ground up. So we started over. And we began by talking with the community, especially those closest to us, our neighbors at NPC.

It became clear very quickly just how meaningful Islay Carroll is, especially the East Field. We heard stories from Memo Grecida, one of the greats, about playing for the Isla Carroll Polo Championship team. And we heard the story from several people at the United States Polo Association about the rain soaked twenty twenty three US Open on Field 1. On that April Sunday, the skies opened, rain poured down, and play stopped. By Monday morning, only one field had shed the water quickly enough to make the play possible, Islay Carol East, due to its crowning and superior drainage abilities.

With players set to fly to Argentina on Tuesday, the window was razor thin. The match had to happen on Monday, and it did because of Isla Carroll. In short, all roads led back to Polo. So we reimagined the plan around preserving Isle Carol East, partnering closely with USPA to give the field long term stewardship. At the same time, we wanted to understand what we could build as of right under today's zoning.

We've laid out the one unit per two acre plan shown here in black, and then added the required roadways, water management areas, and setbacks. What we found is that while two acres per lot is permitted, once you factor in infrastructure, the usable area per lot is closer to one and a half acres. And this is still all as of right, 40 lots averaging one and a half usable acres. Looking around Wellington, we could not find examples of lots on one and a half usable acres that support meaningful equestrian infrastructure. Buyers could choose to add equestrian elements, but there's no guarantee.

Nothing we could do to compel them. And historically, on lots of this size, most simply do not. The more realistic outcome is a conventional subdivision with limited, if any, equestrian character, offering little connection to Wellington's equestrian economy, competition industry, and way of life. The McCourt team met with the village last week in a pre application on this site plan. While this option is financially viable and avoids a public hearing process, it's ultimately an uninspiring solution.

We believe McCourt and Discovery together can deliver something far better with the village's approval versus McCourt developing an as of right plan. As we shifted toward a polo centric vision, we spoke with Nacho Figueres and were introduced to the work of Estudio Ramos, whose equestrian architecture in Argentina has been featured in Architectural Digest, Nacho's stable seen here. Their polo communities span Argentina, Napa, and even The Middle East. And they've earned a global reputation for designing places that feel authentic and world class. We brought a studio Ramos onto the team and paired them with our master planners at Hart Howerton to build an entirely new vision for Islay Carroll, one anchored by preserving the East Field and maximizing open space.

This brings us to the plan you see here and what we'll be focusing on today. The centerpiece is the Islay Carroll East Polo Field, which will be maintained and managed by USPA under a long term agreement. To the east, we've created a 600 foot long, one and a quarter acre spectator area that accommodates hundreds of viewers. Trailer parking and NPC connections were designed with the USPA to ensure smooth operations during major events. The home sites, now half acre lots, are larger than the previous plan, which averaged one third an acre, and all front either a polo field or large water bodies, strengthening the sense of openness.

Altogether, the plan delivers 60% open space, and that is not including the open portions of the individual residential lots. We also consolidated the the Discovery Land Company managed amenities, spaces into fewer structures, which helped create even more open space while providing a clubhouse, racket courts, kids club, spa fitness, and pool areas, with the centerpiece being the clubhouse overlooking the polo field. And here are some of the images of what this could be if approved. Here you're looking south toward NPC with more than 17 acres of open space around the field and supporting areas. As part of the rezoning, we are committing to a deed restriction to preserve this land as equestrian open space in perpetuity.

The view to the West shows how the larger water bodies create the spacious open feel within the residential area. And we've also designed a multimodal trail around the property for residents and members, emphasizing open space, wellness, and sport. Importantly, the new plan integrates seamlessly with NPC across the street, preserves Islay Carol East under a deed restriction in perpetuity, and places itself across from the literal perpetual home of Polo, and formalizes a collaboration between USPA and Ila Carroll that's already been working successfully for several seasons since Frank McCourt acquired the site in 2022. And with that, I'd like to invite Bob McMurtry, interim COO of the United States Polo Association, to speak about the USPA partnership.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Bob McMurtry, and I'm appearing before you as the Interim chief operating officer of The United States Polo Association, the national governing body of the sport of polo. On behalf of our chairman, Stuart Armstrong, our board of governors, and the National Polo Center team, I want to express our continued support for the proposed Isla Carroll Wellington development, and particularly for its commitment to preserve and enhance the historic Isla Carroll East Polo Field. This Polo Field has been part of Wellington's equestrian polo landscape for decades.

Under the current development proposal, the historic field will not only be preserved for equestrian use, it will be reenergized as a critical polo venue for future generations. The developers have agreed to make the field available to the USPA's wholly owned subsidiary, NPC Polo Operations LLC, for long term use as part of the broader polo program at the National Polo Center just across the street. The USPA's partnership with McCourt Discovery started last summer when the USPA and McCourt Discovery entered into a letter of intent to license the Isla Carroll East Polo Field. From the beginning, the USPA has approached this project as a partnership, not merely a land use discussion. The McCourt Discovery development team has worked closely and constructively with the USPA to align this project with our shared goal, the long term preservation and active use of the historical Isla Carroll Polo Field for the sport of polo.

When we appeared before the Equestrian Preserve Committee on October 22, the committee's primary concern seemed to be that the USPA's participation was based only on a nonbinding letter of intent. Since then, we've negotiated a comprehensive long term and binding license agreement that defines in detail the USPA's right to use, manage, and maintain the Isla Carroll East Field through our wholly owned subsidiary, NPC Polo Operations. This agreement transforms intent into enforceable reality, ensuring that the Isla Carroll East Field will be preserved, maintained, and operated as a functional polo field for decades to come. I'd

like to

outline some of the key terms of this license agreement that we've negotiated. The initial term is twenty five years long, with two automatic ten year renewals and then unlimited renewals by mutual agreement thereafter. So effectively, this establishes a forty five year commitment with indefinite continuation potential. The agreement defines the USPA's use of the field. So we will manage the field through NPC Polo Ops in the same manner as our other six NPC fields that are adjacent to the Isla Carroll property.

It'll be used for tournament games, youth and instructional polo, and special events. The USPA will have the right to schedule and use the field during the polo season in a manner that is consistent with its use of its other six fields. The developer will also have limited use during the polo season to five to seven charity or resident polo events per season, plus some pre approved community events or holiday events, all scheduled in cooperation with the USPA and NPC Polo Ops. The maintenance is defined in the license agreement. Year round maintenance will be performed exclusively by NPC Polo operations to the USPA Standards for Competition field.

The agreement also defines certain improvements that the developer is required to do. Infrastructure enhancements like a scoreboard, video and sound systems, all to be installed and maintained by the developer for the use of the USPA as a licensed user during the polo season. Importantly, the license agreement contemplates and requires that a memorandum of license be recorded in the Palm Beach County land records protecting the USPA's long term rights to the field. As Tom mentioned, they've also agreed to restrictive covenant deed restrictions running with the land and recorded with the Palm Beach County land records, further protecting the USPA's interest in the use of the field. And importantly, the license agreement will have a covenant restricting the ability to amend, modify, or terminate the restrictive covenants and deed restriction, giving the USPA an enforcement right of the deed restriction.

The license anticipates only two events that can cause it to be terminated. If McCourt Discovery does not get the zoning entitlements to move forward with the project, the license could be terminated. The only other provision under which the license can be terminated is if the USBA defaults on its obligations under the license, which are to pay a dollar a year and play polo on the field. The license framework developed in partnership between the USPA and McCourt Discovery ensures that the Isla Carroll East Field will remain a working polo field, professionally maintained, have year round and actively used for sanctioned USPA polo, which includes tournament play, youth polo, and instructional sessions and special events, all complementing the Sunday games on Field 1 at NPC. To be clear and fully transparent, this license has not been executed and is under review by the USPA's Board of Governors.

I anticipate approval will be granted and the license will be executed in the very near future. This partnership and long term binding license directly support the USPA's mission to promote and expand the sport of polo across The United States By securing the Isla Carroll East Field for long term polo use, this agreement ensures that Wellington remains the center of American polo, home to top level tournament play, youth development, and community polo programming. The field will serve as a complementary venue to the main NPC fields, increasing scheduling flexibility and providing more opportunities for players, fans, families, and spectators to engage with the sport of polo. In conclusion, the USPA views this as a model collaboration between a responsive developer, a committed equestrian community, and a national sports governing body. It represents real, tangible preservation of equestrian open space, not just in name, but in function and long term stewardship.

We respectfully ask your support on this project so that the Isle Of Carroll Eastfield can continue its proud legacy and active polo venue, managed to the highest professional standards and open to future generations of polar players and fans. Thank you for your time and for your ongoing commitment to the Wellington Equestrian Heritage.

:Thank you, Bob. I'm going to pick up where Bob left off. I noticed that the time is running. We do have two presentations combined. So would he get the extra twenty minutes? Mr.

Chair?

Well, since they're presenting on the comp plan and the master plan amendment, so if they were doing it separately, they would get 20 on the comp and 20 on the master plan? Yes. So

It's up to the board.

We hope we'll be done before that.

It's up to the board.

I'll make a move I'll make a motion to give the additional time to the applicant.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you. Thank you so much, honorary board. Bob did a fantastic job of identifying the key points of the agreement that we hope to have executed very shortly. This is what they are on the screen. I don't have to go through them again.

He was so eloquent in his description. I wanted to point out the changes between the original plan and the new plan. Tom Lucid actually pointed out a lot of these. One of the biggest ones or two of the biggest ones I want to point out are 60% open space and the preservation of the field with USPA as our partner. We feel that the new plan is vastly superior to the original plan.

Last month we were here before you, in front of not before you, but before EPC. And there were three main concerns that EPC seemed to address in their final vote. Which was first, the preservation of Isla Carol East and the change to of a restrictive covenant to a deed restriction. The second, the relationship with the USPA, which I think you just heard a substantive recital from the interim chief operating officer of the USPA. And then future maintenance of the Isle Carroll Field.

Let's talk about the deed restriction and restrictive covenant first. Because I think this is important. We have proposed that the Isle Of Carroll East Field will be preserved in perpetuity with a restrictive covenant as your code requires. We will then record that restrictive covenant and attach it to the deed. So anytime that deed is pulled, the restrictive covenant will be pulled with it, effectively making it a deed restriction.

Additionally, the covenantrestriction inures to the village's benefit and will only be amended by a super majority vote, which is a very high standard at a high bar to meet. And most importantly, as you heard, as part of our agreement with USPA, we will not be able to seek to amend, terminate, do anything to that restrictive covenant. We're not permitted to do it under the agreement that will hopefully be executed very shortly. That should give you and everybody else in the village of Wellington extreme comfort that this will be a polo field and equestrian open space truly in perpetuity. Let's talk about maintenance because if the field's not maintained, it's not going to be around so long.

Well that's why USPA is so important. They are the industry leaders of maintenance of a polo field and have already as you heard agreed to maintain that field not just during polo season all year round. Lastly, was a question about whose ultimate responsibility is maintaining the field. And that ultimate responsibility is to the club and the ownership. McCourt and DLC both have unique financial resources and the business plan has been designed to ensure proper reserves are in place for the continuous maintenance of that field should USPA ever go away.

Public benefits of this project, I can't overstate it enough. Preserving that field in perpetuity, having it only be amended by a super majority vote of the village council protects valuable open speech which your comprehensive plan speaks about. Secondly, having USPA program and maintain the field for competition cements the village's reputation as the polo capital of The United States. And as we know, polo is a large economic generator in this village and in Palm Beach County. Isla Carroll will be open to the public for matches, practices, and other events.

There is a right of way contribution that we will be making for the roundabout on 120th Avenue South. And this will serve, as you heard from Bob, serve as an upgraded venue for charity equestrian events. We've already confirmed that with USPA. We have already identified five to seven different events for charity that really goes to benefit the public. When you look at your comp plan and a lot of the criteria require us to look at the comp plan, these are the three equestrian goals.

Preserving equestrian lifestyle in Wellington, maintaining a multi modal network, and supporting Wellington's equestrian competition industry. I want to point out the verbiage under EQ3. Support the equestrian competition industry as a component of the equestrian lifestyle and economic sector of Wellington. By preserving Isla Carroll East in perpetuity, we not only preserve the equestrian lifestyle, but the equestrian competition industry too. Hosting matches at Isla Carroll directly supports EQ3, along with having the authority of polo in The United States program and maintain that field.

When you look at equestrian element number one, it says preserve the equestrian lifestyle in Wellington. And as I just showed you, supporting the equestrian competition industry is part of the equestrian lifestyle. This supporting or preserving Isla Carol East in perpetuity extends the development pattern that exists today in the EOZD. Our proposal is compliant with the density that is prescribed on your code. We're activating Isla Carol East for polo with events, that supports the equestrian lifestyle too.

And then grouping the residential on the west side of the field allows for the preservation of the Isla Carroll East Field in perpetuity. And that, ladies and gentlemen, directly preserves the equestrian lifestyle in Wellington for the village and for these residents of the PUD. Equestrian element three, Support equestrians Wellington's equestrian competition industry. I think what Bob said can really ring true here. Having a partner that is the authority of polo in The United States, Not only program for competition, but program for youth activities and everything under the sun related to polo on our historic field.

We have, as you heard, on the precipice of a long term agreement that is initially forty five years, but can be extended by both parties in tranches of ten years after the fact. That directly supports EQ3. Creating synergies with National Polo Center to host those polo matches at Isla Carroll directly supports EQ3. And as we know, the polo competition industry is a significant generator of economics in the city Of Wellington. So this is the as of right plan.

This plan isn't compliant with EQ one, EQ two, or EQ three at all. This plan isn't compliant with the goals, policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan related to equestrian developments. Why? There's no guarantee of equestrian activity ever happening on these lots. So when we get to the zoning and we talk about equestrian developments and 6.8.8 is really where we land.

And I want to point out the verbiage that's super important at the beginning of this ordinance which says that EDs, in fact, equestrian developments, are those PUD's located in the EPA with the goal to provide an equestrian oriented master plan. An ED shall be designed for compatibility with the objectives of the section along with the use of flexible property regulations and design standards. That is what a PUD is. When you start working with a PUD and you're creative and you have blank land to work from, you get creative. And sometimes you need to use these flexible property development regulations.

And we're doing that here so we can preserve the Isla Carroll Field. Our master plan is compliant with the EPA and the sub areas. The ED master plan is also compliant with the PDD regulations. We are proposing only single only 40 single family detached residential units. Which is in compliance with your code.

When you get to D, the Isla Carroll Field is our internal focus of an equestrian oriented master plan. I just explained to you how we meet and exceed the comprehensive plan related to equestrian lifestyle. Secondly, the master plan shall provide that all of these common equestrian amenities, the field, be installed before there is a CO of any residential dwelling unit. And I can tell you that the field will be upgraded and maintained to USPA standards way before a CO is ever even applied for. Secondly, prior to the issuance of the master plan, we need to provide village with a deed restriction.

And a form acceptable to the Wellington attorney, which she already has a copy, shall be executed and recorded to limit in perpetuity the use of common equestrian amenities to owners, residents, or guests of owners within the ED. And ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly what we're proposing here tonight. In addition to preserving the field, that field, that deed restriction, restrictive covenant can only be amended by a super majority of the council. And according to the agreement with the USPA, only after that agreement has ended, if it ever does. And again, no incentives are sought in this as part of this plan.

No additional density is allowed. We have criteria. I'm going to go through it very succinctly. I've shown you how we meet and exceed the goals, purposes, policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan by focusing on POLO, preserving the Isla Carol East field in perpetuity, and hosting additional equestrian activities off season. We are consistent with the purpose and intent of the land development regulations.

I've included that 6.1.3 for your review. And again, we're not only preserving this field in perpetuity, we're hosting international level events. We're being made this field is being maintained by the authority of Polo in The United States. All of this is not only maintains and enhances the equestrian lifestyle but supports the equestrian character of the village and the local economy of the village. And where additionally, the PUD is consistent with the permitted density.

Compatibility and consistency with the existing uses and zoning surrounding the subject land. Again, making Isla Carol East a competition polo venue fits right in with the National Polo Center to the south. And allowing the residential as part of this plan gives everybody the ability to preserve the field by grouping the residential on the western side of the property. Further we also have synergies with MPC as I will show you. The changed conditions that require the rezoning, yes the village is nearly built out.

But this is unique because of our location to MPC. As you can see here, we are directly next door. And we happen to have one of the best fields in Wellington that drains unbelievable. It is completely foreseeable to have this development directly next door to National Polo Center. The synergies are unlimited, basically.

The results the request would not significantly adversely affect the neighboring properties or the natural environment. And again, the development is focused on preserving the Isle Of Carroll Eastfield in perpetuity which maintains over 60% of these 80 acres. There's an expansion of our lake system. And we are having large landscape buffers where we can use the existing mature vegetation on-site to fill in those landscape buffers. The request will result in a logical and orderly development pattern.

Again, as you show from here, this slide you can see how the field fits super nicely with all of the open space to the North and to the South. And additionally, the residential is transitioned by the field to the West with the water treatment center and the recreational activities, as well as the dense residential to the South and to the North. Consistency with applicable neighborhood plans. There are no neighborhood applicable plans here. However, we have been focused on the consistency with the equestrian preserve area and the EOZD.

And these are your compliance concurrency, sorry, criteria which we either meet or exceed all of those. And again, this as of right plan doesn't really do anything related to your LDRs, right. There's no equestrian focus here. There's no preservation. Heck, there's not even 60% open space here. I may need a few more extra minutes. So Mr. Chair, I'm almost Yeah. Done.

Let's try and wrap it up.

Okay. Thank you. Master Plan criteria. That actually mimics a lot of the LDR criteria. The consistency with the comprehensive plan we've shown you. Compliance with the land development regulations we've shown you. The use density intensity standards are all the same. The configuration is a little bit different, but the standards are the same. Does our request minimize environmental impacts? Absolutely it does by saving 60% minimally of our open space.

How does the design proposed design of the proposed request minimizes adverse impacts including visual impact? Again, grouping the residential on one part of the property allows for the preservation of the field on the other part. We have 60% minimum open space and we have large heavily vegetated buffers around the site. No their consistency with neighborhood plans. Again there are no neighborhood plans.

And the request result in a logical and orderly development pattern which I've shown you. The last criteria on the master plan is are we going to meet or comply with the building standards here? Absolutely. And most importantly your staff who is very capable and phenomenal actually recommends approval on both the master plan and the rezoning. This permitted as of right plan doesn't do any of those things that I just said.

No equestrian focus. Doesn't meet any of the goals or intent of the LDRs. Here is the deed restriction, the first page. The deed restriction becomes or the restrictive covenant, excuse me, becomes a deed restriction once recorded. Again, this is all things that I've told you.

Super majority, preserving open space in perpetuity. And the fact that our agreement with USPA would prohibit us from any from even applying or thinking about applying to do anything with that deed restriction. That is a backup of a backup of a deed restriction that happens to be brilliant. Wasn't my idea. But it's a brilliant backup to the deed restriction. This is the pods. So there was concern about who's going to maintain what. And you can clearly see the three separate and distinct pods here. Residential pod on the west that includes some lake area. In fact, includes all the lake areas.

Excuse me. In the middle you have the club and amenity pod. And then you have the equestrian amenity pod. Each one of these pods will have a separate legal description which is important for preserving that equestrian amenity pod in perpetuity. In conclusion, this is a superior plan.

Not only to the as of right plan, which we know we can do as of right, but to the original plan. Why? Because ladies and gentlemen, we listened to all of the feedback. Good, bad, and trust me, ugly feedback. And we have come up with a plan that meets and exceeds your comprehensive plan, your land development regulations.

We have the unique ability. This is I can't stress this enough. To have USPA program an additional field and have competition on that field and maintain that field to the highest of standards throughout the year for forty five years, minimally. Again, I talked about the restrictive covenant, super majority, staff recommends approval. This is the as of right plan.

And as Tom said, we met with your staff last week to ensure that this is something that we could do by just filing an application. There is no guaranteed equestrian here. This does not, in any world or lifetime, support the village of Wellington, support your ideas for equestrian usage and preservation. And again, no public approval is required. Whereas the proposed plan is a creative solution to not only preserving this field in perpetuity, creating substantial open space that fits in the neighborhood, but has created a relationship with the USPA to ensure that everything is to the highest of standards.

I just want to point out lastly, I know the village has been inundated with residential projects. I'm sure your board has been busier than ever recently. And I will say that because I recognize that everybody and their brother is looking for land in Wellington. However, this is so unique. By preserving that field forever and being in synergy, I mean true synergy with the United States Polo Association, the National Polo Center.

This project doesn't just support the EOZD. This project will support the village of Wellington as a whole. And we hope that you will see that. We hope you will recognize how truly special a project this is and that deserves your strong consideration tonight and your vote for approval. Before I end, I just want to say I want to thank your staff specifically. They have been excellent to work with. They've held our feet to the fire to get to this point. But we appreciate their time and energy. And as do we appreciate yours. And thank you for your consideration.

:Thank you. We can staff, assume, has a presentation to give?

Yes.

Okay. So do we want to hear from staff before we go into Yes. Yes.

Okay.

All

right. So let's go ahead and hear from staff. Thank you.

I'll try

and shorten it. Okay.

Take all your time.

He took all my material. Again, Isla Carroll is located at 120th Avenue South, directly north of the National Polo Center. It is 79.17 acres in size, has a future land use map designation of Residential B and zoning designation of Equestrian Residential and within Subarea D of the Equestrian Overlay Zoning District. The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning designation to planned unit development, Equestrian Overlay Zoning District, and to adopt the Isla Carroll Polo and Residences PUD Master Plan, which includes 40 dwelling units and a club amenity pod. Isla Carroll is a private farm constructed in 1994, consisting of a single family residence with a 24 stall barn, two polo fields and other ancillary facilities.

The property is used as an additional access point and overflow parking for the National Polo Center and hosts polo matches. In 2017, WEP Polo LLC included a 16 acre portion of Isla Carroll into applications to change the land use designation from residential to commercial rec and to remove the property from the EPA to change the zoning from agricultural residential to equestrian commercial zoning district. The applications were heard by EPC and PZAB but were later withdrawn. The property was purchased by the current owner in June 2022. And in July 2024, the owner submitted rezoning and master plan applications for the proposed Isla Carroll PUD project, which included 35 single family lots, five farm lots and a club amenity site.

The applications made their way through the public hearing process with the EPC recommending denial and the PZAB granting a postponement. The applications were also later withdrawn by the applicant. This slide shows the current zoning map shown on the left and the proposed zoning map shown on the right with the subject property bubbled in yellow. This slide shows the proposed Isla Carol Polo and Residences PUD master plan. However, there was a different master plan bubble plan shown by the applicant that separates the club amenity pod into a club amenity pod and then into an equestrian pod.

It does not change the acreages of what's shown here. It just splits the club and amenity pod that is shown in the red. The proposed master plan creates a 47.85 acre residential pod and designates 40 dwelling lots with a minimum of 0.43 acres in size. It creates a club amenity pod with a divine development program consisting of equestrian facilities and club amenities, delineates three access points, two along 120th Avenue South and one along 35th Street South, connecting to National Polo Center. It adopts a project standards manual and establishes conditions of approval.

And this slide just shows the conceptual site plan, which was detailed, explained by the agent. 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. And the next few slides just provides a brief analysis of each requirement. The proposed request complies with LU and CD 1.1.2, 1.1.1 and 2.1.4 of the land use element. As the gross the overall gross density of Isla Carroll PUD is 0.5 DU acres, which complies with the Residential B Future Land Use Map designation.

The site layout attempts to minimize impacts to adjacent properties by using buffers, use placement and setbacks. It also complies with policy MB 1.1.2, 2.1.1 and 2.3.3 of the mobility element. Wallington's traffic engineer reviewed and determined compliance. The developer will be required to make a proportionate share payment of 2.82% for construction of the roundabout or traffic signal at Lake Worth Road and 120th Avenue South Intersection. The developer will be required to provide Wellington additional right of way and design plans for the construction of the roundabout at 120th Avenue South and the Village Park Intersection.

Annual monitoring will also be required to determine if additional mitigation is needed in the future. With the question element, the request complies with Goal EQ1, Objective EQ1.1 and Policy EQ1.1. The applicant is proposing 40 dwelling units, which is based on and meets the gross density permitted by subarea D and the possibility for equestrian lots with the unification of more than 1.5 acres. The PUD will include a private equestrian centric sports club surrounding the existing polo field. And the equestrian complex allows for continued coordination with NPC and could also accommodate smaller events with the issuance of a special use permit.

A restrictive covenant will also be recorded restricting the use of equestrian facilities to owners, residents, guests, members and or licensees of owners within the PUD. This slide just shows more policies and objectives of the comp plan that the request meets, which are detailed in the staff report. A conceptual site plan was submitted for the project. And if the proposed requests are approved, a site plan will be required. A project standards manual has been submitted as required by Section six fifty two and six fifty four of the land development regulations.

A PSM is a governing document for a project in addition to a master plan and site plan and provides lot sizes and setbacks, development and design standards, landscape requirements, circulation and is adopted by resolution. Residential POD illustrates 40 single family lots, a minimum of 0.43 acres in size. And per the land development regulations, PUDs are to allow flexibility in the application of zoning regulations. PUDs are governed by development orders, master plans, PSMs and site plans. PUDs in the Equestrian Preserve Area are considered equestrian developments and are compatible with Equestrian Overlay Zoning District and can have flexible property development regulations.

Overall density of the entire PUD will meet the maximum density of subarea D, which is 0.5 dwelling units per acre. There are no increase in density requested. If subdivided today, the property would be permitted to have 40 lots, a minimum of two acres in size. And as stated previously, the traffic engineer determined the proposed development meets Wellington traffic performance standards and conditions of approval have been included in the resolution. No visual impacts are expected as the property has a thick, mature landscape buffer, which will be required to be enhanced as well.

This slide provides a summary of other requirements, which are explained more in detail in the staff report. At the October 22 EPC meeting, the committee recommended denial of both applications. The staff's analysis concludes that the proposed requests comply with the requirements for a rezoning and master plan. If the proposed requests are approved, conditions of approval are provided for in the master plan Resolution R2025-sixty seven. This concludes staff's presentation. UNIDENTIFIED

Okay. Thank you. So I appreciate staff's presentation and the applicants as well. I have to in order to do this process justice, I think there's an issue that needs to be clarified right away. They do have existing development rights. That's true. But there's two mechanisms that are bringing them here today. The first is that they want to put those single family units on half the allotted space basically. But really, I mean, the bigger point is they want to include 174,000 square feet of what is essentially a country club. Yet we heard nothing about that at all.

So I don't know whether it's the applicant or staff, but we need clarity on exactly what that is and what it means to this property Because that just was kind of glossed over. Do you want to go ahead, Mr. Schiller, and kind of give us some details on that, please?

I'm going to bring up Ed Devita from DLC to talk about the club and the amenities of the club.

Okay. Thank you.

You want me to put the

The master plan.

Master plan back on? Okay.

Thank you. The club amenities have been scaled to serve the residents of the community, as well

as

outside members. We have included in our application that we're proposing up to three twenty five members total. Of those three twenty five, 40 would be the residents that are within the club. The amenities that are included that you can see I'll use the mouse here. So you enter the project and come into the arrival.

We have a main amenity building. We've listed out all of the program elements in our application of those amenities. I can summarize it for you, but there's parking under the main building for the users. There's food and beverage provisions, lounge areas. A large part of the amenity set includes facilities that are common in communities such as the racquet sports facilities. We have tennis, padel,

as

well as pickleball. There are fitness facilities as well, which includes training areas and treatment areas, a spa for treatment, recreation areas for children, for play areas, and pools. Those are the primary elements. They are detailed in the application.

To look at the details, should we be looking at I saw in our packet, it was 79 of 01/1991, or it was Page 10 of the Project Standards Manual, it looks like, with the detailed breakout. Is that the document that we should be looking at for that? If we can get confirmation from either staff or the applicant.

The Project Standards Manual details the uses on the site plan.

On

Page Yes, 11, which is 79 of 191 for our packets, right?

Correct. So the approval of the Project Standards Manual approved all the items with inside this document. And then the uses are also included in the resolution as well. This is a further breakdown in the Project Standards Manual where it breaks down by building, but the resolution has it more of just a generalized square footage.

So to clarify that, the building they're speaking of is the 64,000 square foot amenity?

Yes.

Okay. And then the rest of the footprint would be the 110,000 unenclosed amenity? That includes the ports, the restaurants? No, no. Actually, restaurants would be part of the Enclosed. Enclosed.

Garden, spa areas, some of the pools.

And so tell us a little bit more about the parking being under the building. How high is this building going to be? A little more detail on that, please.

Yeah. So looking at the master planning and the desire of one of our major goals was to maintain maximum open space in green area, including the preservation of the Polo Field. We wanted to find a solution for parking that didn't take up land area. So we conceptualized a lowest level would be parking. The other nice thing about having the parking at the lowest level, it actually creates a podium that elevates the main building where the food and beverage areas, the users of the food and beverage will be able to watch polo. And they'll be at an elevated length. So it serves a couple of benefits in that regard.

Do you recall how many spaces?

have it. One forty one and forty five.

And is that are they then is the parking area in that building, is it you said it was main level, is it then is that then covered on the top? So is it like over top

Exactly. Of it, so it's built? Yeah, the parking is covered. Okay. And it's quite an interesting design. Studio Ramos and Hart Howerton have been innovative in creating an arrival area that's within the parking area and then stairs and elevator that can take you up to the podium level.

You can see this. I mean, you can see the area right around here where my cursor is. That's the amenity building with the beautiful drive in and the building. You know, you may ask, are you gonna put grass on the roofs? That's a legitimate question. On this building, absolutely. It'll be up to each individual homeowner. But I think the designs that we've proposed, Studio Ramos is a major architect. I think hopefully we can convince them to, yeah, put grass on your roof, make this even more sustainable. You done that before?

Yeah, we have. In fact, the principles that we're working on with the Studio Ramos and Hart Howerton include low impact development elements that take into account absorbing of water, utilizing the plants to uptake nitrogens and filtrate the water before it goes back into the aquifer. So those are the principles.

And I just want to point out those green roofs are not included in the 60% open space. Just want you to know.

I'd like to hear a little bit from staff. I didn't hear anything in the presentation because here we're looking at two different approvals. Rezoning is one of them. I didn't see any standards referenced in our comp plan as to what we're looking for when we're determining whether a rezoning of the property is appropriate. Can you point to what our standards are?

The standards are listed in the staff report. We did detail some of the land use in like, the policies throughout some of the elements. It's more detailed in the staff report. Staff did go over some land use elements and some equestrian elements and master plan or mobility elements that it meets. It was an inclusive list in the PowerPoint to shorten the PowerPoint, but it was in the staff report.

:Are you able to pull up a comp plan objective from the land use element 3.1? :Sure.

The land use policy 3.1.1?

Yes. Can we pull that up on the screen? Yes, scroll up right there. Thank you.

This one? Okay.

Yes. So 3.1 here says land use changes shall consider changed circumstances or demonstration of need, environmental suitability, infrastructure capacity, and compatibility with surrounding land uses, economic development, and reinvestment opportunity. Is the applicant here claiming one of those factors necessitate a rezoning of the property?

Well, is a a rezoning is not a land use change. So a land use change would be changing it from residential to commercial, industrial. This is changing it from a a zoning of equestrian residential to a plan unit development that is still residential in nature. So the the change is just the plan unit development component, which is permitted by the EOZD 688 equestrian development section of the LDR, which is in compliance with the comp plan.

Well, would be changing the zoning. It would be changing from Equestrian Residential to PUD. And so that is a zoning change under the comp plan, correct?

No, it is not land use change is what will be considered under the comp plan. So it's not changing from resident it's still being maintained as residential. The land use is still residential. Residential b. That's not changed. The zoning is EOZD EOZD Equation Residential, and it will be EOZD plan unit development. But the land use remains the same as residential B.

Well, was some discussion in the justification statement as well as the staff report that talked about changed circumstances that necessitated the rezoning. Can you go into what that discussion was?

It was presented in the staff report.

Yeah, I think in the staff report, the change conditions was that Wellington is nearly built out. And in order to preserve the existing polo field and to offer and continue the sport of polo while also utilizing the development rights on the property, this was a very good option for them.

Okay. So the justification presented is that because we're near build out, and in order to preserve the Polo Field, we should have a rezoning of the property. Am I understanding that?

It is a change condition that occurred.

Okay. Right now, does the property have, as of right, the right to keep the polo field on the property?

Yes. Yes. Okay.

And do they have, as of right, the ability to enter into an agreement with NPC for the uses that they're describing today?

I would say yes. Okay.

So everything that the applicant has told us about the need to preserve the polo field, they can do that without any rezoning of the property sitting here today, right?

I can't speak for the applicant, but yes, it could be done.

Okay. So the changes that the applicant is seeking that are not as of right as of this moment pertain to the club and amenity parcel that does not include the polo field. Correct?

No. What they're requesting is a residential plan development. And as a part of that, they're including a club element, which is consistent with residential plan developments we have throughout the village.

As of right, with the current use rights of the property, can they have that club? No. And as of right with the current use rights of the property, can they have the size of lots that they're proposing, the 0.43 acres?

No. Which is why the Planning and Development is required to accomplish that.

Okay. So what we're really looking at is not as of right necessity changes in order to preserve a polo field. It's in order to reduce lot size and grant approvals for operation of a private club. Is that what we're really looking at here? That's not as of right?

I think it's they're proposing to preserve the Polo Field to in order to develop the rest of the property as they've presented, what they could do is still subdivide the property and eliminate the Polo Field as it stands today. That is what they could do by Wright.

And we saw the applicants as of Wright Plan where they had 40 lots presented, and each of those 40 lots was two acres in platted dimensions, correct? Correct. You know what assumptions the applicant used determined that only one and a half of each of those two acre lots would be usable? No.

I I think it's illustrated on the plan, what assumptions they put into it in terms of the roadway connections and access and the stormwater management retention areas.

In the village of Wellington, do we have other parcels in the EOZD that are two acres in dimensions?

Yes. We

have some that are smaller, yes.

And some that are smaller and that are in the EOZD? Yes. And they're operating as equestrian residential properties?

Yes. And

no one has sought any rezoning to reduce those sizes, correct? No. With the lot sizes that the applicant is proposing, the 0.43 acres, would they be able to have equestrian uses on those lots?

I think within the conditions they've put in that they would need to aggregate a few of the lots in order to on put equestrian uses on them.

If they aggregated them to one and a half acres minimum, then they could have equestrian uses, right? But if they kept them as proposed at 0.43 acres, then they would not be able to have equestrian uses on them, right?

We would not limit them, but I believe through the development itself, they would be limiting the use as equestrian.

And other than the lot size, if we put this property into the PUD that the applicant is seeking, what are some of the other standards of the EOZD that would be reduced or eliminated?

Well, generally the standards apply to the setbacks related to the size of the property. And so those would be adjusted, of course, accordingly based upon those lot sizes. I don't believe there's really any other standards that would need to be deviated from. All the others are use of equestrian properties related to trailers and

stalls and rings, etcetera. So in essence, of the equestrian uses would be eliminated from the 0.43 acre lots?

I don't know that I characterize it that way, but they wouldn't need any deviations from those standards.

And they wouldn't be able to comply with the lot dimension minimums right now that are part of this sub area of the EOZD, correct?

That is the intent of the Equestrian Development Plan unit development is smaller lots than what the sub area lot minimum is.

Do we have any other properties in the village of Wellington that were approved as PUD's under section six point eight point eight of our land development regulations?

Well, the code was only updated in 2021. So this is the first under that provision. The previous code referred to it as clustering. And there was one development at that time, which was early on. Yeah,

was it was actually it was the review process started with Palm Beach County and then incorporation happened, and then we took over the approval process. So it was in it was pending that incorporation.

Tatiana, you mind if I just hop in on a question on the so the for so this was the first this would be the first considered under the 6.8.8, the equestrian development standard that we have now, that has replaced the cluster, correct? And the other PUD's that we looked at, what about did Grand Prix, was that county? Was that done in county times for Grand Prix? Okay. All right.

Let me just dovetail off of that really quick. So I'd like to hear staff's interpretation of LDR six point eight point eight.

You just jumped me, man. Was like, I was going go back. No, was going to go back to Tatiana. I was going

to let Tatiana

finish her inquiries, but that was where I was going to go. No, go ahead.

I just didn't want to lose the thought because

it was an

important one thing you brought up. Specifically, I think it's subsection D. And if the language is as I recall it, it says something to the effect that the equestrian amenities shall serve as the internal Internal, focus of the yeah. So can you give us your definition of what you believe that actually means? And then why you believe why staff believes that this project meets that?

Wait. Can I go one level out before you get

to Absolutely? That

So one level out from that, I just wanted to hear, in terms of our thoughts on including the PUDs inside the EOZD, can you just give some background in terms of when that was thought out to the extent that you guys were here at that time? I'm just curious what we think the intent was for that, and then go into the comment related to D1.

Sorry. The intent of the clustering or

So I believe well, clustering was the precursor to this, correct? This didn't exist until we removed the clustering and replaced it with this. Is that right? Yes. Okay. So with the cluster allowance inside the EOZD, I'm just curious as to what the thought or need was for that to be in there in the first place, then when it was amended to go into the equestrian developments, just the ideas as to why we're thinking of PUDs inside the EOZD.

Well, our code grew out of Palm Beach Counties. So Palm Beach County had a clustering component that we

We just adopted.

The village adopted. Okay. It was incorporated into the EOZD language with the goal of preserving not only equestrian area but environmentally sensitive land as well.

Now, was that because did we include that just because it was in the non EOZD areas, that's why we included it in there? Do you think it was intentional for us to include it in EOZD areas as well?

Based on my read of some of the past comp plans, it was intentional.

Okay. We can go to D1 if you wanted to now. I just

you good? I need to make sure with your pauses that you're actually finished.

I'm sorry, I'm done.

Okay. All right. So Mr. Sillings, can you address that point for me? What is staff's interpretation of six eighty eight D? Specifically, how do you all interpret the meaning of equestrian amenities shall serve as the internal focus of development. What does that actually mean in staff's interpretation? And then why do you believe this project meets that standard?

MR. Well, when you read the full section, it refers to providing amenities that include such common features as stables, rings, paddocks, horse exercise areas, internal bridal trails, connections to external bridal trails, other equestrian amenities, public spaces and or preserve areas for environmentally sensitive lands. And so I think in this case, the polo field is a significant component of the development. I think Significant component, but is it the internal focus? Well, again, I was getting there.

Think, you know, interpretation of the word internal, I think, generally means that it's predominantly intended for the use by the residents, owners and guests of the development. That's the internal focus. In that it's not a public amenity, it's not a venue, And so those facilities are internal, an internal focus of the development. And so in this case, I think you have a unique circumstance with a polo field in that that is a facility that generally is difficult to be internalized just because you have typically the need for polo teams from all over the area to come and play and use it just as we have with our large polo estates, you know, and other parts of the equestrian preserve. And so I think that's the general interpretation.

All right. I appreciate your answer, but let me ask it a different way. Why is it staff's conclusion that the 174,000 square foot Country Club footprint is not the internal focus of this development application?

Well, again, I think the internal focus was who's using the facilities. And if you have stables and rings, you know, that's going to be internalized. Those you can basically say those are only usable by the residents, guests and owners. Yes, the common amenities, residential amenities are internal focus of the development as well because those are for the residents and now only members. It's not a public amenity.

I think what you see them providing is what you see throughout development of residential unit developments in this county and others is that residents are demanding more within their community. And so you're seeing, you know, gym facilities that, you know, rival some of the commercial gyms. You see pool facilities, you know, with the beach components, lagoons. You see all sorts of elements that are well above what some of the PUD's that were built in, you know, even as late as, 2010.

I think I think is telling about what you're saying though is everything you're talking about has nothing to do with an equestrian focus. And so I think what you're focusing on is the word internal. And the word I'm focusing on is focus. In other words, under this current application or plan, it is possible that somebody can come onto this property, hang out at the country club, work out in the gym, have something to eat and leave. And have absolutely no equestrian focus on their visit to that property whatsoever.

And I don't know that that's the intent of the equestrian development, is that everyone have an equestrian minded focus that steps onto the property. But again, that staff's professional interpretation of that section of the code. This is why it's not a unilateral decision by staff, and it comes in front of boards and the council to decide whether or not you agree with our perspective.

Do you have a response to that, Mr.

Chairman? I do. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to respond. Absolutely, polo is the internal focus. And you in your own example, somebody comes resident comes or an outside member comes to the facility, let's say on a Sunday or on a Friday, even Friday. And they go work out at the gym. Maybe they get a hamburger or something. And as they're getting a hamburger they look to their left and there's a polo match going on. And that is the internal focus.

These 40 homes. We're only talking about 40 homes. We're not talking about Lennar or Pulte or GL doing 400. We're talking about 40. And each one of those residents and their members and their guests have the opportunity to experience polo in a very unique way. So maybe they go on a Monday afternoon and they see polo horses running the field. That's an equestrian focus. That's an exposure to equestrian lifestyle that not everybody in the EOZD has. What if they go on, I'm sorry, Please,

please. I'm not can actually hear what you all are saying back there. I promise everyone's going get an opportunity to respond, but we need to be respectful of the process. Thank

you. Thank you so much. And I think the fact that we're bringing in U. S. We're bringing in a professional operator to manage the whole situation really makes it an equestrian focus. And Ed just told me that the whole theme of the clubhouse is polo. There will be so much polo you won't be able to get away from it. And I think that's the key, right? It's not that you always have to have an equestrian experience every time you go into that PUD. No. It has to be available. And the fact that we are making a polo accessible, which is one of the goals of USPA to the everyday person, is unique. And that is a unique equestrian focus that we're providing as part of this development.

Can I follow-up on that? The members of the club and the residents, are they going to be riding their horses and playing polo on that polo field?

Maybe. Not necessarily, but maybe.

So the polo activity that you're talking about with regard to the club members is primarily them watching polo, correct?

Maybe. Again, like there could be opportunities for members to interact with the horses. There could be opportunities for polo clinics produced and put on by USPA. There are endless opportunities for polo at this location. But without a field, there's none. And that's really the crux of it. The crux is whether you want to save the Isla Carroll Field in perpetuity and create a very unique equestrian focused development, or you don't.

Is there, there, I'm sorry Tod.

Sorry, at this point you can save the Carroll Field in perpetuity, because you have that as of right.

I so appreciate that comment, because it's not that simple. It's not that simple. Maintaining and preserving that field in perpetuity isn't just letting the grass grow or mowing it. There is a lot of work that goes into maintaining a polo field. And without the financial resources available to maintain that polo field in perpetuity, it won't be. And so I appreciate the fact that yes, we have the polo field today. But that doesn't mean it's being maintained today. And that doesn't mean it's going to be around in the future.

But we just heard from the USPA representative and everything you told us is that you have this wonderful license agreement. It hasn't been signed yet, but it's going to be signed. And it's going to provide for that maintenance. And we

don't have to worry about

that at all. But now you're telling us we should worry. No. And that's not going to happen?

That's not what I'm saying. As Bob told you very specifically, there are two ways to terminate that agreement. We don't get our entitlement, AKA the zoning, the agreement's off. That's what the agreement says. Am I correct? Yeah.

So it's based off of the applicant here getting everything that they're looking for in this application.

Let me say it a different way. Without the rezoning and without the master plan approval, we don't want to, but we will move forward with that as a right plan. And there won't be an Isla Carroll field. And there won't be synergy with USPA or NPC. And there won't be the economic generator of polo. And there won't be an equestrian focused community. The thing about this, because you all are focused on equestrian, equestrian lifestyle, equestrian focus. Those two acre lots don't guarantee it. This does. Having an international polo field in your community is an equestrian focus.

Your comp plan says it. Support equestrian competition is an element of equestrian lifestyle. And that's what we're doing here.

So can I ask a little I just want to flush out a little bit more clarity on the maintenance aspect? Because what I heard was, USPA will maintain the field to USPA standards. But maintenance is the ultimate responsibility of the owner. So can we talk about what that actually means in practicality?

Absolutely. So, you know, I'm a lawyer, you're a lawyer. We have to worry about what and you're a lawyer. We may have to worry about what happens in the future, right?

MR. Right.

MR. So what happens if USPA finds an amazing venue in Calabasas, California and they terminate the deal? Or they stop performing? What happens to the field if we are proposing to protect it in perpetuity? So again, even if USPA doesn't do their job maintaining the field, the ultimate responsibility comes to the owner of that field, which is going to be DLC, Discovery Land Company, and McCourt Partners in that joint venture.

So at the end of the day, they're going to be the ones responsible. They're contracting with USPA to maintain the field and program the field. But at the end of the day, remember being transparent. They own the field. And if it's not being maintained, it's on them to do it.

Because that that part right there is not included in their obligations. In other words, they have to pay a dollar and play polo is what I heard is their obligations, So if they decide that it's becoming too costly to maintain this field, and it defaults back to you all, what you're saying to me is you're still gonna honor this agreement even though you now are taking on the financial responsibility of maintaining it because they're not doing it?

Yes. Because, Mr. Chair Does

not sound like a very good long term viable relationship.

Well, we don't expect the USPA to ever leave. But what if they do? Right? There's an eventuality that could happen. I will say, why does it matter that McCord and DLC are left holding the bag on maintenance of that field? They have the funds to do it. Right? They have the ability to do that. They have the ability to put in their business plan reserves to maintain that field should USPA ever leave.

Let just I'm sorry.

I was just going get one clarity on I'm finance guy, right? So in terms of the because there was the conversation about the reserves, just wanted to make sure I understood the agreement correctly. Is the applicant funding the because we know USPA is maintaining the field, and they're paying a dollar a year for the licensing agreement, and they're the maintenance provider. Is the applicant subsidizing the maintenance cost during the time of that licensing agreement, or is that on USPA solely?

JOSEPH I'm to have one of the two principals answer that question on

Yes. The record.

Our agreement contemplates a shared maintenance arrangement. And that's based on the number of times that we, being not USPA, use the polo field during a season. So for example, if there are 28 matches and we play 14 of them, that's more than we would ever do, we would pay 50% of the maintenance.

And is that for the full year maintenance cost, that you're basically just prorating it during the season? So even though the club would theoretically have use of the field, not for polo matches necessarily for the other portion, that overall entire year's maintenance costs would be based solely on the who uses it during what time in season?

It's based on the number of usage the usage, and then out of season, if we host our own event, we're responsible for restoring the field to its ordinary maintenance. So we would be responsible for a 100% of our own usage outside of the season. During the season, it's shared based on the number of matches that U. S. Polo hosts and we host.

I might be dense on this, too. I'm sorry, I apologize. I know that there is a lot of intensive work that goes I don't know enough about the agronomy of it, but I know there's a lot of intensive work to prepare a field prior to season. But how would it off season, I'm assuming it's year round,

Yeah, I'm going to defer to the polo expert. So

I don't claim to be an expert on polo field maintenance. Let me make that perfectly clear. The agreement contemplates that the annual maintenance cost will be shared in a pro rata basis based on the number of polo matches that are played during the season by the USPA and events hosted by McCourt Discovery. So the annual cost would be divided by that. In addition to that, if they host events, for example, a charity jumping event on the field in the off season with our approval, they would be responsible for paying us to restore that field.

We are going to provide maintenance on the field year round at our cost, and charge McCourt Discovery whatever the cost is to repair that field if they do an event that adversely affects the field for tournament play during the season. And we'll bill them for that. And we will bill them for the pro rata usage during the season if they have any.

Okay. Sorry, I got a couple more on this, I apologize. So just because again, I'm a finance guy, I think about is there any disincentive for you to have events there because of your pro rata, the increasing of your pro rata ownerships, your payment stake on the maintenance expense? Is is that of consider material consideration to you in terms of your thoughts?

That is not. We want the field because we want to add it to our normal rotation of the six fields that we have now. This would give us a seventh field to add to the normal rotation of polo fields during the season. The amount of polo that can be played on a field depends on the level of play. So the lower goal polo less wears the field less than the higher goal polo.

So you can play more lower goal games per week or per season than you can high goal games. We want this field for our full complement of polo that's offered during the season, which is high goal, medium goal, women's polo, kids polo, all of those events. We want to be able to use this field as one of our regular fields in rotation. And what is your average how much playtime does your average field in rotation currently get for the sixth? So we have an analysis, a matrix, a use matrix.

So a high goal game has more wear than a lower goal game, like I just said. But on average, we use the field about 1.3 times per week. Our agreement contemplates that we can schedule polo on this field as needed. So we can use it for rain outs, we can use it as part of the regular rotation, we can use it to schedule bracket play based on team availability and weather and whatnot. But we don't expect to use, and we're limited not to use it more than 1.5 times per week on average throughout the whole season.

And is that commensurate to your existing fields at NPC? That Is that is that's the average of what you use for the regular fields as well?

That is correct. That's how that was based.

Okay. And sorry, I've two more questions for you, I think, Bob, before you walk off. The second thing is, I know that polo fields are rented, you know, for play sometimes. Does the NPC currently rent any of its fields, or would this field be potentially in the rental pool? And if so, who would have the cash benefit from any rental income associated?

So we do rent our fields for USPA clubs that host tournaments. We just rented the fields for fall eight goal, and we rented the field for two twenty goal finals. If this field was rented under a USPA sanctioned event, the USPA would get the revenue from that.

Okay. And would the property owner be able to rent the field? You consent the USPA to allow the property owner to rent the field for polo outside of, you know, and benefit from that rental income if it wasn't a USDA hosted event?

You know, we haven't contemplated that. Okay. That's kind of speculative. But we intend to schedule and control the use of that field during the polo season.

Okay. And my last question for you is, I'm just curious, because I know that there is a club at MPC. You have a club there. Can you tell me how your consideration is in terms of having a club open next door at the other property site? How did that impact USPA's consideration to support this endeavor? And any other thoughts that you might have in terms of differences?

Yeah, we've had discussions with McCourt Discovery team about them promoting memberships at our club in addition to their club, so that their members could also come over and take advantage of our club and Sunday Polo. We view it as complementary, not competitive. That might change as we go forward. But we view that as a negative to our desire to use that field for competitive polo.

Okay. Thanks.

Have a follow-up on that for you. Many spectators do you anticipate for the bigger polo events?

How many spectators?

Yes.

We think well, I don't know how many spectators we expect, because it depends on the tournament, it depends on the day of the week, it depends on which team is playing. But the area that's been provided on the east side of the field, roughly 600 feet by 90 feet, we've discussed with McCourt Discovery the development of terraced landscaping for seating, like it exists at the Valiente Field, so that we can maximize spectator viewing on the area that's allowed. So a minimum of 300, but quite possibly much more than that.

And where will those spectators park?

They'll park on the NPC parking area for the pavilion and walk across 35th Street and onto the field and into the spectator viewing area.

Is that part of your agreement that you're working out?

Yes, it is.

And I know you stated that the agreement hasn't been executed yet, correct?

That is correct.

Why not?

Well, because we've still negotiated further terms as recent as today. And so we will present the final agreement to the board for review and approval. We presented a draft version of the agreement yesterday to the board. And they tabled the vote whether or not to approve it because there are still open terms that we're hammering out.

Are any of those open terms ones that you're telling us will be in the agreement today?

No. The terms that I told you were in agreement today are already agreed.

Okay. Thank you.

Just two follow ups. Just conservatively, how much does it cost to maintain a Apollo field?

Roughly $220,000 a year.

And so This year. You six fields now. Tell us, why do you need a seventh? Is it critical for your successful operation of MPC? Or is this just a want because it kind of adds to your portfolio and gives you more flexibility? Give us a sense of why you're so supportive of this.

So our mission is to grow polo. And our mission is to grow polo at MPC, and particularly because we bought that facility. So as the polo ecosystem continues to grow and more polo is played here, more fields are needed. The biggest risk to polo is development of polo fields. And if we have the opportunity to preserve a polo field, particularly adjacent to NPC, we think that's critical to our mission to promote and preserve polo.

Do we absolutely need a seventh field for this season? No, we got by with six fields last year. But as polo grows, we have 12 teams in the US Open this year. As we get more play, as we introduce more levels of polo into NPC, the need for more fields is driven up. Right? We're now doing youth polo there. We're doing women's polo. We're doing eight goal, 16 goal, and the high goal and gauntlet of polo. So the more polo that's played here, the more fields we need. And particularly if you're going to maintain them in the top condition as the best fields in the world.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? I've got one for staff. For the

plan they kept showing with the as of right plan, EOZD requires two acre minimum lots. And so if they does that two acres, is that before or after roads and lakes and everything else would also be required?

Under a straight subdivision plan, it would depend on how they wanted to subdivide the property. So if they wanted to create a lake track, then that would potentially come out of it. However, they would still be considered two acre lots with the buildable acreage slightly below that. They could put stormwater management on each individual lot. That would not require a separate lake tract, And that would also meet the requirement. So it just depends on how they want to subdivide it.

Loxahatchee, Ghost Polo. That's what

I would

say. So we would approve, in theory, a site plan like that that did carve out the lots to smaller than the two acre. Well, wouldn't

need to approve it. Is that It's an administrative approval.

To clarify, the lots would be two acres, but they might still also include some of the infrastructure shared among the lots, is what Corey is saying. How they've presented it. That's one way of doing it. It's not the only way.

:So if each lot just stored their own storm water, had their own drainage, they could be two acres independent and not have to share any of the drainage responsibilities with any of the other lots, right?

:Potentially.

CHRISTIAN And do we have that in other parts of Wellington?

CHRISTIAN I mean, Rustic Ranches is essentially they're five acre lots, but the lots go to the center line of the roadway. And as well as the drainage throughout the community is easements on the lots themselves. Preserve as well? Yeah, Wellington Preserve is another one.

Any other questions?

I have a question about the traffic study that the staff did. Whenever you did the traffic study, did you take into did staff take into account the projects that are going on at Village Park, like the Boston project, the pool, and things of that nature whenever they were doing the traffic study?

Well, to clarify, we don't prepare traffic studies. Their consultants prepare them. We review what they prepare. But yes, they would have included all approved projects that were in the pipeline prior to their application.

Got it. Thank you.

One follow-up question. Can we pull up 6.8.8 again? Paragraph D3 talks about the deed restriction, and it has specific language about limiting it in perpetuity for the use of common equestrian amenities. And it lists specifically owners and residents or guests of owners within the equestrian development. But today we got a new version of Resolution twenty twenty five dash 67.

And in condition number 10, it seems to track the language of that, but also add something additional. And in particular, it says now in this proposed resolution that the restrictive covenant is gonna be in a form acceptable to the Wellington attorney shall be executed and recorded to limit in perpetuity the use of equestrian facilities to owners, residents, guests, members, and or licensees of owners within the PUD prior to the recording of the plat. So I see that the words licensees of owners are added here as part of the restrictive covenant, And that seems to go beyond what Section 6.8.8 says must be the limited uses and limited persons that can have use of the common equestrian amenities. You tell me why that language is in there?

The licensee would essentially be a guest of the property owner.

Then why are we putting that language in there? Because it already says

For clarification, just to make sure that it's all encompassing for this project.

But that's not what the LDR allows for. The LDR says guests. If your interpretation is that guests includes licensees, why are we doubling the language? You're going beyond what the code says.

We are, the condition is acknowledging the unique situation of it being a polo field. And as I said earlier, if these were strictly stables and riding rings and amenities that are, that can be narrowly limited to the owners and residents in the development, we would have. But as a polo field and with the arrangement with the USPA, we wanted to support that inclusion and that proposal.

So you're going broader than the language of D3 of 6.8.8.

Which is permissible as part of a plan development, and that's why it's explicit in the conditions of approval and not just something that is a code required, you know, presented as a code.

Just Mr. Chair and for the rest of the Board, I was just I was after we hear from Mr. Schiller in response to this, I was just wondering if it's almost nine and I was thinking maybe we could either I don't know if we want to break and then go to public comment or do public comment just so we don't inconvenience people and then we can come back to

our question. Was actually reading my mind because I was actually looking at nine as the goal here to kind of wrap up the questioning part of this. So are there any other questions? Well, I want

I think Mr. Schiller

wanted I have have a quick comment, Mr. Chair. Ms. Yakis, if you give us a couple of minutes during public comment we're going to confirm that maybe we can take licensees out of the conditions of approval. Okay?

I have one last question before we break then, unless there's any others. There's, I think it's nine, general condition nine which has to do with land dedications or monetary payments. I thought I heard $71,000 Where did that number come from? What is their they planning to make school

was their MR. Payout of the schools? Yeah.

So under condition nine here, what are we currently looking at? What is their proposal? Are they going to give back some kind of land? Or are they making a monetary payment? Has that been decided yet? And if so, what are you proposing?

So yes, that has not been decided. I don't believe they intend to dedicate any land. And so it will be the in lieu. And the condition lays out that it's either 50,000 per acre for market value, whichever is greater, based upon their requirement of Parks and Rec at just over 25,000 square feet and Civic at a little over 5,000 square feet.

So am I interpreting it correctly? Is it 71,000?

No. 71,000 was for schools payments.

Yeah. That's

different. So that's different. So we'll

make another non monetary contribution.

And just, sorry, one follow-up question.

Who

will own all of the equestrian amenities in this proposed development?

The JV of what? Yeah, the JV ownership of DLC and McCourt Partners, the owners of the club.

To go against my prior comment about the wanting to go question. But I have a follow-up on Tatiana's. The plan to have the so there's two versions we've seen of the master plan, I think, with the bubbles. But the equestrian element and the club element would both be owned by the JV, Right? I'm assuming. So the only thing that would be separate from that would be the residential JAMES

Or the individual residential And lots. JAMES

we're not talking about a homeowners association here where the residents would have control over any of those facilities, correct?

JOSHUA There will be a homeowners association, because there are common areas that we're going to have to upkeep and maintain and security. As far as the relationship between the HOA and the club? It would probably be distinct, right? I think they're probably distinct right now. But Yes. They are. Separate. Ownership.

Separate. So the residents will not have any ownership interest in anything in the club amenity pod?

No. Yeah.

No. Members, but not owners.

Please repeat your question. I'm getting involved.

Will the residents in this proposed development have any ownership of the club amenity equestrian parcels?

No. Thank you.

Okay. So I'm going to entertain a motion to take a five minute break. So moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor?

Aye. Hearing none opposed. And afterwards, we're going to public comment?

Yes. So let's try and get back by 09:05, everyone, please. And then we will open up well, assuming there's a motion, we will open up on the comment thereafter. Thank you. We could reconvene here.

It's now 09:05 p. M. And we want to stick to the schedule as best we can.

Can I make a motion to

open? Absolutely,

Mr. Ross. Second.

Well, wait. There's a motion It was to open public Okay. And the second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, we are now open for public comment. Do we have cards? We do have cards. Okay.

Mr. Gannon?

Yes. Do you wanna give the queue up person too? Yeah. Then

Nacho Figueres.

Nacho I believe. Yeah. He wrote something.

But Okay. Alright. Would you mind handing it?

Yeah. Sure.

And we'll read that into the record form.

I'll give it to you.

Evening, everyone. My name is Tim Gannon, and I'm a resident of Wellington at 3585 Aiken Court in South Fields overlooking a Polo Field. I have a 1.9 acre kind of farm. It's very difficult, just so you know, to have horses on a 1.9 acre. It's tight. Very, very tight. I think five acres is kind of a minimum. But anyway, I was I built the Outback Polo Farm, a 40 acre farm behind NPC. It's still perfectly the way it was twenty years ago. I knew John.

I encouraged him to build National Polo Center and to build the stadium. I'm member number one of his club. I was chairman of the Polo Club for three years and know all about the intricacies of running a club of three fifty members. So what they're planning to do, I think, is very not only feasible but beautiful. I think we have a unique opportunity here in Wellington to bring three great partners together: Frank McCourt, an equestrian, you know, totally devoted to Wellington and the life of Wellington.

The discovery group that I've gotten to know, both from Bakers Bay, Florence, Italy, and incredible work they do. I think we're bringing in the National Polo Center. All of these three people have what you need when somebody's going to do a development. They have longevity. They're going to stick around.

They're not going to leave a development high and dry. Discovery Group has done beautiful projects all around the world. And they know how to manage properties well. And that's key in parcel because this is going to be a club that needs to be well managed and well taken care of. The Polo Center has got, you know, a deep commitment into Polo and they have the the funds to take good care of this field.

And, you know, I watched the the Polo Club get built and the stadium get built and the whole evolution of that. And the equestrian life that you get from being a part of that club. They're gonna exceed, I think, the quality of what the Polo Club is today, primarily because the kitchens and the designs they have are up to date and very nice. So I think it's going to be a great addition as an adjacent club. And I think the National Polo Center sees it as additive and not and to bring more people into our area.

So I think this is a unique opportunity to bring three great minds together. And they all, you know, these are three people working for the same goal. They're all trying to preserve an equestrian life. So I think I would hate to pass up this opportunity and see this just go into a housing development of two acre lots. So I just I'm a big fan of this project. I think it's the perfect group to pull all this together, and I would hate to see us pass this up. So any questions or anything? MR.

Oh, thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Male Next is Jennifer.

And let's call in on deck.

On deck is Doctor. Lund.

Thank you.

I'm Jennifer Prelitz Santana. I live at 2865 Polo Island Drive in Wellington. I received some emails from friends that couldn't be here with us tonight.

Sorry, Jennifer. Do you mind just putting the mic in front of me? Thanks.

It's my height. Friends that couldn't be here this evening, but share the same passion for this project as I do. Chip McKenney, that's from Wellington as well. He's an avid polo player, as well as an event producer. He says the purpose of this email is to voice my full support of the Isla Carroll development project as a full time Wellington resident polo player and polo event producer.

I'm in favor of this project because it includes the preservation of Isla Carroll East Polo Field. Currently, Wellington is losing Polo Fields to construction at an alarming rate, and it is critical to preserve the Isla Carroll Field, which developers have agreed to do. It is my opinion that allowing this project to move forward ensures us that polo fields are open to sporting events in the future. Please vote yes. Then I have Rebecca Kriege, my neighbor on Polo Island.

As a fifteen year resident, I would like to express my support for the Isla Carroll development project. The equestrian roots and history of Wellington make this unique community, the only one of its kind in South Florida. Maintaining the open space, farms, and preservation of green space is not only in the interest of our equestrian residents but is good for Wellington residents. In particular, the Isla Carroll project presents a thoughtful, sustainable development model while preserving green space in a world class polo venue. In partnership with the USPA, this unique development will maintain in perpetuity one of the most iconic polo fields in Wellington.

In addition, having the outstanding caliber of Discovery Land Company on board manage the development and future aspects of the community is undoubtedly a win as well. Please consider that as an alternative to the proposal in the stark contrast with what can be accomplished through the Islet Carol project. Wellington needs to move thoughtfully and carefully a sustainable development that preserves our community's heritage and is best for our residents. Suzanne Porter, resident of Wellington. I was surprised that the EPC did not recommend passage of the discovery development next to NPC.

I truly hope that PZAB recommends the passage and, of course, hope the council gives a green light. It seems that clustering the homes and leaving some event green space for polo or other equestrian events is a nice idea. Two acre properties are not in high demand, too small for farms and too much for residences. The more popular structure is envisioned by the Discovery Land Company. Further, if someone did want a farm property, it is still possible to combine lots.

Discovery is a first class developer. I have been a member of their clubs in the past and a visitor to many, and I think the community should do anything it can to attract this caliber of partner. I understand the EPC wrestled with the words in perpetuity, which, of course, is what Discovery promises for the green space. I think that it would be an iron I'm sorry. I think that that can be ironclad and not reversed. I think the committee's fear arises out of the changes occurring in the equestrian preserve. However, that is different than the nonapplicable structure to this arrangement. I trust that the PZAB will know how to do this. I have one from Lisa Kukorian. I understand that Isla Carroll is partnering with the USPA to maintain the use of Isla Carroll Polo East Field during the U.

S. Open Polo season from January through April. This is great for polo. I also understand that the field will be maintained as equestrian open space in perpetuity. This is great for Wellington. I support the project. Missy Sullivan, who runs an insurance organization here, she also sent her email of support. She understands that the Isla Carroll project is partnering with the USDA to maintain the use of Isla Carroll East Polo Fields during the US polo season. This is great news for the polo community. I also understand that the field would be maintained as an equestrian open space in perpetuity, which is great for Wellington.

I am very familiar with Discovery Land Company and the high quality of its developments, which it continues to operate after the project is built. The Isle Cal project balances development and preservation and will retain the polo field, partnering with USPA. This is a win win for polo, equestrians, and equestrian lifestyle for all in Wellington. I support the project. I'm a resident as well, and I support this project. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Santana. And my apologies, I should have clarified this in the beginning. There's been a change to our protocol where, because the applicant presented both the comp plan and the master plan amendment, while a speaker would normally have three minutes, they now have six.

Oh, good. Okay.

Why didn't they have that at EPC?

I don't know if this change was made before or

I But could you get it now.

Was before, but

I think it just the

chair it just didn't

So are we we're set to six? Is that yes?

When it's a combined hearing, the new procedures provide that the public gets up to six minutes. That's why.

A good meeting. Not going to have to use all six, but you have

All right. Tom, you got it. Uh-oh. You're about

it. The former

mayor used to say, you're not required to

use Yeah. All your

after Doctor. Maureen, you're on deck.

Christy Lund, 11739 Acme Road. This meeting tonight is not about saving a polo field, although I give the applicant credit for using WLP's Save the Horse Show playbook and changing it to save the polo field. The January application would have gone through, this polo field wouldn't exist today, but they had to do something to mark it, and this is what they came up with. The meeting tonight is to determine if this application meets the definition of an equestrian cluster development, fulfills the aspirations of the comp plan, abides by the LDRs, and is an appropriate development in our truly iconic historic EOZD. I will show that it fails.

An equestrian development and they used to have a definition in the LDRs, they took out the definition is designed for people who own or ride horses featuring horse friendly amenities like stables and arenas and large lots for horses to live in. That's from Google, ChatGPT, and any person you talk to. It fails. There's no large lots here. There's no horses at all.

And staff mentioned this, it was incorrect. It says in their new master plan, it says right here, Equestrian uses and or structures, excluding bridal trails, shall not be permitted within the 40 single family lots. So they cannot combine lots. No horses. The president of the last president presidents of the last twenty six years for cluster development in the EOZD and in our comp plan and LDRs was to cluster the homes and preserve large open space.

Not to cluster homes and build a large members only commercial country club on the rest of the land. Com plan policy 1.1.1 states this: A, they must preserve large lots of equestrian farms. They don't. They must preserve equestrian lifestyles. At EPC, the applicant couldn't even define equestrian lifestyles, and staff wouldn't give me one.

And even though in January they went on and on and on about how their daughters live in their equestrian lifestyle and does horse vaulting, they don't give us a definition because they know that their definition doesn't meet this application doesn't meet the definition. They just admitted that their plan provides exposure to an equestrian lifestyle. The guy just said it. Not living it. Just because I watch a football game twice a week doesn't make me live a football lifestyle. Polospectania is not a lifestyle. Equestrian lifestyle is eating, living, sleeping, breathing horses all day long. And their plan doesn't meet that. I don't live a healthy lifestyle if I go to a gym once a week and watch people work out. C, permit limited commercial uses which support the equestrian industry.

The commercial country club has no tax stores, feed stores, or any stores involving a horse. It fails. The definition of an equestrian industry is if you take the horse out of it, there is no industry. It fails, and it's definitely not limited. The commercial stuff in this country club is eight times more than the 40 residents. You have 1,000 members versus 120 people that live there. So why is that so big? And staff states, oh, well, the residents want this new fancy stuff. That's a lot of fancy stuff for 40 residents. So I disagree with that.

Some would argue that they meet the standard of LDR 6.8.8. It wouldn't be hard to meet it, because it's so vaguely written. The January EPC meeting showed the unintentional consequences of this poorly written LDR, and it was acknowledged by EPC staff, legal, and PACB, so much that the EPC is working on a rewrite. I question, if they meet the LDR, then why was the final clause of Resolution twenty twenty five-sixty seven, why did they have to rewrite it? And when this LDR was written, there was no such things as country clubs in the PUD.

So the definition, when it was written, members should never have been included. That was added labor. Why are we rewriting our LDRs to meet the application? Why is the application not being rewritten to meet our LDRs? This development is totally inappropriate in our iconic EOZD, and does nothing to benefit the Wellington Horse community or any of the businesses in Wellington.

One and a half to two acre farms, which the applicant states are economically feasible, they do. One and a half to two acre lots with 40 homes would have families that go out into Wellington and spend money, and join clubs like NPC and support them. No, you don't have a guarantee that horse people are going to buy them, but their proposal has no horses, no horse people buying them. And one and a half to two acre lots would preserve 60 acres of open space. You saw their picture, you know how see how much green was on there?

But they're claiming that their little country club community preserves more open space. They preserve 10 acres. Three Wellington realtors I spoke with this week, equine Wellington realtors, have confirmed that one and a half to two acre lots not only are selling, quote, we are running out of land. There is no more land left, and I can sell these every single day. They will sell. Two acre lots could mean 300 to 400 horses, which support the horse show, local businesses like feed stores and grooms. Their polo ponies are already here. Not going to provide any more economics. They're already here. So, you know, those people are going to come in, use the country clubs, spend all their money there, make the suburban land richer, and does nothing for the equestrian community.

So why would we want that? And why are we selling off land around when we're supposed to support this big new horse show that we got, and now we're going to get rid of all the land around the horse show? Where are the horses going to go to support this new horse show that the council voted for? Your vote in favor is basically like taking this lane out of the EZOD. Yes, staff says you can convert it back, but it's really hard to convert back land that's already a country club. That is not going to happen. Jill Holmes already has 30 acres under contract. Two other proposals to try to buy more lands they're chomping at the bit, sorry for more land. If you approve this, say goodbye to Sub Area B. Thank you.

Well done, right at the

Thank you. Who's on up

deck? Sarah Goose? Sarah Goose.

Go ahead, Maureen.

Maureen Brennan, 1300481 Fountain View Boulevard. Thank you very much for your great questions for this applicant. I can breathe. I got six minutes. The bi right diagram, I heard it was described as, I don't know, was not good. I would suggest to get reworked, so it is good. There's plenty of land to use there to make very attractive two acre lots, four acre lots. It could be eight, ten, they could be any size. And I think Saddle Trail, if you're familiar I don't know if you all know Saddle Trail. It's like one of the most beautiful places in The United States.

Those are small two, four acre lots. So I think they could put their pen to paper again to make a better buy right situation. Okay. So I'm the polo person in the room. Tim left. I've played on that field, mostly because I'm a woman, and that's where we get stuck. Not because it's a historic best field in Wellington. That's where the kids went. That's where the women went. Because it was not the best field. Okay. So we played on that field for two open finals when it reigned in over the twenty five year history of almost thirty year history of that field. Historic is a new word. The only historic field I think was already knocked down for global. That was Palm Beach Polo 1.

So it's just a polo field that has a crown. You can make any polo field with a crown. It's your choice. In fact, it gets too dry. That's one of the problems. So it's great in the rain. I do admit it. But we have to, I think, redirect the narrative to it's a land of grass that could be a potential residential situation, because there is no protection. A deed restriction that has the ability to be changed is not perpetuity. A land grant would be perpetuity, which now even in Osceola County, they're going right through the conservation easement up there for a road.

So I could not hang anything on the fact that this word perpetuity is being sent around abused. We already learned that a four out of five vote is very possible by the council to take land out of the preserve. So that does not give me any comfort whatsoever. I want to know why the Polo Field wasn't a consideration when this first came up before you before. It's obviously not that important.

It's a Trojan horse. It's just a use for entitlement. I don't trust that after these entitlements are given that Polo Field stays because Discovery has a history of changing things throughout, as as we know, Hope Sound doesn't have Polo anymore, and that's their situation just up the road, and amongst a bunch of other things going on in other towns. So what we don't have is a guarantee for perpetuity, but we're being told that. We don't have an agreement with the USPA since that door has been opened. I'm a board member of the USPA. I'm one of the people that vote on this. And I can say with confidence that I'm not sure it's going to get passed. Okay? So that's how I feel.

You heard somebody else say what they thought. So that agreement does not exist. There's no deed. There's no parking arrangement I keep seeing reference to. Because stand alone, this wouldn't pass anything. If you took an aerial view, they don't have parking for this 300 plus, guess it's 1,000 when you do the count, it's 145 spots. They want to use our property for overflow. In addition, there's no horses. There's a green rectangle. There's no horses.

This is not an equestrian focused situation. A spectator, it's insulting to say if you spectate, you're an equestrian. That is silly. So we have no horses, no deed that I've had eyes on, no agreement, no parking agreement. We have talk.

And I would assume those are things that we see at this point in time for a group like yourselves. I'm glad that you brought up the oversized country club. It gives me great concern, because I can see what could happen. The neighboring land to the north could be unified, perhaps, that could fulfill having that great sized club. We did hear back about a year and a half ago about Pearson Road being a hard line for no development in the equestrian preserve.

I really wish I would be honored, and this to me is it's development. It's just being rephrased with things that really don't exist. Like I said, no horses, no agreement, no deed. 6.8.8. I've never had to ask a guest to sign a license agreement to come over to my house.

How can a guest also be a license agreement person? And also, I don't believe members belong on that either. So 6.8.8 is being adjusted before our eyes in lifetime here. That's an LDR that has to go through a process for any change. It cannot just be written into a condition, from what I understand.

Maybe I'm wrong. So to, I can't believe I used this time, but I would go back again. There's no horses, no guarantee, nothing historic, No agreement. You just have the will of a developer to develop in the Equestrian Preserve. Thank you.

Right. Thank you.

All right. Sarah. And then next up would be Phoebe.

Ms. Goose. Ms. Goose, did you take an oath? Did you take an oath? No. I did not see you raise your hand.

Now.

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. Thank you.

Every time I hear Discovery speak, it seems like something has changed in the application. First, they were going to lease the Polo Field to NPC. Now it's going to be a license. I looked up the definition while I was here. A lease gives a tenant proprietary right to the space, while a license is a contractual right for the use which the property owner can revoke at will.

So there's no real agreement. If you can revoke a license at will, this has no teeth, no bite. It means nothing. Okay? So this polo field may or may not exist.

Unless this polo field is put in a third party conservation easement in real perpetuity, not till the owner of this field or the village or someone else decides it's developable now. It is not in perpetuity, and it is not going to be preserved. I don't even think it will be preserved in my lifetime, and I'm old, so which is not very long. I am really worried about this equestrian preserve. I do not think it's going to exist very longer for equestrians, for horses, for the equestrian lifestyle, for anything if we allow clubs with outside members to come into the preserve.

This is seriously changing what the meaning of the preserve was, what 8.66 was supposed to be. And I am really, really concerned. I'm a member of NP, National Polo Club. I love polo. I love watching polo. But as I'm seeing the club, I went to the match, the 20 that they leased out. I almost they said, it's open boxes. We have our own box. There was dog poop everywhere. There was popcorn that was not cleaned up from before. It was dirty. I was sticking. My feet were getting stuck in goo in the box. We moved to another box. It was the same.

Bathrooms are supposed to be completed at NPC around the pool area. They're not done. And a roof we have a box that has a roof. The roof is still not done. I'm concerned that they have the money to maintain this field if they don't have the money to maintain the club that they bought.

So that's a huge concern of mine. Who's really going to be maintaining this field? And I just feel like outside members do not belong at a club in the preserve. The preserve is for equestrians, and for the members who live in that club for equestrian use, not for people who come from West Palm Beach to use the tennis and the non equestrian facilities there the tennis, the restaurant, whatever other sports, the pool. This does not meet the criteria for development in the preserve.

And I really wish it would. And I think we're selling Wellington short if we allow this. Thank you.

Thank you. All right.