MCB Analysis in response to VOW Staff Report: The Wellington North (TWN) June 7, 2023

The Equestrian Preserve Committee is being asked to make a recommendation contrary to the primary mission of the EPC. Staff is recommending they go against their very own charter of preserving and protecting land in the Equestrian Preserve Area.

HOW does the Staff recommendation for the EPC to approve TWN proposal preserve and protect the EPA and the Equestrian Community?

That is the one and only one question that needs to be answered if the Proposal requests to remove land from the preserve; land that cannot be recovered. Logic and common sense will show the proposal does not preserve and protect.

To sustain the equine lifestyle, the developer seeks to capitalize on, the land must remain for equine activities; competition, training and the recreational rider. The enormously lucrative equine industry is unsustainable without one of its most vital assets, land. The other of course being the equine athletes. Once rezoning of this precious asset is unleashed it will not be reined in. Once land is no longer available for horse use then the horse owners will relocate along with it will go the community that promotes open space, amazing athletes, exciting sport, desired living environment, unique character that produces revenue and increases housing value in the Village. The new housing market in South Florida non-coastal, non-equestrian neighborhoods is not even half the value of Wellington. TWN’s own market study acknowledges the trend; home value remains positive with the draw of high-profile equestrian festivals and competitions.

The entire justification of the Staff Report and the applicants Market Study is based on the premise there will be a buyer for the proposed inventory of high-end residences. The reality is this buyer profile will be following the horses; there won’t be horses in Wellington once the land is rezoned as housing. The market potential is based on the equestrian-centric market. That buyer pool will leave the area, therefore, the Market Study analysis is faulty which in turn demonstrates the Staff Report recommendation is faulty.

Staff would like us to believe if this parcel is removed from EPA precedent will not be an issue because this is legislative, each application is heard on its merits. Below I will provide details demonstrating A) how this proposal is without merit and B) how the justifications in the Staff Report actually makes it possible for any landowner to take land out of the preserve if the Council actually approves this unjustifiable application.

Very importantly since this property is in the EPA it fails the first requirement….it does not preserve and protect the equestrian community. There should not even be a conversation after this defining fact. However, Staff choices to ignore this crucial element. And in no manner did this proposal seek to improve anything about the facilities or the industry. It is requesting the elimination of an equestrian venue and bridle path system and install high density residential on land that was purchased with known restrictions of building rights. The buyer was fully aware of limitations on this property yet purchased anyway fully intending to change our rules and regulations meant to protect all property owner’s investments, not just equestrians but all residents that enjoy the character of the Village. The unique character originally created by the equestrian community keeps housing value far above the norm. In no uncertain terms did Staff attempt to defend the land in the EPA.

As one landowner in the preserve so astutely noted, “The equestrian community has invested $100’s of millions of dollars in a community that theoretically has rules and laws that protect our investment and way of life. If the council is so flagrantly going to disregard the rules and regulations, they should be held accountable for the damage they are potentially allowing. Please respect the rules, regulations, laws and the duties you signed up for. Thank you.” Bob J.

The Staff Report tries to link TWN with TWS however there are no Conditions whatsoever in either application that describes these as tied or contingent. This is important because they are trying to promote the idea that the venue is relocating and expanding but that does not change the fact the EPA land would be reduced. And since there are no contingencies between the two proposals there is no guarantee a new venue will be constructed. There are many vagaries and instances lacking transparency. For example, the multi-family units building height has not been documented, applicants states only needs 3 du/ac which could be satisfied by Residential D but is requesting Residential E 5-8 du/ac which allows for building height over 35’. Mixed messages throughout whether potential homeowner is equestrian or empty nesters and families which contradicts the premise of enhancing equestrian community. Residential E is also eligible for additional density through reinvestment bonus program up to maximum two times units per acre.

Recommendation by Staff page 12 of Staff Report
Staff analysis concludes application complies with requirements for comprehensive plan amendment. There are five principles for their justification and each item is followed by a counter position I provide which dismisses their argument for compliance.

Five points for basis of Staff recommendation to approve:
1. Property location: A) on outer edge of EPA. B) only EPA land north of Pierson other than Black Watch 22 acres.

Counter argument: A) there will always be land on outer edge of EPA or any designated land mass. That fact does not entitle to rezoning of similar adjacent land just because it is situated proximate to a delineation. There are irregular boundaries throughout the EPA so attempting to say it needs to be squared off simply because it is located north of Pierson is without merit. B) The second comment is misinformation; there are hundreds and hundreds of acres north of Pierson; Saddle trail and Paddock Park. In addition, there simply is no logic to comment that it is right to remove 96.29 acres because there will only be 22 acres left. If the mindset was to preserve and protect then the argument would be to oppose removing the land specifically because there would ONLY be 22 acres remaining. The edge will keep moving and total land mass will continue to shrink.
No land = No horses = No market.
*Staff is literally handing the precedent to the next landowner on the new boundary line if the justification is “on outer edge of EPA”

2. Adjacent property non-equestrian

Counter argument;
There will always be adjacent property to any property.
Simply because the structures on the other side of a designated area are zoned differently than the EPA does not mean the owner is entitled to converting EPA to adjacent neighboring zoning. There isn’t any logic to this point. Polo Island was referenced as an example but that was created to enjoy view of open space which are polo fields.

3. 1% of EPA

Counter argument:
This is how preserved land disappears, piece by piece. It is irrelevant that it is only 1%. Wellington is geographically constrained by water bodies and major roadways so more EPA land cannot just be created if land is removed.

4. Surrounded on three sides by non-equestrian properties
Counter argument;
This is thinly veiled truth. The 28 single family units would have housing on three sides however, the 278 condos only have the PBPCC Bagatelles to its north and the density for the Bagatelles was already taken from the subject property. And the Bagatelles are only 2 stories unlike the proposed condos with 4 stories.
The peninsula of Polo Island was created to enjoy view of polo fields. It can’t be used as a justification of “likeness” therefore build more. There simply is no merit to saying it should be allowed to have high density residential zoning just because the neighboring property has residential zoning.
*This is not zoned for residential cannot compare EPA with residential property.

5. A) Overall context of TWN in context with other TW proposals including new showgrounds B) is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the equestrian community and lifestyle.

Counter argument:
A) There are no conditions linking proposals yet the recommendation attempts to link. This is unacceptable that staff is trying to justify a proposal by tying it to another proposal. Conditions for this do not exist in either application. And what if The Wellington South project does not get built? Then a horse show venue has been lost to the community because it was wiped out for TWN meanwhile TWN was justified by the