[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6650035,"mediaKeyId","2510725-ca0d557ac030bb165d6b7658024d4f39","parentId",2510725,"title","Wellington committee adopts guiding principles and asks council to discuss ‘equestrian lifestyle’ definition","audioSeconds",4709,"startMs",2311000,"endMs",7020000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2510725-ca0d557ac030bb165d6b7658024d4f39&start=2311&end=7020","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2510725-ca0d557ac030bb165d6b7658024d4f39/thumbnail_2311000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6650035/Wellington/Palm-Beach-County/Florida/Wellington-committee-adopts-guiding-principles-and-asks-council-to-discuss-equestrian-lifestyle-definition","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6650035-d9632f1caa59ee24a70f4b3705c385bf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200035&Signature=KkcXSdRpV7~uvf7JUdqWHYfX1uleDTAF7xjTU4kBqYco3w~4sezlIwd8noEn3vo77ChXUowTZzt1Bnd0b-PrYX~~mq1cFqXMfuXT~LFI7qnD8fLIp7FrULUshyLOUB-ZUwloUdnEe8Cxssehh9kET1MAkQ8LZgemv1VWfgyXBZw-O38wWnk7e7~D56eVp7ZbjVnYF~Zyl0Nl213iAtQTvj~amNHXjLPrVjNFm9MH6ouHcgp7HiR4rPNh2BElkM1N9J0Om4CO8hgAuxK10FVsy0Mg0LONb0nX2VoN9VF~7~AV4TKlfTMvy9sNcBLqI5zzjLRvV0wyT5Tz0D9ZbuTZIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Wellington","date","2025-03-05T00:00:00Z","article","The Village of Wellington Equestrian Preserve Committee on March 5 approved a one‑page set of guiding principles intended to advise Village Council on decisions affecting the village’s equestrian character, and it voted to request a timely council discussion with committee participation.

Committee member and document author (reading as proposed) summarized the alternate one‑page draft as an attempt to “accomplish the same end without getting into the complexity,” framing the document as a concise set of points the committee wanted council to use as a checklist when making land‑use or policy decisions affecting the equestrian preserve. Members debated several edits during a multi‑hour discussion and agreed to remove language that staff had flagged as outside the committee’s authority, to clarify open‑space language, and to add a recommendation to use current minimum lot sizes to support the principle of preserving farms.

After a line‑by‑line review the committee voted unanimously to approve the revised guiding principles as amended and then voted unanimously to request that the Village Council place the EPC guiding principles on a council agenda “in a timely manner” and to include committee members in any presentation or discussion. One committee member (Christy Lund) participated remotely and was not eligible to vote by Zoom under committee rules; she stated she would have voted yes.

A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to whether the phrase “equestrian lifestyle,” which appears in the village’s comp plan and has been used by developers, should be formally defined and placed in the LDR definitions or removed entirely. Members and staff described two potential approaches: (1) develop a proposed definition of “equestrian lifestyle” and propose adding it to the LDRs/comp plan definitions, or (2) recommend removing the term from the comp plan and substitute more precise language (for example, explicit references to open space, minimum lot sizes, and lot‑size protections) so the comp plan and LDRs use consistent, enforceable terminology.

Committee members and staff agreed the comp plan and LDRs can be amended at any time but noted the comp plan is formally reviewed on a multi‑year cycle; staff said council would need to initiate a comp plan amendment and that the village manager controls agenda scheduling for council. Committee members said they would pursue both immediate and longer‑term strategies: seek a council discussion of the guiding principles now and work, in parallel, on either a definition or a comp‑plan amendment.

During public comment, resident Maureen Brennan urged the committee to be firm about preserving the village’s equestrian character and to revisit language she described as allowing clustering and permitting developments that she said undermine farms and open space. Brennan told the committee: “the equestrian lifestyle comes up over and over and over without a definition. So you're being asked to define what's open space.” She urged the committee to preserve lot sizes and other measures that support farm viability.

Committee members proposed several edits to the guiding principles prior to the vote: add an introductory summary sentence recommending council “embrace these guiding principles to preserve Wellington’s unique equestrian character”; remove a “six months a year” phrasing that members felt was unrealistic; replace “horse show‑centric” phrasing with language aimed at supporting farm residency and open space; and remove a separate item about affordable housing (committee members agreed it risked introducing broader policy issues beyond the committee’s scope).

Following the vote the committee chair said staff will prepare a cleaned, final document and distribute it to members before placing the item on the next committee agenda for formal approval of the minutes and for transmittal to council. The committee also agreed to reach out to council members to request a discussion slot and to offer the committee as a dialog partner.

Why it matters: Committee members framed the guiding principles as practical, committee‑driven policy guidance for council, designed to give council a checklist of equestrian priorities (open space, lot sizes, trail protection and safety) without overstepping the committee’s regulatory remit. The debate over the term “equestrian lifestyle” reflects a broader concern about how broadly worded policy phrases are interpreted in land‑use decisions.

What’s next: Staff will circulate a clean, final version of the guiding principles to committee members; the committee will seek a council discussion in the near term and will continue work on whether to propose a formal definition for “equestrian lifestyle” or to recommend removing the phrase from comp plan and replacing it with precise, enforceable language.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Wellington - Equestrian Preserve Committee on 2025-03-05 6:30 PM - Mar 05, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Village of Wellington Equestrian Preserve Committee on March 5 approved a one‑page set of guiding principles intended to advise Village Council on decisions affecting the village’s equestrian character, and it voted to request a timely council discussion with committee participation.","taxTitle","Wellington, Palm Beach County, Florida","taxId",8863,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6650040,"Wellington committee reviews 2025 equestrian trails circulation plan; delays formal recommendation pending further review",2020,376000,2396000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2510725-ca0d557ac030bb165d6b7658024d4f39&start=376&end=2396","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2510725-ca0d557ac030bb165d6b7658024d4f39/thumbnail_376000.jpg","/articles/6650040/Wellington/Palm-Beach-County/Florida/Wellington-committee-reviews-2025-equestrian-trails-circulation-plan-delays-formal-recommendation-pending-further-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6650040-154acbd789db63eccd40260d4b6afcb1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200035&Signature=KBlMl~ZDAAxruNYkMYvI7LI4JCZxVbn3FfOmDHNjpug2Xz38k5JxIg63X3RVBbp2b4XcO9xaNJ3cn8nPdn20AvqaQyenMeb8sbEsyXnoU4xDFWmqS1U4io0Eganqj4fvZe~LW4BUd0ITbTrYQJ4Y~OpnOAVjeg3rZZ3wk8KntvXHOtXWadJW1NIsfPQTTTqpylOzgDp7rexGNJQt1gD5Tl2yWw1RZRH3A4ChCvtRZwvnZObGw5sBUf2UfPiZ0hSMQ5UNRztAAQP68nSi3ahNHBicRHftvps7gCbMgJeqtXuOoXSv4jqhy42eQCVo41HOTCzpZah8rGWAy0ISN38S7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Before the Village of Wellington Equestrian Preserve Committee on March 5, planners presented the proposed 2025 Equestrian Trails Circulation Master Plan, outlining eight capital improvement projects, project sequencing changes and a plan to program work that improves equestrian safety and connectivity.

Planner Christian Santa Gonzalez, describing the document, said, “before you today is the 2025 Equestrian Trail Circulation Master Preservation Element, [which] identifies an Equestrian Trails circulation plan as a key component to improve the safety and provide a connected circulation system.” He told the committee the plan is reviewed annually and programs capital projects intended to improve safety and connected circulation for equestrian users.

Committee members and residents focused discussion on a small set of programming changes staff proposed since the last meeting. Staff said one change was moving installation of fencing along the Pink Trail up one year; another was moving the Sixtieth Street culvert crossing (listed as Culvert Crossing 3B in the budget exhibit) later in the program to the 2026–27 program year. Committee members questioned the basis for including the Sixtieth Street crossing, noting it appears lightly used and that a nearby homeowner said trail access would require crossing a private driveway.

A committee member noted the culvert crossing’s estimated cost is substantial: “300000,” one speaker said during the meeting when asked about price. Members said that a large price tag warrants verifying the original rationale for adding the project; staff agreed to review prior meeting records and Rachel Edelman’s prior advocacy for that item.

Committee members repeatedly raised the larger issue that some trails shown on maps are no longer usable or safe for horses. One member said sections such as the yellow Pearson bridle path and perimeter routes around Little Ranches are “not accessible to most residents” and in some locations utility or private- property actions (for example, an FPL gate) have blocked former trail access. Staff acknowledged the limits of enforcement over private property easements and said the public works department prioritizes maintenance for trails with heavier use while still maintaining a maintenance budget line separate from the capital improvement budget.

Members asked staff to study crossings that residents had flagged as dangerous, including the Indian Mound/South Shore intersection. Jonathan (staff) said the plan includes trail trip counts (exhibit D-1) and staff can add targeted counts or camera-based observations for intersections not yet measured; he agreed to study the South Shore crossing and to follow up with the committee.

Regarding next steps, staff requested a committee recommendation to the Wellington Council if the committee was ready. The committee instead agreed to delay a formal recommendation until members could review Rachel Edelman’s prior notes explaining why specific projects were added and until staff supplies additional information on trip counts and the Sixtieth Street crossing. At the meeting’s close on the agenda item, members agreed to defer the adoption recommendation and to revisit the project list at the next meeting.

Residents who spoke during public comment reiterated safety and access concerns. Maureen Brennan said she saw material on the village website that, in her view, inappropriately encourages bicycle use on equestrian trails; committee members noted trail guidance on the village site and asked staff to address trail-use guidance as part of the plan’s implementation.

Staff also flagged two near-term crossing upgrades recommended as higher-priority, lower-cost interventions based on recent counts and project comparisons: South Shore Boulevard at Fiftieth Street (a four‑way stop location) and South Road at Grecita Street. A staff technical note presented at the meeting estimated the South Shore/Fiftieth location would require flashing beacon equipment in all directions and estimated that project at about $50,000; the South Road/Grecita location was estimated at about $25,000. Staff said they would check whether developer conditions of approval for the new showgrounds require immediate upgrades to additional crossings being used for event access.

The committee asked staff to return with: documentation of why projects were inserted in earlier plan iterations, the original justifications Rachel Edelman provided, detailed trip-count information for flagged intersections (including Indian Mound/South Shore), and clarification of maintenance-versus-capital budgeting and timing for the Sixtieth Street culvert crossing. Staff agreed to provide those items and to schedule public works staff for a future discussion on maintenance responsibilities and priorities.

The committee did not take a final vote to recommend the 2025 master plan to council at this meeting; it instead tabled a recommendation pending the follow-up items staff committed to provide.

Why it matters: Wellington’s bridle-trail network is integral to the village’s equestrian identity. Committee members framed their role as protecting both safety and the functional integrity of trails, and they emphasized the need for data-driven prioritization before committing large capital funds.

What’s next: Staff will supply a clean list of the changed line items and prior meeting notes about the Sixtieth Street project, add any missing trip-count data, and coordinate a public‑works briefing on maintenance budgeting at a future committee meeting. The committee will revisit a recommendation to council after it has reviewed that documentation.

","Before the Village of Wellington Equestrian Preserve Committee on March 5, planners presented the proposed 2025 Equestrian Trails Circulation Master Plan, outlining eight capital improvement projects, project sequencing changes and a plan to program work that improves equestrian safety and connectivity.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Wellington committee adopts guiding principles and asks council to discuss ‘equestrian lifestyle’ definition

Wellington committee reviews 2025 equestrian trails circulation plan; delays formal recommendation pending further review