Equestrian Preserve Committee asks council to review LDR Section 6.8.0.8, urges action on bridle trails and enforcement

The Equestrian Preserve Committee presented a set of guiding principles to the village council and urged staff and council to work with the committee to resolve what members described as an unintended regulatory change in the village’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs).

An unnamed Equestrian Preserve Committee member told council that changes adopted during the LDR rewrite created an opening in Section 6.8.0.8 that could allow cluster development or Planned Unit Development (PUD) style uses across the entire Equestrian Overlay Zoning District (EOZD). The committee speaker said that alteration would conflict with the village’s Comprehensive Plan objective to preserve large‑lot equestrian farms and limited commercial uses. "We need to take that section out," the committee member said, urging council to confine cluster development to prior subareas or to otherwise correct the code language.

Why it matters: Committee members said open‑space, farm‑scale equestrian land and safe, high‑quality bridle trails are central to Wellington’s identity as an equestrian destination. They argued that code language that broadens development flexibility in EOZD may allow non‑equestrian uses — for example banquet halls or racquet courts — in areas intended as open space around clustered homes.

Trails, enforcement and maintenance: Committee and council members also raised safety and maintenance issues for bridle trails adjacent to canals and rights‑of‑way. Concerns included motorized vehicles, bicycles and polo practice sets damaging footing and increasing safety risks to riders. Staff said enforcement would likely require law‑enforcement resources because code compliance personnel and Public Works cannot perform patrol‑style enforcement. Council members suggested the committee and staff prioritize a small set of trails for upgrade and to define permitted uses before pursuing enforcement changes.

Process questions and next steps: Committee members described limited notice and a lack of redlines provided to the committee during the prior LDR rewrite process; staff said the project standards manual remains project‑specific and does not represent a permanent, village‑wide annually changing standard. Council and staff accepted the committee’s request to work on Section 6.8.0.8: staff agreed to bring the issue back to Planning & Zoning (PZAB) and then to council if edits are proposed. The meeting record shows no formal ordinance change at this workshop; instead council members signaled consensus to authorize staff and the committee to pursue a targeted review of Section 6.8.0.8.

Ending: Council and committee members asked staff to schedule follow‑up work and to confine the initial review to the targeted code section so as not to trigger broader comprehensive‑plan rewrites without a plan. No formal vote was taken at the workshop.