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

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.