The Wellington Equestrian & Preserve Committee voted unanimously on Jan. 8 to deny two applications from McCourt Partners and Discovery Land Company seeking to rezone the 79.17‑acre Isla Carroll property and to adopt a planned unit development (PUD) master plan that would have clustered 40 dwelling lots and created a private club and equestrian center.

The committee acted on ordinance 2025‑01 (petition 2024‑0003) and resolution R2025‑01 (petition 2024‑0002 MP). After more than three hours of presentations, staff analysis, technical questioning and public comment, the committee members moved to deny both the rezoning and the PUD master plan. The committee recorded a unanimous vote to deny both items.

What was proposed: Attorney Seth Bain and representatives for McCourt Partners and Discovery Land Company presented a plan to rezone the property from Equestrian Residential in the Equestrian Overlay Zoning District (EOZD) to a planned unit development within the EOZD. The master plan would have clustered 40 dwelling units on roughly 47.75 acres of the site (30 single‑family lots, minimum one‑third acre; five equestrian residential lots, minimum 1.5 acres) and set aside a 31.42‑acre club amenity pod to include an equestrian complex and sports facilities.

The developer’s team said the PUD approach was intended to guarantee a large, consolidated equestrian complex on the property — something they said would not be assured if the land were developed as conventional two‑acre estate lots. Discovery Land Company described a "community barn" model: a year‑round, membership‑operated equestrian program that would include a 24‑stall stable, covered and open arenas, paddocks, a covered walker, grooming quarters, and an adjacent club with fitness, pool, spa, racquet sports and dining. Discovery’s presentation said the proposal would cap club membership at 300 families and that 40 memberships would be reserved for the 40 home sites.

Staff analysis and conditions: Planning staff (Kelly Ferriolo) told the committee that the applications had been reviewed against Wellington’s comprehensive plan and land development regulations and that the project’s gross density (0.5 dwelling units per acre) complied with the Residential B future land use designation and EOZD limits for sub‑area D. Staff recommended conditions of approval addressing timing of construction, right‑of‑way dedication and traffic mitigation, including a proportionate share payment for nearby intersection improvements and annual traffic monitoring. Staff also noted that the proposed equestrian complex could host smaller equestrian events under a special‑use permit.

Key questions and objections: Committee members, staff and multiple public speakers raised concerns about whether the proposed PUD would, in practice, protect the equestrian character and open space the EOZD was meant to preserve. Common themes included:
- Scale and composition: Several committee members said too much of the PUD pod was devoted to clubhouse uses (spa, restaurants, tennis/pickleball courts, event lawn) and not enough land or permanent equestrian infrastructure to support multiple competitive disciplines. Committee members and commenters noted the proposal’s 24 permanent stalls and 14.5 acres of equestrian area would be small relative to Wellington’s existing equestrian footprint and asked how multiple disciplines (dressage, show jumping, polo, hunter/jumper, vaulting, endurance) could be sustainably hosted.
- Horse welfare and operations: Members asked for specifics on daily turnout, paddock sizing and rotation, manure removal, and staffing and operating budgets for year‑round care. Committee members pressed whether rescue or retired horses proposed for the program could be supported long term and asked whether 24 stalls would meet community needs.
- Connectivity of bridle trails: The applicant proposed internal bridle paths and an east‑side trail, but staff and the committee clarified that the village’s mapped "red" bridle trail in that location did not currently exist. The committee asked for clear, documented links to the broader bridle‑path network.
- Traffic and service levels: The developer’s traffic consultant (Kimley‑Horn) said the mixed‑use character of the PUD would internalize many trips, but committee members questioned trip generation for members, events and restaurant service and asked whether 120th Avenue South and nearby intersections would support the activity. Staff required a proportionate share payment and right‑of‑way dedication for intersection improvements.
- Legal/plan framework: Several committee members and public speakers said the comprehensive plan and land development regulations refer to an "equestrian lifestyle" but do not define the term; they asked whether a plan that places much of the program into a private club fits the EOZD’s intent.

Public comment: Dozens of residents and stakeholders spoke. Critics said clustered PUDs historically had underperformed as equestrian facilities in Wellington and warned the proposal would be a commercialized club that would displace true open‑lot equestrian farms. Supporters — including one Southfields resident — praised Discovery’s track record developing vertically integrated club communities and said a professionally managed club could provide equestrian access for families who lack large private farms.

Applicant commitments and clarifications: The applicant said it would build equestrian elements early in the schedule and offered to amend staff’s suggested phasing so the equestrian complex would be completed earlier (they proposed 100% of the equestrian complex be built by the 11th home). They also said the club would be private (not open to general public) but could host occasional charity or educational events. The developer said the project was privately financed with acquisition debt and that operational improvements for existing grounds are self‑funded; long‑term capital for expansion would rely on committed investors and future sales.

Committee action and next steps: After deliberation, a committee member moved to deny the rezoning ordinance (2025‑01) and the PUD master plan resolution (R2025‑01); other members seconded and the committee recorded a unanimous vote to deny both applications. The committee’s role is advisory; the applications will proceed to the Planning, Zoning & Adjustment Board (PZAB) and Village Council, where additional public hearings and decisions will take place.

Ending: The hearing highlighted an ongoing local debate about how to preserve Wellington’s equestrian character while allowing private investment. Several committee members urged clearer definitions and stronger limits in code to prevent future proposals that cluster residential development around privately operated clubs rather than preserving traditional large‑lot equestrian farms. The developer said it would consider further refinements and continue discussions with staff and stakeholders.