Council declines Isla Caro Polo rezoning after daylong debate

The Wellington Village Council on Feb. 24 rejected a proposal to rezone about 79.17 acres for the Isla Caro Polo & Residences PUD, bringing to a close an hours‑long public hearing that drew dozens of residents, equestrian stakeholders and developers.

The applicant described a substantially revised plan from the version presented at first reading: the team reduced unit counts from 40 to 27, increased average lot sizes, committed more than 70% open space and proffered a resident‑only equestrian program anchored by a 17‑plus‑acre polo field and a 10‑stall barn. "We are 33% less than the permitted density," attorney Neil Schiller told the council, summarizing the changes the project team said were made in response to council feedback.

Representatives emphasized a long‑term operating relationship with the United States Polo Association (USPA). Bob McMurtry, USPA interim COO, outlined the group's stewardship role and said the licensing arrangement was designed to secure the Isla Caro field for polo use over the long term. Developer Frank McCourt and others said the project would fund public improvements—$1.6 million pledged for design/construction of a roundabout at 120th Avenue South; an additional $500,000 toward a nearby roundabout; and $300,000 over six years for local schools—while asserting the plan would sustain Wellington’s equestrian identity.

Opponents—many of whom identified themselves as lifelong equestrians—argued the plan is effectively a private country club that allows hundreds of outside members and only nominally meets the preserve’s requirement that common equestrian amenities serve residents. "This project is presented as a recipe for failure," said Sarah Goose, a member of the community who urged the council to honor the equestrian‑preserve standards. Several speakers raised concerns about the size and operational control of the club, the proposed membership cap, and whether deed restrictions and management agreements would protect resident access and the polo field in perpetuity.

Council members pressed the applicants on details including timing and sequencing of the equestrian amenities and clubhouse construction, parking and traffic accommodations for trailer access, the membership cap, and the legal enforceability of deed restrictions and management agreements. Applicant counsel warned that, if denied, the village could face legal claims; council lawyers and staff reminded members the land‑use decision must be based on the record and the village code.

After rebuttal by the applicant and extended questioning, the council voted on the rezoning ordinance. The motion to approve the rezoning failed; the chair recorded the final vote as 4–1 against approval. Councilmembers split along concerns about whether the master plan met the Equestrian Overlay Zoning District requirement that the "common equestrian amenities shall serve as the internal focus of the development." The decision leaves the property with its existing entitlements and opens the door to further revisions or another application.

What’s next: The developer indicated willingness to work with the village on additional conditions and acknowledged the council’s concerns; advocates on both sides said they will continue the conversation. Any future submission would return to the council for review and might be informed by the zoning‑in‑progress updates staff is pursuing.