Wellington council denies plan change but approves rezoning for Littlewood property after heated public hearing

Wellington’s Village Council on April 14 rejected a proposed change to the town’s comprehensive plan but approved a separate rezoning tied to the same 59.3‑acre Littlewood Equestrian Center site after a lengthy and often emotional public hearing.

The pair of applications covered property known in the record as 14833 50th Street South. Staff told council the requests were intended to correct a legal‑description error and to remove site‑specific conditions adopted in 2007 for a show‑venue approval. Kelly Ferriolo, planning and zoning staff, described the requests as a ‘‘cleanup’’ to make the zoning consistent with the future land‑use map and to update ambiguous legal descriptions.

Opponents, including an attorney representing several adjacent property owners, urged denial. ‘‘Procedurally, this item is deficient,’’ said Robert Volpe, who represented seven nearby landowners and argued the application was never processed as a comprehensive‑plan amendment under the code and lacked a full compatibility analysis. Residents cited bridle‑path protections, truck traffic, dust and odors linked to an existing manure‑handling activity on a contiguous portion of the site.

Applicant representative David Millage said the rezoning and amendment would resolve an inconsistency between the zoning map and the future‑land‑use map and that the request did not add new entitlements; ‘‘This is a development order amendment based off of Florida law,’’ he told council, adding that the uses the applicant seeks are consistent with earlier approvals. Staff and the applicant said the property previously carried site‑specific restrictions that were typical of the era the ordinance was adopted.

Public commenters voiced widespread concern about potential industrialized uses being allowed near equestrian residences. Johan Rosenberg, a nearby equestrian property owner, told council the proposal ‘‘fails on your comprehensive plan on its face’’ and urged denial. Several speakers described dust, truck speeds and smells they attribute to current operations on and near the parcel and warned of traffic conflicts with bridle paths.

Council split its action between the two applications. Members voted 5–0 to deny the comprehensive‑plan amendment as presented. On a separate motion the council approved the rezoning ordinance—after an amendment narrowly tailored to correct the legal description—on a 3–2 vote on first reading. Councilmembers discussed that both successful and denied items will return for a required second reading before final adoption or rejection.

What passed and what’s next: the council’s first‑reading approval of the rezoning aligns the zoning map with the property’s current future‑land‑use designation; the comprehensive‑plan amendment was denied in its current form. Both items are scheduled to return for second reading; any future development would still require site plans, master plans and any additional permits that are subject to review and public notice.

The hearing record includes detailed staff reports, contested legal‑description text and dozens of public comments; councilmembers repeatedly noted the difference between the land‑use designation in the map and the original 2007 conditions that limited uses at the time. The council’s action does not change the existing status of the manure‑handling operation, which speakers and staff said is permitted as an agricultural use and has been reviewed by state agencies.