The Equestrian Preserve Committee on Oct. 22 recommended denial of a rezoning and master plan application for the Isla Carroll Polo & Residences planned unit development (PUD), concluding a lengthy public hearing that brought developers, the United States Polo Association (USPA) and dozens of residents to the podium.

Applicant representatives led by Ed DeVita of Discovery Land Company and counsel Seth Bain described a master plan that preserves the historic Isla Carroll East polo field and proposes 40 residential lots and a 31.32‑acre club/amenity pod with a polo venue, clubhouse and related facilities. The applicant presented a letter of intent (LOI) with the USPA to license the field for USPA matches and to share maintenance; attorney Neil Shiller for the applicant told the committee the team will proffer a deed restriction that would require a super‑majority vote of the Village Council to amend, and he said the applicant will not advance the project to Village Council without a signed agreement with USPA.

“Preserving Isla Carroll East as equestrian open space is the primary goal of our plan,” applicant partner Ed DeVita said, describing an agreement with architects and the USPA and saying the project would “strengthen Wellington’s status as a premier international home of polo.” DeVita’s team said the proposal delivers the same residential yield (40 lots) as the as‑of‑right entitlement, but preserves and guarantees open equestrian space under a restrictive covenant.

USPA interim chief operating officer Bob McMurtry said the USPA supports the proposal and the intent to operate Isla Carroll East as a working polo field. McMurtry told the committee a signed LOI is in place and that a 10‑year arrangement with extensions is anticipated; he said the USPA intends to make the field part of the organization’s broader program and that the USPA would insure and share the cost of maintaining USPA‑run matches.

Residents and multiple committee members pressed for detail and enforceability. Speakers including Lauren Brody and Maureen Brennan urged caution: they said the project’s club membership model, the potential for hundreds of outside club members and the applicant’s current lack of a signed, binding long‑term operations contract with USPA made the guarantee of perpetual equestrian use uncertain. Several public speakers — including residents and equestrian advocates — recommended placing the field in a third‑party land trust or recording a deed restriction that explicitly dedicates the field as open equestrian land.

Staff presentation and analysis: Senior planner Kelly Ferriolo and planning staff explained the application sought rezoning to Planned Unit Development/Equestrian Overlay Zoning District and adoption of a master plan (Petitions 2025‑0004‑REZ and 2025‑0002‑MP). Staff said the master plan proposes a 47.85‑acre residential pod (40 lots averaging about 0.43 acres net after roads/setbacks) and a separate 31.32‑acre club/amenity pod with the existing polo field and supporting infrastructure; staff summarized required conditions including a proportionate‑share payment of 2.82% for roundabout construction at Lake Worth Road/100th and 20th Avenue South, right‑of‑way dedication and annual traffic monitoring if needed. Staff concluded the application met comprehensive‑plan and LDR criteria subject to conditions and a restrictive covenant addressing the equestrian facilities shown on the master plan.

Committee discussion focused on three interlocking questions: 1) how to make equestrian open‑space protections durable in perpetuity (restrictive covenant vs. deed restriction vs. third‑party land trust), 2) whether a private club with several hundred nonresident members aligns with the intent of the Equestrian Overlay Zoning District and the comp‑plan language preserving large‑lot equestrian farms, and 3) whether the LOI with USPA is sufficient without a final, signed, long‑term operations and maintenance agreement. Staff and the applicant acknowledged those remain open issues; staff said restrictive covenants are commonly used and can be worded to be specific to the master plan, but committee members and public commenters pushed for stronger, third‑party protections.

After public comment and extended questioning, a committee member moved to deny the rezoning petition. The committee recorded a vote on the rezoning motion that resulted in the committee recommending denial; members later voted to deny the master plan as well. The transcript records the committee’s final actions as votes to deny the rezoning and to deny the master plan; the latter motion was recorded as carrying 5–2 at the close of the hearing.

What’s next: The applicant may revise the proposal and return through the required public‑hearing sequence; staff and applicant representatives said they will work on tightened deed‑restriction language and legal mechanisms that would make the preservation commitment more explicit before the matter goes to Planning & Zoning and Village Council. Several public commenters pressed the committee to require a recorded deed restriction or placement of the equestrian parcel in a third‑party land trust as a condition of approval.