Report appears to indicate property may meet rehabilitation criteria
OCEAN CITY — The Ocean City Planning Board will take up a review of the Wonderland Pier property at a Jan. 7 meeting at the Music Pier.
Ocean City Council voted Dec. 4 to refer the home of the former amusement park at 600 Boardwalk to the Planning Board, asking its recommendation on whether it qualifies as “an area in need of rehabilitation.”
The Planning Board will have to determine if it meets the rehabilitation criteria under state law 40A:12A-14.a. Those criteria include whether significant portions of the property are deteriorated or in substandard condition, it is vacant or abandoned, has aging water and sewer infrastructure, if there is environmental contamination or its taxes are in arrears.
A report filed with the Jan. 7 agenda appears to show that the property may meet two criteria.
The Planning Board has 45 days since receiving the resolution from City Council to make its recommendations back to council, including modifications. It was submitted to the Planning Board secretary Dec. 5.
That means the clock is ticking.
On the planners’ agenda for the 6 p.m. meeting, it makes clear what won’t be discussed, a definite nod to the months-long controversy over what the owner of the property has proposed for the site.
Discussion of the council resolution is the fourth item on the agenda and it comes with this statement: “**Please note: proposed plan, zoning, use will not be discussed.”
Hotelier and luxury home builder Eustace Mita purchased the property in early 2021 to stave off foreclosure on the amusement park, then leased it back to park owner Jay Gillian, who continued to run it through the 2024 season. In August 2024, Gillian announced the amusement park, which had been open just shy of 60 years at Sixth Street and Boardwalk, would close permanently in October 2024.
The park sat quiet throughout the 2025 summer season. The main building was open, but the century-old carousel was dormant and the kiddie rides removed. In their place were arcade games, a bike rental shop, the Dead End Bakehouse and Ocean City Pizza Co.
The planners’ agenda note regarding what they won’t discuss is exactly what has been discussed extensively at City Council meetings, in public and on social media ever since Gillian, the resort’s mayor, announced the park’s closure 16 months ago.
Mita has proposed building an eight-story, 252-room hotel with 10 to 12 storefronts, incorporating the carousel and a few other rides on the property. He said the cost to do his project would be about $170 million and if he gets the go-ahead would take about two years to build.
The boardwalk property is zoned for amusements, not hotels or condos.
Mita had asked City Council to refer the parcel to the Planning Board to rule on whether it qualifies as “an area in need of rehabilitation” as a step to help fast-track his hotel project.
Ocean City Council refused his request in a 6-1 vote at an August meeting, at which opponents of the hotel dominated a public hearing, leading Mita to declare he was done and was putting his property up for sale for $25 million.
Although Mita said he received offers over and above his asking price, he delayed selling as pressure mounted for council to vote again on the referral. His delay in selling was rewarded Dec. 4 when council reversed itself in a 4-3 vote after a sustained outcry from the business community and all of the city’s merchants associations — boardwalk, downtown, chamber and restaurant — arguing in favor of the referral.
Mita’s hotel plan has been the greatest topic of public comment not only at the August and December meetings, but at council meetings throughout 2025.
However, the referral to the Planning Board is not going to be a referendum on the hotel project. In fact, it is not about any project in particular, but whether the property qualifies as being in need of rehabilitation.
The public has weighed in on that as well, just as people have debated what qualifies as a “high-rise” hotel. Opponents of the hotel claim a property that valuable and sought-after should not qualify as needing rehabilitation. Supporters of the hotel — and others who believe whatever replaces Wonderland Pier will need the rehab designation — assert that as it sits vacant it becomes a blight on the boardwalk, dragging neighboring businesses down.
In a report Dec. 23 from board planner Randall Scheule, the council resolution asks if the rehabilitation of the property “may be expected to prevent further deterioration and promote overall development of the community.”
The resolution also notes there will be no “endorsement or approval of any specific use or project,” confirming planners will not consider Mita’s proposed project. Instead, it is a “first step in a public process to consider the best way to revitalize the property.”
Wonderland Pier is in the On-Boardwalk Zone, which covers from Sixth to 14th streets where permitted uses include retail, entertainment, amusements and restaurants.
Scheule’s summary
and conclusions
In Scheule’s report, which can be found with the agenda packet for the Planning Board meeting on the city’s website, ocnj.us, it states that “substantial credible evidence exists to support a determination that the properties … meet one or more of the criteria” to declare it an area in need of rehabilitation.
The criteria include that a significant portion of structures therein are in a deteriorated or substandard condition and that there is pattern of vacancy, abandonment or underutilization.
He cited excerpts from the “O’Donnell & Naccarato investigation on the elevated concrete structure adjacent to the boardwalk, accounting for half of the project site, showing the concrete framing generally appeared to be in poor to extremely poor condition.”
He cites a Rides-4-U report stating that it would cost $4 million to $6.5 million to repair the carousel, Ferris wheel and log flume rides and $3.9 million to repair the pier foundation and piling.”
The Planning Board has scheduled a second meeting for 6 p.m. Jan. 14, a week later, in council chambers. City Council has meetings scheduled for Jan. 8 and Jan. 22.
The choice for the Jan. 7 meeting location is fitting. Some 300 people were at the Dec. 4 City Council meeting where 87 people signed up for public comment, which lasted three hours, followed by another hour of council members explaining their position on the rehabilitation resolution.
– By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff