OCEAN CITY — The Ocean City Planning Board members who split 4-4 Wednesday night took opposite positions on whether the Wonderland Pier property qualified as “an area in need of rehabilitation.”
Each member outlined their positions — some at length, others in brief — after almost three hours of testimony and public comment.
At the heart was whether the property met at least one of six criteria for the designation. The Planning Board was focused on two criteria their own planner, Randall Scheule, concluded the property did indeed meet — that a significant portion of the property was in deteriorated or substandard condition and that there was a pattern of vacancy, abandonment or underutilization of the site.
After witnesses spoke on behalf of the project (see related story), Scheule said he agreed with their contention that the property met the criteria of a pattern of abandonment or underutilization based on the use of the property when the Wonderland Pier amusement park operated.
Scheule did point out that the criteria, including that regarding deterioration or being in substandard condition, were subjective in nature because there are no specifics in the state law, such as percentage.
Asked to vote and state their reasons, the eight Planning Board members present each weighed in.
Allegretto: Yes
Michael Allegretto, the mayor’s designee to the Planning Board, put his faith in the experts Eustace Mita’s attorney, Keith Davis, had testify, saying they were all sworn in and the licensed engineer and planner would be at risk if they testified falsely.
He agreed with the assessment there was significant deterioration of the structure beneath Wonderland due to the saltwater and air conditions, because the city has to do the same kind of maintenance with the substructure of the Ocean City Music Pier, where everyone gathered for Wednesday night’s meeting because of the large crowd expected.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that everybody in this room wants to see that site developed,” Allegretto said.
Reviewing the testimony presented, “I do believe it did meet both criteria and I vote yes.”
Barnes: No
Sean Barnes, the Ocean City Council liaison to the Planning Board, said he didn’t believe the rehabilitation law was meant to deal with desirable communities like Ocean City and high-value properties like the Wonderland Pier, that it was instead for communities such as Newark that lacked investment and needed incentives getting it.
He questioned whether the amount of repairs cited for the structure — $3.899 million in a report sent to planners — was enough to qualify the property for needing rehabilitation.
Barnes likened that type of investment to any property on the island because they all would need new foundations. He added that based on testimony, the cost represents only 13 percent of the value of the property. He dismissed the millions of dollars in costs for repairing the three major rides on the site — the carousel, log flume and Ferris wheel — questioning whether those costs qualified because they weren’t the actual property.
“I don’t think that satisfies the first criteria,” he said.
As for the second, vacancy or underutilization, Barnes said the property has only been unused for 14 months since the amusement park closed in mid-October 2024. While he would rather there be something occupying the site, he said the vacancy was a real estate issue.
“I’d like the city of Ocean City to help the developer … as soon as possible, help all of the surrounding businesses, but part of our task here today is to ensure the community is looked after,” Barnes said. “I do believe that giving it this designation is contrary to the best interests of the community.”
“I don’t think it’s the best path forward,” he added, noting there are other avenues for the property owner to develop the site.
Bekier: Yes
Vince Bekier, the municipal liaison to the Planning Board, said he agreed with Allegretto.
“The council voted to forward this issue to the Planning Board. It is a legal process or we wouldn’t be here. The solicitor would have rejected it,” he said.
“There were six criteria and one of the six criteria had to be met. Two of those criteria I believe were met and as a result I’m going to vote yes,” Bekier said.
Adams: Yes
Dean Adams said he came in with an open mind. He disagreed with public commenters that approving the designation would set a bad precedent for the boardwalk because the Wonderland property is unique and probably the biggest piece of privately owned land in the city. He said market conditions ultimately set the precedent for what takes place.
Adams said the rehabilitation designation would actually give the city government, by way of City Council and the Planning Board, more control over what is built at the site.
Although he conceded the consultants brought in “were a little light on the facts,” he said even if the board tabled the matter to get rebuttal engineers, “we’re going to see the same thing. It’s a waste of time.
“I’m comfortable with voting yes,” he said.
Adams said the 14 months did qualify as a pattern of vacancy.
“This is an enormous property that is falling apart,” he said. “I know construction. It gets worse.”
He pointed out that even after the Planning Board decision, a project at the site would have to go through a lot more meetings.
Vanderschuere: No
Matthew Vanderschuere said everyone on the board wanted to see a path forward for the property. However, he sided with Barnes about the process itself and the need to protect the city’s Master Plan, so he was voting no.
He said the audience comment was split 50-50.
Vanderschuere said he came from a different background than Adams and was taking a different tack. He believes in the process when the board has to make these types of decisions.
“It’s not about this property,” it’s about Mr. (Mark) Raab that comes up and says, ‘I may be next,’ and then we’re going to be back here in a year or two doing the thing for another large piece of property,” Vanderschuere said.
He was referring to the comments Raab made. He and his extended family own multiple properties on the boardwalk, more than anyone else, and said theirs are at risk of failure because of their proximity to Wonderland and the lack of foot traffic since the amusement park closed.
Birch: Yes
John Birch said he spent the past 14 months thinking about the property and the hotel project that owner Eustace Mita has proposed, and has talked to the people in the community and listened to the professionals testifying that evening.
He said the comments from Allegretto, Bekier and Barnes were “very good and concise.”
Adding that he didn’t want to be redundant, “it is my opinion that we meet both of the criteria we’re here talking about, and for that reason, I will be a yes.”
Halliday: No
Shannon Halliday, the first alternate on the board, said she shared the sentiment “that I would love to see something built and the property improved.”
However, she said the pattern of vacancy has not been “adequately demonstrated,” that it operated as an amusement park 14 months ago and housed four businesses as recently as the summer.
“To me, that’s not abandonment,” Halliday said.
As for the second criteria, the deterioration, “it’s difficult to quantify what a significant portion of the structure is. And without a clear metric, we’re left to grapple with, do the rides count? And then the assessed value of the property or the market value?”
She agreed with Barnes that the (higher) market value was a better way to look at it, but the board needed more information to determine whether or not a significant portion of the structure is in a deteriorated state.
“I’m not opposed to something being built there, but I don’t feel the criteria for rehab has been met,” she said. “I vote no.”
Loeper: No
Chairman John Loeper, who went last with the votes at 4-3 in favor, thanked everyone for coming out to the meeting and “playing well together.” He had some fear of what could take place, referencing the City Council meeting at the Music Pier in early December that saw some 87 people spend three hours on passionate public comment, with a lot of audience reaction.
In short, he said he agreed with Barnes and Halliday.
I don’t think the criteria has been met,” he said. “I think the abandonment aspect is sort of self-inflicted. I think the deterioration of the building needs to be looked at more.”
Earlier in the meeting, he showed skepticism about the cost estimates for repairing the structure because the witness testifying about it was the CEO of a construction company owned, in part, by Mita.
With the 4-4 tie, Loeper said the vote failed.
Board Vice Chairman Gary Jessel and member Joe Sheppard were absent from the meeting.
City Council had referred the 600 Boardwalk property to the Planning Board to get its recommendation on whether it was “an area in need of rehabilitation.” The result of the vote is there will be no recommendation, but it is not clear what steps City Council will take from there or when.
– STORY and PHOTOS by DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff