After marathon meeting, Ocean City Council reverses course from August, sends Wonderland to planners
Editor’s note: This is an updated version of the story that appeared online Friday at ocnjsentinel.com
OCEAN CITY — After three hours of public comment Thursday night, City Council members spent another hour providing excruciatingly detailed rationales before they voted 4-3 to refer the Wonderland Pier parcel to the Planning Board to determine if the property qualifies as “an area in need of rehabilitation.”
The vote reverses a 6-1 decision from August that rejected the referral.
The council vote, which kept a few hundred audience members in suspense until four hours into the meeting, threw a lifeline to Eustace Mita’s hotel proposal and to boardwalk merchants and property owners who came out in force to lobby council. The meeting was moved from Council Chambers at City Hall to the larger Ocean City Music Pier to handle the large crowd.
Mita said he was prepared to walk away from his plan to invest $170 million to build a 252-room, eight-story luxury hotel on the site, even though council’s procedural vote was only about having the Planning Board rule on whether the site qualifies as “an area in need of rehabilitation.”
He had put the property up for sale immediately after the Aug. 21 vote, saying he was walking away then. Although he said he garnered two offers exceeding his $25 million asking price, he ended up delaying his sale, waiting for the outcome of Thursday night’s vote.
A majority of the more than 80 people who signed up for public comment spoke out in favor of Mita’s hotel plan and many cited their fears about the viability of businesses at the north end of the boardwalk. They and representatives of all of the city’s business organizations said pedestrian traffic there greatly diminished without the draw of the Wonderland Pier amusement park, which closed in October 2024 after nearly 60 years in business.
That was double the number who spoke in public comment back in August, when those opposed to Mita’s plan were in the majority.
In August, only council Vice President Pete Madden voted in favor of referral. Late Thursday night, three council members changed their votes to provide the narrow 4-3 decision.
The three council members who would go on to vote against the referral — at-large member Sean Barnes, the Second Ward’s Keith Hartzell and Fourth Ward’s Dave Winslow — all said they believed the fastest way to proceed was to continue with the autonomous subcommittee Council President Terry Crowley Jr. formed in October.
The subcommittee is reviewing the entire boardwalk with plans to make comprehensive recommendations by late spring that include the 600 Boardwalk property, but don’t focus solely on it.
The Third Ward’s Jody Levchuk and at-large councilmen Tony Polcini and Madden talked in favor of the referral.
Levchuk, Madden and Polcini cited the need for more urgent action, referencing the business struggles, and said it made sense to work both tracks simultaneously — continuing the subcommittee work while having the Planning Board review the property.
With the 3-3 split becoming obvious before the actual vote, attention focused on Crowley, the last councilman to speak on the issue. When he made clear he would support the referral, partisans in the audience reacted, some shocked about the turn of events and others who cheered his decision.
After his comments, the formal vote on the resolution came: Winslow, Hartzell and Barnes were opposed with Levchuk, Polcini, Madden and Crowley in favor. It passed.
Mita has owned the former Wonderland site since early 2021 when he saved it from foreclosure, then leased it back to Jay Gillian, who continued to run it until announcing in August 2024 that it was no longer financially viable and would close two months later.
The site is zoned for amusements. A hotel is not an allowed use there and would require a zoning change.
Mita said his hotel would include 10 to 12 storefronts and would incorporate Wonderland’s century-old carousel and four other rides. His original plan included the Big Wheel (Ferris wheel), but he said this week the Ocean City Regional Chamber of Commerce asked him to donate it to the city, which could place it near the high school.
City Council members
explain their positions
Although the large audience in the Music Pier was getting antsy after three hours of public comment, the seven City Council members took an hour to explain how they were making their decisions.
Sean Barnes: Opposed
Barnes said his opposition to the referral was because the issue started with a bad premise, whether a property adjacent to million-dollar homes with 300 feet of frontage on the boardwalk, near the high school and with an asking price of $25 million, actually qualified as “an area in need of rehabilitation.”
He said although the route through rehabilitation could provide the city with a larger share of tax revenue, he suggested Mita would seek a PILOT agreement — payment in lieu of taxes — that would mean no county or school taxes. Barnes asked, “Are we wiling to give up the school tax?”
He said a lot of people are still coming to Ocean City, but the problem is how to attract them to the boardwalk. He said the number of boardwalk visitors in evenings has declined dramatically over the past 15 years and that only 15 percent of the properties offer entertainment with 55 percent selling food. “How much pizza can you eat?”
“In my mind, whatever goes there must attract people to the boardwalk. It might be a hotel,” he said. “I believe the subcommittee is going to be the fastest way to get the answer.”
The process, he said, is really important and the rehabilitation process has been flawed from the start and would take longer, Barnes reasoned. He cited the many professionals with varied backgrounds on the subcommittee working diligently to find ways to get the boardwalk to grow and that it was the best way to figure out what would replace Wonderland.
Barnes said he would vote with his heart, the data he has been given and from feedback from constituents, and believes that the issue needed a “community-driven” response to the problem.
Dave Winslow: Opposed
Winslow, who is chairman of the subcommittee, said he understood the positions of those both for and against sending the property to the Planning Board and the heartfelt opinions made it difficult to decide. However, he believes the subcommittee is the best way to find answers on what is best for the boardwalk and that the fundamentals had not changed since the Aug. 21 vote.
He said the subcommittee understood the time element and that it expected to make recommendations back to City Council in the spring. “This is not a long way off,” Winslow said. “We, too, have an urgency to get this completed.”
After it comes up with those recommendations for the boardwalk zoning, including the Wonderland property, he said that would be the time to decide whether to send the property to the Planning Board.
“In my opinion, the subcommittee should recommend changes to zoning,” he said, adding he feared if the rehabilitation designation were approved, it would be premature because it would start moving toward redevelopment without the input from the subcommittee.
Winslow said council should take the leadership position and require all development in line with set standards, “otherwise it is letting the tail wag the dog. Don’t let the urgency to build the hotel to decide this.”
Jody Levchuk: In Favor
Levchuk had the most passionate and detailed response of all the council members, speaking for nearly 20 minutes. Much of that appeared to stem from criticisms he has received since announcing at the last November council meeting that he would try to bring the rehabilitation referral resolution back for another vote.
“I come here with facts, due diligence and guts,” he said, noting people who claim he has a conflict of interest and shouldn’t vote didn’t say that after the Aug. 21 meeting when he voted to oppose the referral.
“Somehow two weeks ago I became a conflict of interest,” Levchuk said.
He pointed out he is not an officer of any of the Ocean City business associations that have come out in support of Mita’s hotel, that his own boardwalk businesses are not within 200 feet of Wonderland and that no merchants group officials or Mita had approached him. “Only my wife can force me into doing anything,” he said in a moment of levity.
Levchuk challenged those who have talked about sticking with the Master Plan review, saying most people haven’t even looked at the Master Plan and don’t know what’s in it.
He spent much of his time pointing out that Mita didn’t need to go through council to get to the Planning Board and showed various configurations of things he could apply directly to do. That included subdividing the part of the property on the boardwalk side, getting a demolition permit for it and leaving the back part of the property empty until he was able to do whatever he wants with it.
He also suggested Mita “could rip everything out” and sell it. “Then we’re just dealing with the next person.”
Levchuk touted his own business experience and deep knowledge of amusements to criticize those who believe another amusement park in place of Wonderland would be financially successful and those who themselves have criticized boardwalk business owners.
“An amusement park on its own is not viable,” he said.
“I don’t know how people who aren’t residents or experts are telling us what is best for our business,” he said. “I want to put another myth to bed, that if you do one, there will be plenty of others” who will try for the rehabilitation process.
“I’m telling you on the record in front of all of you, they (property owners) don’t want to develop their land. They love what they do. We love this boardwalk,” he said.
“I find it disgraceful that some people are taking pride in saying we’re just trying to sell another piece of pizza or a T-shirt. Go rent yourself a store and tell us how it’s done,” Levchuk said, eliciting cheers from the audience.
“I don’t want to go down as making a big, horrific mistake of not moving forward with something here,” he said. “How can you not look at that property and say it is able to redevelop without a zoning change?”
Keith Hartzell: Opposed
Hartzell said there actually is a lot of agreement about the Wonderland parcel, but the real issue is how to get there.
“The town is divided. The only thing to do then is to compromise,” he said. That, he added, is the subcommittee’s job.
It will get to the point there is a proposal “we all can embrace,” he said. He referred back to a time in the country when people worked well together even when they had opposing priorities, citing the relationship in the 1980s between former Republican President Ronald Reagan and then Speaker of the House Democrat Tip O’Neill.
“I haven’t heard much about compromise tonight,” Hartzell said after listening to the three hours of public comment. “The best way to do that is the subcommittee.”
Compromise, he said, is the key to success. “If we’re divided, and we are, that is the only thing that makes sense.”
Hartzell said no matter the way the vote went, he would work to support it.
Tony Polcini: In Favor
Polcini opened the meeting with a prayer that included asking for civil discourse over what has been a divisive issue in town. He said when he was inaugurated into office in 2022, council was divided and he wanted to bring unity back.
“In the last few months, we’re starting to feel divided again,” Polcini said.
He said he didn’t make a mistake when he voted against the referral in August, but since then got more information and educated about the issue.
He said he wasn’t being disrespectful to his colleague Winslow, who is leading the subcommittee, and that its work was important. However, he said, “we have to keep this rolling.”
Polcini pointed out they weren’t making a decision that night on rehabilitation, the hotel or redevelopment, but voting to find out more facts.
“I think it would be wrong if we didn’t let this move forward and bring it to the Planning Board,” he said.
Pete Madden: In Favor
Madden said Ocean City is America’s Greatest Family Resort because of its people.
“It isn’t just because of the beaches, the boardwalk or our ability to provide wholesome family experiences to residents and visitors that makes that true,” he said. “Our town’s collective community and our ability to work together is what makes us great.
“Today we can choose to move forward and keep Ocean City as a desirable destination for our visitors, summer residents and year-round residents,” Madden said. “However, as important as it is to move forward and embrace progress and new ideas, we must do so together as a community. If we don’t find our collective voice, it will be counterproductive to our future.”
He said companies and corporations are constantly looking for ways to improve and stay relevant in an ever-changing world and Ocean City is no different.
“While we are rooted in tradition, we can’t let nostalgia get in the way,” he said.
Madden said referring the 600 Boardwalk property to the Planning Board does not bind the city to anything, but simply asks for input from the professionals on the board. He also said that can happen at the same time as the subcommittee does its work.
“Time is of the essence,” Madden said. “The longer we wait to make decisions, the more stagnant we become. Fortune favors the bold, so let’s be courageous in our pursuits.”
Terry Crowley Jr.:
In Favor
“This has been such a challenging process because at the end of the day, everyone that sits up here wants to do the right thing,” Crowley said. “Believe it or not, there are no deals or any of that stuff that goes on.”
He said the subcommittee is important and doing good work, gathering information to make the best decision possible for the city.
“That being said, we’ve been elected to lead and not moving this forward right now is not leading, and not taking into account the business owners and the residents,” Crowley said.
“We can have a discussion. We can walk and chew gum at the same time,” he said. The subcommittee work will continue and the referral to the Planning Board “can run concurrently.”
“We don’t know where we’re going to end up,” Crowley said. “We don’t know what the final answer is, but we’re going to move with integrity towards that.”
– STORY and PHOTOS by DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff