OCEAN CITY — Like dominos falling, five Ocean City Council members in a row doomed a resolution that would have given the owner of the former Wonderland Pier amusement park an opening to transform the property into a hotel and retail complex.
Although it was but a procedural vote to recommend sending the property at 600 Boardwalk to the Planning Board to decide if it qualified as “an area in need of rehabilitation,” it could have started a process for developer Eustace Mita to formally propose his eight-story hotel.
Mita made a number of public presentations for his project but has never submitted a formal proposal to City Council or any other board. He wanted to make a presentation at the council meeting but was relegated among the many speakers at public comment.
One by one the council members said they weren’t ready to refer the property to the Planning Board.
Inevitably, six of the seven council members said they would vote no, deciding the more appropriate step is a review of the city’s Master Plan to look at zoning along the entire boardwalk, rather than just a single property.
Mita needed four council members to support the resolution.
The councilmen’s comments came after nearly two hours of passionate public comment from some 37 members of the public in Council Chambers that were packed and overflowing with people filling the seats and standing along the sides and in back.
A little more than half of the citizens commenting were against Mita’s proposed hotel, but there was a substantial number of other citizens speaking in favor.
Fourth Ward Councilman Dave Winslow led off the comments. Most of the others piggybacked on his view that a Master Plan review was the best way to go.
With such a wide variety of buildings on the boardwalk including condo complexes, hotels, stores and amusements, Winslow said he came to the conclusion that “there is a better way to address the community concerns as we’ve heard them.”
A review of the Master Plan is “just around the corner” and the city has the opportunity to take a long-term look at all the properties and develop a “compelling vision” for the future of the boardwalk and city, he said. Winslow noted there can be compromise where needed, but a Master Plan could keep in step with current and future realities while maintaining the city’s cultural heritage.
“While review takes a lot of time, I think it is in the best interest of the community as a whole,” he said. “I can’t support the resolution at this time.”
Third Ward Councilman Jody Levchuk agreed with “most” of what Winslow said and pointed out he comes from a position of having a business on the boardwalk and one downtown, that he lives in Ocean City and is raising his children here, and that business groups he is involved with supported Mita’s proposal.
He heaped praise on Mita and said he was excited about what he could bring to the table in the future, but noted Ocean City is divided and that he couldn’t support the resolution.
Levchuk said even if the resolution were approved, it would still be a few years until a project came to fruition.
He supported a holistic view of the Master Plan “to bring fairness to everyone who owns property.”
He said he couldn’t wake up the next day and face scrutiny from other boardwalk property owners who feel they are stuck with the zoning. The On Boardwalk zone does not allow high-rise hotels; the Wonderland property is zoned for amusements.
“Everyone is opposed to change. I want to keep the boardwalk the same, I want to keep Wonderland, but we have to face reality here,” Levchuk said.
He criticized “a lot of misguided folks who don’t understand what’s happening here. When I’m told it’s a done deal. It’s not. There’s a process here.”
Levchuk suggested having a referendum to truly understand the will of the majority of the voters.
“I’m not doing anything until we go down that road,” he added.
Second Ward Councilman Keith Hartzell talked about how he did extreme due diligence when buying business properties in Ocean City with 10 inspectors to ensure there wouldn’t be any surprises. That would let him know if his investment was worth it.
“I’m not sending this property to the Planning Board because it’s not in need of rehabilitation,” he said.
He agreed with Levchuk and Winslow.
“If the boardwalk needs changes, it should be done in a Master Plan review,” Hartzell said.
Also pointing to the division in town, as expressed by the citizens in Council Chambers, he said, “Something should go there, but it should be something where this room is not divided.”
At-Large Councilman Sean Barnes was the fourth to say he would vote no.
“The decisions we make today are extremely important,” he said. “We can’t take these decisions lightly … this is an important decision. It’s something we’ve all thought about,” he added, noting he received a hundred emails in the days before the meeting. That drew laughs from other council members who said they received many more.
A Master Plan review, he said, “is the direction we should go.”
Change does happen, but it has to be responsible.
He said some argued that referring the Wonderland property to the Planning Board was just the beginning of a process, but “this is the wrong process.”
Barnes pointed out when he originally brought up the idea of a Master Plan review he got a good response. “This is the direction we should go.”
Although he too would vote against sending the Wonderland property to the Planning Board, At-large Councilman Tony Polcini defended Mita and his right to make a request and put money behind it.
“I’ve known Mr. Mita a long time. I think he has integrity and is a man of God,” Polcini said, adding making the request “doesn’t make him a bad person.”
He said he has struggled with all the negativity surrounding the issue and that he wanted “to do what’s right by the people.” He said a referendum would be a “nice thing” to get a vision of people in town, but “a Master Plan has to come first.”
Polcini added Mita would be the one to bring something to that property. (After the meeting, Mita said he was done and was putting the property up for sale. See related story.)
Council Vice President Pete Madden broke the five no-vote streak and would later be the lone vote in favor of the resolution.
He said from a procedural standpoint, council was making a mistake by not approving the resolution. He pointed out government is a complex business and that not moving forward could lead to unintended consequences.
Madden said the city is missing an opportunity and being a little short-sighted.
Council President Terry Crowley Jr. was brief. He said he agreed with what Winslow said. “For that reason, I won’t be supporting this tonight. That’s my rationale.”
Before council held its roll call vote, another half-dozen members of the public came up to speak. The resolution had been included on the consent agenda in which a group of resolutions are voted on at once because they are considered routine. Because it was pulled from the agenda, it allowed another public comment session, but not for those who already spoke on the issue.
– STORY and PHOTOS by DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff