"Sneak Attack" allegations fly at City Council meeting

Was it a “sneak attack?” Or was it simply the next logical step in deciding what should be built at the former Wonderland Pier amusement park site on the Ocean City Boardwalk?

Four weeks after City Council decided not to ask the planning board to consider declaring the Wonderland site an area “in need of rehabilitation," the issue came up again during a tense meeting Thursday night.

Council Vice President Pete Madden introduced a resolution at the last minute to seek the planning board’s recommendation on whether the Wonderland property should be designated in need of rehabilitation to help pave the way for its redevelopment.

For months, debate has raged whether the Wonderland site, at Sixth Street and the Boardwalk, should be used for the development of a $150 million luxury resort hotel.

Capping the debate, Council rejected a resolution during its Aug. 21 meeting that would have, if approved, asked the planning board whether to recommend declaring the Wonderland property in need of rehabilitation. The vote then was 6-1, with Madden the only Council member voting in favor of the resolution.

Hotel developer Eustace Mita, who owns the Wonderland property, had sought the rehabilitation designation to build his proposed “ICONA in Wonderland” luxury resort in an area of the Boardwalk currently not zoned for hotel development.

After Council turned down his request, Mita announced he would scrap the hotel project and put the Wonderland property up for sale. He recently revealed that he has received two offers for the property from companies wanting to build townhomes on the site – another type of development currently not allowed on the Boardwalk by the city’s zoning laws.

    An architectural rendering depicts the proposed "ICONA in Wonderland" resort hotel on the Ocean City Boardwalk.
  

In light of the new offers for the Wonderland site, Madden thought that Council should again consider whether to ask the planning board to declare the property in need of rehabilitation or redevelopment. So he brought up the resolution at the last minute.

“The two offers that came in were looking for residential use, which is not permitted on the Boardwalk,” Madden said.

“It seems like any use is going to require some kind of change in what is allowed as a permitted use on the Boardwalk. So, to me, we should follow that process and look at the area through the planning board’s eyes and get a response back from the planning board as to is this an area in need of redevelopment or not. Then we have another opportunity to look at the decision, to make the decision, to potentially move forward or to stop it,” he continued.

However, the resolution was tabled indefinitely by Council in a 5-1 vote after a lengthy discussion that included angry comments from residents who accused Madden of staging a “sneak attack” to try to rush Wonderland’s redevelopment. Madden cast the dissenting vote against tabling the resolution.

“Mr. Madden, no profiles in courage for you tonight,” Dave Breeden, president of the community watchdog group Fairness In Taxes, bluntly told Madden.

During public comments to Council, Breeden and other critics were furious that the resolution was proposed by Madden without notifying the public in advance.

“I feel blindsided. As a community member, I am blindsided and I am disappointed,” Ocean City resident Susan Cracovaner told Council.

    Dave Breeden, president of the community watchdog group Fairness In Taxes, speaks against the proposed resolution.
  

The leaders of the community group Ocean City 2050 were particularly incensed with Madden’s resolution. Ocean City 2050, which strongly opposed Mita’s hotel project, has been calling for a collaborative effort between the local government and the public in deciding Wonderland’s future.

“From a public appearance, your vice president worked secretly with your solicitor, behind everyone else’s back, to bring this forward tonight,” Jim Kelly, president of Ocean City 2050, said of Madden and City Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson.

McCrosson came to Madden’s defense, saying he did nothing wrong, as a councilman, in coming to her to discuss the proposed resolution.

“As you know, this is not the first time one of you has come to me and said, ‘I’d like to propose something tonight, what’s the process and what’s the best way to do it?’ You are all legislators. Any one of you can raise something at the table,” McCrosson said to Council.

“The best way to do it, I believe, is in writing. Mr. Madden asked me to put it in writing, which is his right and his duty as a legislator if he wants to bring something forward. He did it properly, putting it in writing. It gives each of you the ability to see what you’re voting on,” she added.

McCrosson also said that Madden’s integrity “should not be impugned by simply exercising his discretion as a legislator to bring something forward.”

    Bill Merritt, a leader of the community group Ocean City 2050, calls Councilman Pete Madden's proposed resolution a "sneak attack."
  

Bill Merritt, another leader of Ocean City 2050, argued that Madden’s resolution, if ultimately approved by Council, would reignite dissension in the community about Wonderland’s redevelopment. He predicted it would lead to lawsuits against the city.

“This is a sneak attack. I understand you’re trying to explain why it’s not. But it is. You understand how powerful this issue is in town, and to do this tonight without giving notice to the rest of the community is unconscionable – unconscionable,” said Merritt, his voice rising in anger.

Merritt felt that Madden’s resolution was an attempt to reverse City Council’s vote on Aug. 21 not to seek the planning board’s recommendation on whether the Wonderland site should be declared in need of rehabilitation.

“You’re going to go from having your best night on August 21st to your worst night ever. You’re going to get sued, people are going to be angry, and I don’t understand why you would do this,” Merritt said.

Merritt concluded his remarks by telling Council that Ocean City 2050 would be “ready to go to war” if Madden’s resolution is approved later.

Ocean City 2050 believes that Mita’s proposed 252-room luxury hotel would overwhelm the surrounding neighborhoods and would not fit in with the Boardwalk’s family-friendly atmosphere.

The group has proposed a competing “Wonderland Commons” plan that would feature a smaller, more compact amusement park, a digital entertainment center, public attractions such as a band shell for live music, and a low-rise boutique hotel.

    Wonderland Pier's sprawling facade overlooks the Boardwalk at Sixth Street.
  

During its vote on Aug. 21, Council decided to study the Wonderland site in a comprehensive analysis of the Boardwalk that would be part of the city’s master plan. The Council members reiterated those plans during Thursday’s meeting.

Councilman Sean Barnes expressed frustration that Madden brought up his resolution at the last minute, without first discussing it with the entire governing body.

“I’m really uncomfortable with this being presented to us in the last minute like this,” Barnes said.

Barnes joined with Councilman Keith Hartzell in supporting the idea of Council forming a subcommittee to consider rezoning the entire Boardwalk through the master plan process, with the planning board’s help.

“The decision is going to last for 50 or a hundred years what we do up on that Boardwalk. I don’t think we want to make it willy-nilly.”

Hartzell maintained that the fairest thing to do is for Council to rezone the entire Boardwalk – instead of possibly only doing it for the Wonderland site – so that everybody “gets a bite out of the apple.”

“Because if we do one redevelopment zone or rehab zone, other people are going to ask, and then we’re going to keep going over and over and over and over again. So, the only way to stop that avalanche is to say, let’s look at zoning it first and see if we can come up with a compromise as a Council and send it to the planning board,” Hartzell said.

Hartzell gave credit to Councilman Jody Levchuk for coming up with the idea for rezoning the entire Boardwalk instead of doing it piecemeal. Levchuk, whose family owns the Jilly’s brand of Boardwalk shops and amusements, did not attend Thursday night’s meeting.

    From left, Councilmen Dave Winslow, Keith Hartzell and Sean Barnes discuss Wonderland's future.
  

Councilman Dave Winslow emphasized his belief that Council should work closely with the planning board to decide what should be done with the Wonderland site. He cautioned that the city should not take too long to come up with “some workable solutions.”

“To date, I haven’t heard of one project, either locally or externally, that can be built there. So, we’re going to wait another five to ten years until we get someone who wants to build an amusement park, and we get a really blighted area?” Winslow said.

Council President Terry Crowley Jr. didn’t express any opinions about Madden’s resolution, but did join with the majority to table it indefinitely.

It was Councilman Tony Polcini who made the motion to table the resolution. Polcini said it was important for Council to simply “find out the facts” as it continues its deliberations on the future of the Wonderland site.

In his closing remarks, Madden reiterated his belief that Council should not delay seeking the planning board’s recommendation on whether to designate the Wonderland site for rehabilitation or redevelopment.

“We’ll have to figure out what we want to do. But we’ve had more than enough time to figure out what to do. We’ve had more than enough public input. And for every person that says, ‘Yes, I want it,’ there’s somebody who says, ‘No, I don’t.’ So, at this point if we haven’t figured that out, we have a whole other set of issues,” he said.