I like to call to order the city council meeting of Thursday, June 25th, 2026. We start with the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance >> to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Please bow your heads for a moment of silence. Amen. >> Mr. Crowley? >> Here. >> Mr. Madden? >> Here. >> Mr. Winslow? >> Here. >> Mr. Love Chuck? >> Here. >> Mr. Hartsell? >> Here.
>> Mr. Barnes? >> Here. >> Mr. Pulchini? >> Here. >> Okay, adequate notice of this meeting has been given pursuant to public law 1975, chapter 231. We will go to reports from the mayor and administration. No reports tonight.
Okay, with that, we will go out to our first citizen comment. Um just some ground rules for everyone. Um as our ordinance is written, and I hope we're not here at 10:00, but the meeting will end at 10:00 if if that if we get to that point, everyone will have 3 minutes.
Um there will be another public comment later in the meeting. Uh you are not able to speak on the same topic twice. So, just keep those um ground rules in mind, and with that, we'll start with Wes Kazmark. >> Uh Wes Kazmark, 825 Pennlyn Place.
Good evening. I'm here tonight representing BAND, which stands for Business and Neighborhood Development, as well as the Tourism Commission, the Boardwalk Merchants Association, and myself. You'll also hear from representatives from the downtown, the Restaurant Association, and the Chamber of
Commerce. Once again, the business community stands united on how the 600 block should be handled. And that is by granting it the rehabilitation designation. I don't think it's necessary to revisit all the reasons why we support this
designation. You already know them. In fact, after reviewing the planner's report, our support has only grown stronger. The people who love this town need to know that we are addressing this issue. It's time we let everyone know that we are working on it and that we're going to figure it out.
Um I briefly did want to address one topic regarding the subcommittee to which I served. From the very beginning, we were told not to make a recommendation on whether 600 block should receive the rehabilitation designation. So, officially, we did not. But we certainly discussed it. Had we
been tasked with taking a position, by the time the process was over, the vote would have been 6-3 in favor of rehab. All un- all unofficial, of course, but the point is that the subcommittee's work should not factor into your decision tonight.
You are our elected officials. You are our leaders. It's your responsibility to do what is right for this town. So, I ask you to please lead. Please move the process forward. Please vote yes on rehabilitation. I'd also like to take a quick moment to
thank Councilman Pete Madden. I know it's your last meeting tonight for your service to this city. Over the years, I've had the privilege of serving with you on several boards. You've always supported the boardwalk and you've always understood how important tourism is to this town. You're somebody I consider a friend and I will miss
working with you. I wish you nothing but the best in your new-found free time. Thank you for your dedication and service to this community. Um uh thank you, Council. Please vote yes to rehab. >> Hey, Wes. Um I I need to address your address, too. I forgot to >> 825 Penn Lane, please. >> Yeah, everyone just name an address when
you come up. >> I thought I said >> Um Caitlyn Clark. >> Plus one. >> Hey guys, um Caitlin Quirk, 956 Asbury Avenue. Today I'm speaking on behalf of the Downtown Merchant Association.
Um I am the president. Um we have been resolute in our support for moving this project forward for rehabilitation. Um I'm not going to take up too much air in the room about that, but on a personal note, I do want to commend all of you sitting up there tonight um for all the
work that you've done. You know, there's going to be some people in the audience tonight that are going to tell you that you rushed this process. It's been the better part of the year. You've done your due diligence. You've done your homework. You've spoke to professionals. You brought in an
additional planner. You've had a subcommittee. So, you know, I'm just hoping that you take all the new facts that you've learned and make the decision that brings Ocean City forward. Um and I'm just going to leave you with a quote from my favorite organizational
psychologist, Adam Grant. A sign of intellect is the ability to change your mind in the face of new facts. A mark of wisdom is refusing to let fear of admitting you were wrong stop you from getting it right. I hope you guys
get it right tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you. Ms. Quirk. Um LuAnn Caldwell? Caldwell? Sorry. >> My name is LuAnn Caldwell, 201 29th Street. To the residents of Ocean City, tonight we are going to find out which councilmen are for the betterment of
Ocean City by their vote as to 600 Boardwalk. It is my opinion one person has risen from the weeds to declare in full disclosure his intentions. That would be councilman Jody Levchuk, third ward councilman. We knew Jody's intentions,
now he has announced to all where he stands. I believe he is now representing himself, not the constituents of the third ward who voted for him to represent them. You see I think Jody wants what Mita
wants, that pot of gold called concrete condos on the boardwalk. Rehab designation and a zoning change with approval by con- council gives boardwalk owners like Mita, Jody and his family, and many others the ability to
tear down their stores and build concrete >> For the record, absolutely false, okay? We're not going to take false comments up here, okay? Your opinion is yourself. >> That's not fair. >> Absolutely false. You have no proof of that, there's no record of that, I never said that, I'll
never do that. All right. Ma'am, please continue. >> Mr. President, I suggest we give her some more time. >> will. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Making untold millions for themselves as
they destroy Ocean City. I for one don't want Ocean City to look like Ocean City, Maryland or Virginia Beach. As a result of Jody's proclamation, I believe Jody should recuse himself from any and all discussion or vote
>> [applause] >> having to do with 600 Boardwalk. I believe Jody is compromised. He should resign from council as he is not representing his constituents. >> Okay, let's just give everyone their time and everyone have a chance to
respond at the appropriate time, okay? Matthew Will Zito. >> Can I say something real quick? Sorry. We just talked about being respectful and kind. I spoke about it months ago, but nobody listened.
There is no reason. We can agree to disagree, but let's respect one another's opinion. There's no wrong. That's what Ocean City is about. If you live in this town, a great American family resort, then treat it like that way. Be respectful. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that we have to tear people
down. I'm sorry. >> [applause] >> Okay, Matthew. Matthew, please go, Matthew. >> I come with respect and kindness. >> [laughter] >> My name is Matthew Velicco. I'm a partner with the law firm of Zeller and Velicco, and I represent Plaza Place
Civic Association. It's just over 40 properties in the neighborhood that runs from the north side of 7th Street to the north side of Pelham, and from Atlantic Avenue to Wayne Avenue. I understand the time limitations tonight, but given the number of residents and property owners I represent, I'm respectfully requesting
if I go over a few seconds over, a reasonable deviation from the standing rules, which I understand Council can grant. With regard to resolution 26-197 designating 600 Boardwalk as an area in need of rehabilitation, we formally and respectfully request that this resolution be considered for discussion
purposes only this evening, and that no vote be taken. Significantly, on May 12th, 2026, the voters of Ocean City elected a new City Council. We thank all of you for your public service. That reconstituted council is set to be sworn in in 6 days,
July 1st. A vote on this resolution tonight disenfranchises the very voters that elected the new council. The timing of this vote appears contrived to secure a vote from Councilman Madden prior to being replaced on council in 6 days. This
would be a lame duck vote of the councilman. The optics are terrible. Why does this vote have to take place now? Moreover, the municipal land use law identifies the planning board as the municipal entity with an expertise in land use. Before any vote by council, the new planner report from Ms. Heller,
the recently released boardwalk subcommittee report should be referred to the planning board for consideration and further comments and recommendation. The boardwalk subcommittee report itself asked that council give consideration to the submission of its report and the Heller report to the planning board. You
would simply be doing what your own subcommittee asked you to consider. Even if you do go to a vote this evening on this resolution, both Councilman Madden and Love Chuck should be recused and not vote. We make no allegations of nefarious actions. We make no
allegations of wrongdoing. However, the local government ethics law is clear. No government official shall act in his official capacity in any manner where he, a member of his immediate family, or a business organization in which he has an interest has a direct or indirect
financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of judgment. In that regard, we contend that they must recuse and quite frankly, why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't those that are in favor of this designation or against this
designation not want to preserve the integrity of the process? And why would anyone want to have a vote with a conflicted councilperson? Our understanding is that Councilman Madden has past and ongoing real estate dealings with the property owner Eustace Meade. Again, we make no allegations of
wrongdoing. We also understand that Councilman Lovechuck has ownership interest across the on properties in the boardwalk as an owner and operator with multiple commercial properties including but not limited to 762 boardwalk, which is approximately 750 ft away from the 600 boardwalk. >> it up.
>> Again, we make no allegations of wrongdoing. Lastly, what that means is it's consistent with the local government ethics law, they should not vote. Lastly, we also think that the report is deficient. We ask that for all these reasons, you formally request the discussion only on this resolution, no
vote, and if there is a vote, we implore you to vote no. Thank you. I appreciate the extra time. >> [applause] >> For the record, Jody Lovechuck does not own any property on the Ocean City boardwalk. So, your assumptions are false. >> Are you a beneficiary to the trust? >> I'm willing I'm willing to report I
don't I don't stand up. I'm an officer of the court. >> Your assumptions are false, sir. I own no real estate on the Ocean City boardwalk. Thank you. >> You'll get your chance to talk. >> All right. Calm down. We're not doing this. Everyone is going to get their 3 minutes. William Siegenthaler.
>> Uh my name's William Siegenthaler, 836 Saint Charles Place. I've been a resident of Ocean City for 20 years and have visited Ocean City for 60 years. Um I asked that the the council consider the recommendations of its own
um boardwalk subcommittee, which recommended that 600 boardwalk be considered as part of the total development of the entire boardwalk through a master plan and not take any action at this time uh in respect to the recommendation of
its own committee. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Bill Westerman >> Bill Westerman, 710 Bridge Boulevard Hopefully everything can go a little bit smoother the rest of the night tonight. I just want you guys to vote yes and then see
what the next step is. So vote yes to rehabilitation. Thanks for your service, Pete. >> [applause] >> Donna Saver >> Hi. Good evening. Happy summer. I just saw a t-shirt that said summer's supposed to be enjoyed. So
smile. >> [laughter] >> Everybody. Thank you, Jody. I'm I'm also asking 1324 Asbury Ocean City. I'm I'm commercial.
I'm also asking to request Councilman Madden to recluse himself from vote that could divide this town further. He's not He's not going to be serving on the on the governing body. So I don't want him to I don't want anything done that's
going to divide this town further. And I did give a letter and I sent an email to solicitor Bickarson and I did have a handwritten letter both to Councilman Crowley and in in Councilman
Madden's mailboxes. I'm After reading portions of Jen Heller's report, I've noticed several deficiencies in her review. Whether they are mere spelling or grammatical errors or show an attitude of exaggeration
in order to affect an outcome. The first being the requirements of the declared in need of rehab designation. Um I was on Facebook today and somebody said I mean I'm thinking it doesn't meet because it's got it's worth millions of
dollars, it's got big offers on it. And then there's two different rehab designations. One is a historical designation that can be has a pilot program, has all kinds of grant funding
and it can be a property of any value. The other rehab designation is for an area in need of rehab, an area that is run down. Not a parcel. It doesn't mention
parcel. And the And it's it's on the it's on the Ocean City, New Jersey site. It says several structures. I don't think a struc- a structure is a merry-go-round. I don't think a structure is a a state fair amusement
that gets picked up and moved all the time. Um I guess I should move further. Um I noticed she some decay on the adjoining structure would have been noted. I don't see what personally infuriated me. My dad was an
antique auto restorer. My mother was I mean we spent our time going up and down Route 9 into the antique shops. The Jen Heller cited the platform of the carousel as needing being
replaced. It's a painted wooden platform. Is Is there a problem with painted wood? I'm sorry. So I um would hope that this is a a meeting for discussion and that we move forward
cautiously. >> Thank you, Donna. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> John Krakauer. >> Good evening. I'm John Krakauer at 156 Asbury Avenue. I'm here to introduce the next four speakers, Howie, Susan, Bill, and Dave.
Their perspective is important and worthy of your undivided attention. To start, we're not against the hotel, nor are the vast majority of people in this town. What we want is an appropriately sized hotel that respects the neighborhood behind it with robust boardwalk facing entertainment, maintaining the iconic
look and feel of the Ocean City boardwalk. We want a transparent process to get us there. What we wanted from the beginning is a reasonable position, one effectively affirmed affirmed in the boardwalk subcommittee's report. Let us put context to the points you will hear.
First, negotiation. That is the strongest move. You have the direction from the subcommittee, and you have something the developer wants badly, a rehabilitation designation. Don't give away this leverage before the negotiation even starts. Make him present definitive plans and tell you
what he will compromise. If he won't, codify standards with zoning ordinances designating appropriate height, scale, and entertainment space. Let him build to that or step aside so someone else will. Second, the framework for negotiation is created by
the subcommittee's recommendations. Complete the additional market studies, cost and impact analysis. Make sure whatever is agreed to at the table or in new ordinances reflects what the city needs, what its visitors want, and what realistically can be built. Third, be
respectful of the many hours invested by the subcommittee members. Heard something else just a few minutes ago. Don't ignore their important work. That That work created much much-needed goodwill in our community, but it will be destroyed the moment Council rejects the subcommittee's recommendations and
proceeds in a contrary direction. Fourth, there are real consequences to a rehabilitation designation. This includes easing the path to a use variance before zoning board, exposing the city to litigation from those who oppose this designation, and proceeding
on a tainted record built with the mayor's involvement despite the significant undisclosed financial ties to the developer. And because you are aware of the conflict in voting yes, you place yourselves at a personal and political risk, not to mention silencing
the voters who just elected Jim Kelly who takes his council seat in 6 days. Let the newly elected council be drivers of the decision they will have to implement and be accountable for. The path forward is clear. Negotiate. In parallel, complete the subcommittee's
work. Avoid the perils of rehabilitation. With that, let me turn it over to our next speaker. >> [applause] >> Uh Harvey Atkinson, 871 East 7th Street, Ocean City. Good evening, members of council. Uh I have served on the planning board and
zoning board and the city council in New Jersey for 25 years. And I have been in your shoes. You want to get this right. But you also want to move it forward. I know this town is tired. 2 years of meetings, hearings, reports, and debate
over one property on one block of our boardwalk. Everyone is ready to turn the page. Being tired is not a reason to make a bad decision on something as important as this. And tonight, you're being asked to make a decision that would actually extend
this fight, not to end it. Here is what the right path forward looks like. You have the boardwalk subcommittee report, a clear and credible expression of where this community wants to go. The report is not just a document, it is
your strongest negotiating position going into any conversation with this developer. Equally important, the developer has already said publicly that he desperately wants this rehabilitation designation. That tells you everything you need to know about where the leverage sits in
this negotiation. He desperately wants something that you have. In any negotiation, you do not give up your best chip before you know what you are going to get in return. Tonight, that is exactly what you are being asked to do.
The right sequence is this. Sit down with the developer. Use the subcommittee report as the framework. Find out what he is willing to do on height, on the footprint, on entertainment and public access. See whether a real compromise is
possible. And if at the end of that process, you determine that the rehabilitation designation is necessary to execute on an agreed vision, make that case. Then you have a project the community can envision and evaluate.
You may be surprised at their response. That is the process that moves this forward. Indeed, is exactly how you move forward on the Sea Spray. You held off on a rehabilitation designation until you had a project that fit Ocean City. You made the developer
work for it. And if the developer refuses to negotiate, then over the next two year two months, ask the planning board to amend the master plan to include a conditional use for a hotel at 600 Boardwalk of an appropriate size
with a suitable Boardwalk facing entertainment as recommended by the subcommittee. City Council can then can then adopt the appropriate ordinance to accomplish this. The developer can either build to that requirement or he can sell to someone that will.
This is the process that provides a real result in a timely manner. Tonight's vote would surrender your leverage before a single negotiation takes place. I urge you do not do that. Table this matter tonight. Thank you.
>> [applause] >> Sue. >> Good evening. My name is Susan Crackavaner. I live at 156 Avenue Avenue Raspberry Avenue. You've just heard from Mr. Atkinson that the very first step this council should take is negotiation with the developer. I agree. But that
first step should be complemented by this council adopting the subcommittee report through a formal resolution and moving forward with its recommendations. That resolution will send a clear message to the developer. This is where the community stands and what the city expects. It's a formal public commitment
that gives the council something concrete to negotiate from and clearly tells the developer that the community's expectations are real, on record, and not going away. That's the right first move and it's consistent with the subcommittee's recommendations. What is not consistent with the
recommendation is what you are being asked to vote on tonight. After months of deliberation, the Boardwalk subcommittee reached a clear conclusion. The appropriate tools for guiding development at 600 Boardwalk are the master plan and zoning ordinance. On slide 75 of their report, the
subcommittee stated that the city should use existing planning board and zoning board processes to guide development within the entire on Boardwalk zone. On slide 80, the subcommittee recommended creation of a conditional use framework for that site. Conditional
use is a planning-based solution that is transparent, involves the public, and produces a durable result embedded in the city's land use law. On slide 84, the subcommittee called for this report to be sent to the planning board in the city's independent planner for review, and for the planning board
recommendations to shape a long-term strategic plan for the entire boardwalk. The subcommittee report delivered a clear message. The city should stay the course, engage its planning board, and develop a comprehensive strategic plan for the entire boardwalk through a
fact-driven open process. The rehabilitation declaration you are considering tonight is fun is a fundamentally different process that focuses on one property and excludes the planning board from any meaningful involvement. It creates a contractual
right for one developer rather than a conditional use available to any owner. It operates outside the normal zoning framework, concentrating decision-making in ways the subcommittee explicitly chose not to recommend. So, what changed in 2 weeks? Why tonight is this council
being asked to vote on something that directly contradicts the subcommittee's recommendations? We assume the three council members who served on the subcommittee will vote consistent with the report tonight. We urge the rest of council to honor that work and to adopt the subcommittee report by resolution rather than abandon
it by pursuing a rehabilitation declaration. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Bill. Good evening. My name is Bill Merritt. I reside at 1240 Simpson Avenue. I want to talk tonight about something that doesn't show up in planning statutes or legal briefs, and that's the
goodwill that this council built through the subcommittee process, and how easily that can be lost tonight. The boardwalk sub subcommittee process was a solid process. It was deliberate. It was open. Residents were heard. Council members engaged with the
community's concerns about overdevelopment, about scale, and about the character of our boardwalk. And the report was unambiguous in its findings. The issue on the boardwalk is not the absence of a hotel. It's the lack of entertainment.
And the solution to bring new investment to the boardwalk is by updating the zoning to create design sensitive conditional uses, a normal planning tool, opening up the boardwalk modestly for residential use and hotels, but conditioned upon the delivery of real
entertainment benefits, and maintaining the iconic look of this boardwalk without overwhelming local neighborhoods. The report also recommended the city conduct a genuine market survey to ensure that this plan reflects the desires of those who vacation there here,
and those who choose to live here. It was a good process, and there's a solid go and has a solid go-forward plan, and perhaps most importantly, in a town that has sometimes felt divided on these issues, it produced something rare in municipal government, a genuine sense
that the public and the council were working together on a shared outcome. That goodwill is now at risk. If a mere 2 weeks after the subcommittee delivered its report, signed off by three council members, this council reverses course and votes to pursue a
real rehabilitation declaration, it sends the message to res- residents that the subcommittee process was not what it appeared to be. That it was theater. That the community's input was sought, but not actually heard. And that all other recommendations in the report, on
height, on culture, on design sensitivity, will simply be ignored. I don't believe council intends to send that message, but intention does not determine perception. What matters is what public the public sees. And what the public will see tonight, if
this vote proceeds, is the council reversing its own deliberative process two weeks after that process concluded. Ocean City residents showed up for the subcommittee process in good faith. They compromised. They said they did not say no to everything. They said, "Work with
us. We will work with you." They deserve a council that will reciprocate that good faith. Table this declaration. Move forward with the plan that the subcommittee laid out. It was built on solid work. It can be executed in a reasonable time frame. And the goodwill it generated is real
and worth protecting. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> [applause] >> Dave. >> Dave Breedon, 114 Victoria Lane. Welcome to the summer of Wonderland 2.0. What I would like to speak about this evening is about the dangers of the path
you are being asked to take. First, you have been told that a rehab designation protects the city against a use variance. In my opinion, that is misguided advice. It is, in fact, can be the opposite. By declaring 600 Boardwalk in need of
rehab, you would be creating a record that the zoning board of adjustments could rely on as evidence supporting both the positive and negative criteria in any variance application. Far from blocking a use variance, a
rehab declaration could make it far easier to secure. The developer's attorney will simply point to this council's own determination as evidence that the status quo at this site is inadequate and that relief is justified. Don't hand them this winning
argument. Second, you have already been informed that proceedings with this designation will bring litigation. Why would you invite expensive and time-consuming litigation when negotiations have yet have not yet
been attempted? A negotiated agreement avoids all that mess. Third, for 2 years this developer has made one proposal and only one despite hearing considerable feedback from this community
from the residents, from the planning board, and from this very council. But, he has never offered a meaningful compromise. He has simply waited, applied pressure threatened to sell, and hoped this council would blink.
Voting for this this designation tonight rewards that bad behavior. Behavior, it tells him and every developer who will ever come before this council that if you hold out long enough if you connect yourself financially to certain
government officials they will give you what you want, and that will open the floodgates. Fourth the record before this council may be suspect. A certain government official has financial entanglements with the
developer and may have paid may have played in this process. Proceeding on this basis bakes that taint into your decision. And it makes every one of you who vote for this designation a willing party
to the potential conflict. Fifth, the voters in this town overwhelmingly vote to bring Jim Cavanaugh on council in 6 days. By voting tonight you're denying him the right to participate, and you're denying
the 2,865 voters who came out for him that way as well. Table this resolution. Do not grant re- rehabilitation. Make the developer earn and deserve the rehab designation. They can work for it.
>> [applause] [applause] >> Peter Mewl Mew- Mewic? I'm sorry. >> Good evening. Peter Mewic, 309 East 17th Street. Come here as a a homeowner and I I bring the perspective of litigating for 30 years.
I ask the council to table the resolution. It begins with, as was just stated, you're inviting litigation. I don't know why you would possibly take a vote tonight. You are inviting litigation. It begins with a conflicted
at a minimum the appearance of a conflict with your mayor who I believe should have formally recused himself from any doings with this issue whatsoever years ago. I I trust or I hope that the council has reviewed the bankruptcy docket with the mayor. If
they haven't, I invite you to. I think you should look at the consulting contract that is there. I think you should look at the history of the financial difficulties portrayed by Mr. Gillian in the docket, in the pleadings where it makes a pretty strong picture
that there was a financial incentive to close the book the Wonderland and he would financially benefit. On top of the fact that he's indebted and his debts are listed in the the
bankruptcy docket to the mayor for over $800,000. That is a conflict and to the extent that there are any dealings with the council with the mayor on this issue, that is a problem and you're inviting litigation and I'll tell you from litigating for 30 years,
everyone's email, texts, social media, documents are going to be discoverable. And if there is any contact with this mayor whatsoever, any influence, it will come out if there is litigation. Why was there a subcommittee if the
report is now being wholly ignored? I'll note, does anyone on the committee, have you met with the planner, Ms. Heller? If you did, please raise your hand. Did you meet with her? >> We don't do a Q&A. >> Okay. Based on her report and what she
reviewed, her report indicates no discussions with the council, no discussions with the planning board, no discussions with the subcommittee. In fact, according to her report, she did not review the subcommittee's report. How do you have a subcommittee that
produces that extensive report and your so-called independent planner does not review it? She relied upon the engineer and the witnesses called by Mr. Meeda. That is not independent, credible
evidence that the council should be relying upon. That is evidence from the developer who obviously has an interest in having a rehab designation. In the planner's own report, she notes on page four that she
planner makes no formal recommendation to city council. But she states in the paragraph that council should more thoroughly consider the rehab determination with her report. Council should take her report. You should take the time to consider it. You
don't take a vote a few days after this report came out. You meet, you consider it, and you put the time into it that deserves. Thank you. >> [applause] >> Marie Crawford. Marie? Right there. >> Dave, could I have your help with
passing these out to council members? >> Marie. The mic down. >> Could I have help, please, with passing these out to council members? Thank you. Name >> All right, name and address, please.
>> Yes. My name is Marie Crawford. My address is 835 Pelham Place. I'm just waiting for them all to get their copies. >> I would >> Sorry. Clock. Okay. Um So, if you turn past page one, which is
what I'm about to tell you, I have witnessed Mayor Gillian present and participating in a number of council meetings throughout this process. It is clear that he has been involved in the process and that his involvement may have affected the record before council
tonight. Please refer specifically to the August 2025 and the October 2026 council meetings. There are four exhibits attached to what I've given you. Exhibit C is signed by J. A. Gillian Michelle B. Gillian.
I suggest you look at the signature page for Exhibit C, page five of six, to see those signatures and the date. Additionally, please look at the signature page for Exhibits E, pages 11 and 12, to witness Dorothy McCrossin's signature and the date showing that while Solicitor McCrossin has advised
council and the public on rehabilitation, she had full knowledge of the facts that tainted this process from the start. Her job is to protect Council and she failed, especially with the legal path this decision will take. Also presented to you is the transcript
from the federal bankruptcy case dated 6:15 2026 showing the consultant agreement is a live document and has been forwarded to New Jersey State Court for payment. It was an inducement to sell Wonderland to Mita and an incentive
to close the park while Mayor uh Gillian and Mita promised something completely different to the public. These documents are public and in the court proceedings involving these agreements, the argument is not whether they are void, but instead whether the consultant agreement is a true
consulting agreement or deferred sales compensation compensation for Wonderland. So, I wanted you all to have those documents. There's been so much spread around and all over the place, but they are live documents
that are really um pertain to the decision that you have to make tonight and uh what will take place after that decision. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Janet, I don't Janet Galante.
Sorry. Sorry. >> Hi. Janet Galante, 13 13 1st Street. Um I'm a property owner. I'm a business owner and I come to you tonight as the vice president of the Chamber of Commerce. We encompass a great deal of people,
businesses, so forth. Unfortunately, they all can't be here. They're working. Um but I in their behalf, I can't urge you strongly enough with their backing to vote yes on the rehab. Thank you for your time. We appreciate every minute
you have spent. Thank you. >> Thanks, Keith. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Um Jim Turtletaub. >> Good evening, uh members of the council. James Turtletaub from the Turtletaub Law Firm on behalf of Ocean City 2050. Uh tonight is an opportunity for this
council to reset, restart, and move forward with a process that has had some good moments and bad moments. And right now, I think we're at a bad moment with this vote that's pending, but I think it could all be turned around. Um the whole idea behind rehabilitation
designations is to rehabilitate properties. It's not to redevelop properties. There's the the redevelopment process, which is entirely different. Everything that I've heard throughout this process, and I've been following it, and I've been before this council before, is you want to tear down, take away
what's there now at 600 Boardwalk, and put a new hotel, an entirely new redevelopment. That's not what rehabilitation is. Rehabilitation is taking what's there, fixing it up. You may add new improvements, you may not, but it's not rehabilitation what you're you're talking about here tonight. But secondly, reset is good tonight
because you have now the Boardwalk Subcommittee report, which has valuable information in it, has input in it, and it can take you down a path to identify what's best for the whole community. Because there's been a misconception, I believe, throughout this whole process, which is that this is a process to
please a developer who bought property with knowledge of the zoning, knowledge of what that property could do, knowledge of the neighborhood, knowledge of what was is on there. He paid a price, and he bought it for what he thought it was worth at that point. That's all his expectation should be is to have the the ability to utilize in
the zoning. The rehabilitation process and redevelopment processes are not for private owners. It's for public development, development that the public believes will be in its best interest. Albeit it's driven by a private developer, it is a process which you
control. It is a process which you dictate how it happens and how it's implemented. So, I think that you should take this this whole process and look at it as being your ability to do something for the community, not what this developer can do for you. That's very important. Now,
if it's any incentive to do this as a restart and and re- re- um re-go of the whole process, December 4th, there was a meeting that took place, at which time you referred to the planning board uh a resolution to undertake this rehabilitation study. At that meeting, you had the mayor sitting
in the dais, and you had Ms. McCrossen sitting on the dais. Both of which I believe have conflicts in this matter, at a minimum, of who has conflicts in this matter. That process has continued, and that's where we are here tonight. That process has not been cleared, and it's and I would ask you to ask your council tonight, but I believe you'll
find that that infection has not left the process, and it will stay with it throughout. Secondly, even if even if you don't want to go to today, you have Ms. McCrossen who's sitting here today, who is uh name is on a mortgage that's between an affiliate of the developer and the mayor. I think that that's an
explanation that should happen, and she investigate investigate that as well. As for some of the comments about um ownership on the property, I believe everybody's coming here with good faith and trying to do it, but there's an entity called the >> Thanks, Jim. >> the Nutting Building LLC, which maybe
Mr. Levinson could explain to, as well as Jillian. >> Thank you, Jim. Thank you. >> These people are sick. >> [applause] >> Effie, I know I saw you earlier. >> Effie Russo, 807 East 7th Street.
Tearing up what I had prepared to say. Um I moved here 50 years ago and I married a local. He still tells me I'm not a local. 50 years doesn't make me a local.
But I love this town. I appreciate this town so much. I had guests with me all week as I do most of the summer because I live in this neighborhood. Every night everyone wants to walk to
the boardwalk. That's all they want to do. And it's so much fun. I want to say that >> [sighs] >> I'm so appreciative of all the work of the council and the subcommittee.
And I am so appreciative of the people who spoke here tonight who were so articulate and so reasonable. I I just appreciate it so much. I am one of the residents of one of the
oldest neighborhoods in Ocean City. We live in what will be the shadow of whatever happens at 600 Boardwalk. We do want development at 600 Boardwalk. We don't want it to remain an eyesore. We know it can't be an amusement park again.
We just don't want the supersized ninth story boutique hotel, whatever that is. I listened for 2 hours carefully at the subcommittee report a few weeks ago. I thought it was so well done.
And I feel that going forward with this vote tonight is a repudiation of all that work. I felt really good and hopeful that we would get something in the place that would be consistent with what the
neighborhood would like. So, I urge you to table this vote tonight until yes, the new council is seated. They have the responsibility of all follow through on this whether there's litigation or not.
So, I would urge you to table this tonight. Thank you. >> Thanks, Adam. >> [applause] >> Uh Robert Levins. >> I'm here to give you guys a break, so uh I'm Robert Levins, 706 Pleasure Avenue. I'm representing the Nor'easter Homeowners Association, Sunset Harbor,
and uh thanks to Councilman Hartzell at a previous meeting uh favorite Harbor. He gave me permission to speak on their behalf last year. So, I'm here regarding uh and I do not want to belittle uh Wonderland. I have my opinions, but there's enough people with, you know, stating that, but uh you know, there's
talk about building a hotel or saving Wonderland. I'm here talking about potentially saving a life. Um I spoke before previously about the people speeding on Bay Avenue, and eventually two people were hit by cars, and the
police uh took action. They've been there diligently. By the way, we have some of the finest men and women of the police and fire and emergency uh well Chief Campbell, Officer Schmidt, and Officer Armstrong came out to talk to our community. So,
some of the finest, but I think roughly four people have died in the ocean this year already. You can die just as easily in the bay. And what I'm here talking about that I've talked about before in my sign and I know I'm not allowed to face others, but the no wake the no wake signs. The police have been
very proactive in getting no wake signs posted by the bridge both on the Ninth Street Bridge on the north and south end, but we still have boaters flying by there. No wake means 200 ft in any direction of a no wake sign. Uh we've had just 2 weeks ago we had a child fall
in get knocked off into the bay. And again, I understand it's not the ocean, but someone can die in the bay just as easily as the ocean. And I don't want to be here one day saying, you know, I told you so. Police are being very active, but I'm asking council, I'm asking the mayor uh
Hartsell, you know, Councilman Hartsell, we're in your district uh to do what you can with the state. It's a state issue, meaning I understand that and the state doesn't really care about South Jersey that much. But, it's a hazard and maybe even the
residents here hearing what I'm saying, if you see a no wake sign, please slow down just like a neighborhood cuz there may be a child on a dock and they may get knocked off just like a child could get hit in the street. Um and thank you for your service. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> [applause] >> Jim? >> Good evening, council members. My name is Jim Kelly. My wife, Donna, and I reside at 137 Wesley Avenue. I was elected to city council on May 12th and will be seated on Wednesday. Thank you for holding tonight's meeting at the music pier. It is encouraging to
see strong public engagement and to hear thoughtful perspectives from people who care deeply about Ocean City. I would like to I would like to address the issue of timing for resolution 26-197. A decision of this significance and magnitude should not be made just 6 days
before a newly elected city council is seated. Civic norms and established political best practices support allowing recently elected representatives who carry current mandates from the electorate to participate fully in consequential and
potentially controversial matters. Adhering to this principle protects democratic legitimacy and supports continuity in governance. I respectfully urge you to uphold these values. Our electorate our electorate recently
voted for me to represent them in a citywide council election. The future of our boardwalk was a paramount issue. My position was clearly articulated and voters from every ward elected me to fully participate in this matter on
their behalf. Accordingly, any action on the boardwalk should be deferred until I am sworn in next week. There is no legitimate urgency to place this matter on tonight's agenda. There is no credible justification for not providing sufficient public notice
of such an important matter. In a similar situation late last year, you provided 2 weeks notice and asserted the importance of doing so in a case like this. President Crowley, Councilman Hartzell, Love Check,
Winslow, Barnes, and Policheni. You all graciously congratulated me and expressed your intention to work with me in serving our community. I ask you to strengthen that commitment tonight by allowing me to work with you in representing our electorate in this
matter in its entirety. Thank you. >> [applause] [applause] >> Sue Strong >> Hi. Good evening. I can't see with my glasses and I can't see without them, so and I'm nervous, so I'll just say that. But I come with hope and I come with
optimism. What? Oh, my address. Sorry. Sue Strong, uh 8 21st Street, Ocean City, yay, 08226. Got that right. And that's my husband. >> pull on the microphone so I can hear you. >> Okay. Did you get the address? >> Yes, we got it. >> Okay, thank you. So anyway, I'm a little
nervous, but I do this for a living. I get up in front of people, so um I'm hopeful. Um I love this town. I was a baby. I learned to ride my bike here. So far I agree with Effie. I don't know Effie,
but um I I believe in the goodwill of the town. Um I've been following the process for a long time. Frankly, you know, Wonderland's gone. I get it. That train came down the track. Okay. But um for me it's getting to be a lot
of mumbo jumbo, you know, like wah wah wah wah wah from is that the like the little bird, you know, wah wah wah wah People get up and they talk a lot and I don't know I don't know what's true. I don't know um
which who's on what side, but I but my what I wanted to bring up tonight, my background's in organization development. And what I see when you've got so much stuff floating around, and we don't know who's true,
who's not, he hurt likes her, she hates him, you got to get a grip on the process. I see people talking at each other, not with each other. I see a lot of this or that, not this
and that. Um I see the opportunity to potentially engage in a different kind of a process where you could get people involved, and people could have conversation,
and possibly come up with um some things that they haven't even thought about. In my work, what happens and I'm watching the clock, in my work, what happens is we build what we call um ladders of inference. We come up with an opinion, and then we look for the points of view
that support it. And we don't let new opinions in. And I'm even watching you guys, I mean, you've heard a lot of that wah wah wah over and over and over again, and I'm wondering if your eyes are glazing over. Um there is a process, I'm not
necessarily advocating this, but there's a process, for example, called future search. They do it for whole towns where people come in, they get the community together, and people work together to solve problems. It does not become a me
versus you issue, and we're in a me versus you, and I don't think it's necessary. Um so, I I don't know. I mean, I I I think we're in the cycle of action reaction reaction action, this is true, this is false. I think you have to break
the cycle. That's what I think. You've got a lot of good information out there, and I just think this cycle of he said she said has to to broken, and there are processes that you can use to do that. Thank you. >> [applause]
>> Bill. Uh no, Bill McGinnity. >> Bill McGinnity, 104 Asbury Avenue, and also representing the Restaurant Association. Um I give everyone of you up here a lot of respect. Um you've been through a rough time over the past year and a half, 2 years now. So, every one of you deserve
a vote, okay? Um you've worked for it, you've earned it. You're sitting here, and now's the time to do this. We've talked this thing to death. We're done. The business community is here united, and the last thing I have time to do right now is this, but I left my restaurant to make sure you know how
important this is. So, tonight, after you vote, and I ask you, please vote, >> [gasps] >> the business community, when you leave the building, look to your left, look to your right. Every business you see is the lifeblood of this town. We need you to push this through. Please vote yes.
>> [applause] [applause] >> Dominique. >> [snorts] >> Hello. My name is Dominique Saltner, 22 West 18th Street. >> Uh Mary Ann Brewer, I am not giving you permission to record me. >> Please just address the chair.
>> I'm sorry, but she is recording me against my will. >> It's You're in public. There's nothing we can do about that. >> Okay. Well, I've been blessed to live in Ocean City my whole life. I've seen businesses come and go, and I'm so grateful for every memory that
we've made. And I thank every business owner from the bottom of my heart for impacting my life. All of you have impacted my life. I'm so nervous. >> [laughter] >> Okay. As of late, everything in our town
that was everything that our town was built on has come under fire online, which has muddied the waters. It appears that most do not understand what a rehab designation actually means. It is my understanding, after months of research, and please correct me if I'm
wrong, is that designating a parcel of land is an area in an area of that needs rehabilitation is the safest way to protect our boardwalk. Rehab designation is limited to one parcel of land, and in order to have
that designation, the property must meet at least one element of criteria. It does not set a precedence for the rest of the boardwalk. Whereas a zoning change on a parcel of land could potentiate more changes as a
variance can lead to more and open Pandora's Box. In short, rehab is a tool that can aid in structural improvements for safety, as well as allowing our community to move forward. It benefits the town and allows us to focus on what our town is
founded on, a family resort that brings joy to all. We all showed up tonight because we're passionate, and we want to keep the vibe of our town and boardwalk. In order for that to happen, we need to focus on the facts that our elected officials, all of you,
have presented and vote for a rehab designation. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Jack Gutenkunst couldn't Sorry, Jack. >> Jack Gutenkunst, 809 East 7th Street. I'm not going to go over all the things
I've said to this council before on the subject. And I'll freely admit as everybody here would if they were living where I live that there is an element of not in my backyard.
It just makes sense. I mean but that's not really my focus. I'm here to save a little bit of time because I have a bunch of our residents here. As you know, I'm the chairperson for the
Plaza Place Civic Association. Our attorney spoke already. But I can save you time for all the other residents if they would stand up for a second, you'll see how many 3 minutes I'll save you >> [laughter] >> by talking for them.
They are opposed for all the reasons that I've stated before and I'm not going to go into that. But one of the biggest disappointments about this whole thing has been how the people the voters
the council everybody has been manipulated by this campaign to come up with this hotel. And make no mistake, this resolution isn't a resolution about rehab as much
as it is a resolution for the hotel. Mr. Meeda himself has fused those two things together. >> [snorts] >> And he's done it publicly over and over again. There has been no compromise
then and no plan. This is just another part of what's been going on and how we've been manipulated. And then you get like let me suggest that Mr. Kazmeric's
comments about what the committee would have the subcommittee would have passed on if they were allowed to make a recommendation. That's a back door. They should have never said those things. And yet here we are listening to that
kind of thing. And and another thing I respect our business owners that are the lifeblood of our community in many ways. But half of them don't even vote here.
So I you can only take half of what they say. So please the best recommendation is table this vote. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jack.
>> [applause] >> Anthony Durando >> Anthony I might be saying this wrong. >> Durado, yeah. >> Tony. >> It's Tony. >> Tony. >> He's coming. Not slow. It's not a sprint, it's a marathon.
>> Good evening. Yeah, most people get my name wrong. >> I'm sorry. >> That's okay. That's okay. It's Anthony Dorado, Anthony Durado, Anthony Dorado. So it's pronounced a number of different ways. I don't get all wrapped up in that, so.
My address is Excuse me, my address is 855 Plaza Place, Ocean City, New Jersey, my beloved town. And Pete, thank you for your service. I must say that I am shocked and appalled that the 600 Boardwalk matter
is coming to a vote at tonight's City Council meeting, particularly given that it is the final meeting of the current administration. Perhaps that is not a surprise to some, but rather exactly what they expected. The timing alone raises legitimate
questions. I could go into a litany of reasons why this vote should not be taking place at this particular time, but I will refrain from doing so because I believe most people already understand the reasons. They are neither hidden or difficult to recognize. In fact, they have reared
their ugly heads again for all to see. As for possible long-range motives some may choose to speculate, I will not. However, most people can see what lies on the horizon if this Excuse me, [clears throat] if this motion passes, and they understand why there are those
who stand to benefit from its approval. I will instead focus on the facts before us. A hotel is not a destination attraction that will draw visitors to this location. We all know that. People vacationing in Ocean City, whether they are staying in
the gardens, the bay area, the Rivieras, the north end, south end, or elsewhere in the city are not coming to 6th Street and the boardwalk to visit a hotel. I believe the committee recognized that reality during its deliberations.
Granted, hotel may draw people to the merchants who sell different goods and services. So, I understand the merchants' concern. But I do urge each of you to do the right thing and vote this proposal down
tonight. You appointed a committee that conducted a thorough study of this matter and arrived at a reasonable, thoughtful, and well-supported determination. The committee did exactly what it was asked to do. The council should respect that work and
move the city in the right direction. Should the developer wish to pursue development of the site, he should present his plans along with any variance approvals, etc. just as any other citizen or
developer in Ocean City. Council, I urge you to stay the course, respect the committee's recommendation or disclosure, uphold the integrity of the process and vote no on this proposal. Thank you all very much for your service
up there. It's a difficult job and I appreciate what you're doing. >> [applause] >> Thank you, Anne. >> Dave Dave Hayes Dave Hayes, 641 Battery Road. My wife Marie and I have been full-time Ocean City residents for 22 years. I'm a retired engineer.
And let me be clear, 600 Boardwalk doesn't qualify for rehabilitation. Back on March 17th, council voted to hire a professional planner from Polistina and Associates and we were looking forward to a hearing hearing new innovative ideas that built on the
findings of the Boardwalk subcommittee and the Ocean City Planning Board. Unfortunately, what we got was a fatally flawed report that relies on the same questionable exhibits that led the Ocean City Planning Board to reject a rehabilitation designation 6 months ago.
The Polistina report relies on a disingenuous estimate from Caritas Construction to repair the pier infrastructure. At the January 7th Planning Board meeting, it was revealed that Eustace Meade had deceived the Planning Board by failing to disclose that he sits on the
Board of Director of Caritas, a fact that was cited by the Ocean City Planning Board as one of the reasons for rejecting the rehab designation. The Pollina report cites a flawed engineering report from April 2025. Based on only a cursory visual
inspection, the report claimed that the pier was in imminent danger of collapse. Run under where Mr. Mida has been operating multiple businesses for the past 2 years, a video arcade, bike rental, bakery, and a pizza the shop.
As we speak, there are businesses supposedly in danger. If it's really in danger of imminent collapse, why hasn't the city closed that area and taped off the taped it off? The cost to repair the council, the carousel, Ferris wheel, and log flume
was incorrectly used to to justify the need for rehabilitation designation. Rides for you provided an undated estimate to repair these rides, but the truth is that these rides were purchased by Eustace Mida as personal property, and they should never have been included
as part of the 600 Boardwalk estimate to repair. I take exception to the Pollina report claiming that the Boardwalk shows a pattern of vacancy, abandonment, or underutilization. I completely agree with the Ocean City Planning Board determination that the 600 Boardwalk vacancy and underutilization was the
complete choice of the owners. Moreover, Wonderland's closure was not based on a deteriorating conditions of the pier, but rather on financial factors. Designating 600 Boardwalk and as a property in need of rehabilitation is a gross abuse of New Jersey housing
and redevelopment law. It's an atrocity to use the rehab designation where the clear intent is to demolish the existing structures and to replace them with a development that's radically different in use, density, and community impact. Furthermore, the rehabilitation designation was created to help
struggling deteriorating communities revitalize themselves. It was never meant to be applied to extensive expensive beachfront property. So, wealthy developers like Eustace Meade could further increase their profits. I implore council to either reject this
finding or to delay a vote until after the new council is seated. >> Thanks, Dave. >> [applause] [applause] >> Right. >> Marie Hayes, 641 Battersea Road. My husband Dave and I have been full-time Ocean City residents for 22 years. I
fully agree with my husband Dave's statements on the disingenuous Polis Teaneck Planner report regarding the recommendation for rehab at 600 Boardwalk. It reminds me of when I was a college professor and gave a student an F on a badly written paper. I asked him to work on the paper and resubmit it,
but he simply reformatted the paper, handed it in again, so I had to give him the same grade, an F. Like my student, the Polis Teaneck Planner didn't incorporate any of the learnings from the Ocean City Planning Board from January, and now they are using the same faulty evidence from back
then. Why did council allow the questionable Polis Teaneck Planner report to be entered into the public record? Why did City Council agree that they were not the experts, and that they wanted to send it to the Ocean City Planning Board in January, only to ignore their no rehabilitation decision,
and hire an outside planner and attorney at the taxpayers' expense? Why is City Council ignoring the subcommittee's recommendation of more entertainment, of no high-rise hotel at 600 Boardwalk, that would change the character of the Boardwalk and ruin the historic neighborhood
behind it? Why are the mayor and City Council so intent on rushing through the most consequential decision the city has ever faced right before a new City Council will be installed in 6 days? City Council takes an oath to make decisions for the good of the entire Ocean City community. A recent
Rutgers-Eagleton poll showed that neither the showed neither 80% of the Ocean City community is against a high-rise hotel at 600 Boardwalk because it will change our island forever. City Council should not be catering to the demands of any developer to the
detriment of Ocean City communities and our way of life and the tourists who also love America's greatest family resort. 21 years ago, the last time an out-of-state developer tried to build a high-rise hotel at the Soleil property next to the Flanders, residents overwhelmingly opposed it.
Unfortunately, City Council didn't listen to their constituents and the project was pushed all the way to the 11th hour before the community stopped it. Don't make the same mistake. The motto of the Washington Post is democracy dies in darkness. What is happening now is very dark. It looks
like a preordained outcome allowing the city to immediately enter into secret negotiations with developer Mr. Mehta away from the prying eyes of the public. We all know voting for rehabilitation tonight is the first step down the slippery slope of redevelopment. It's also a mockery of government
transparency and to everything the government should be striving for. Please do the right thing tonight for our community by rejecting the rehabilitation designation at 600 Boardwalk. Thank you. >> [applause] >> Helen Strakman, 21 Asbury Avenue.
For months this council and the public have been fed a very specific narrative to justify why we must fast track a rehabilitation status for 600 Boardwalk. We have been told by Councilman Lovchuk, who constantly leans on his background
in the amusement industry, that engaging mechanical rides back to the North North End is an impossibility. He has publicly argued that state level regulations, the ride approval process, and compliance hurdles create an insurmountable roadblock that no
independent entertainment operator could ever overcome. We are told that the old model is dead, approvals are too difficult, and therefore a rehabilitation designation is our only bottom line. But leadership requires checking the
facts before changing our laws. And I'm here today to tell you that I did exactly that. I have met directly with the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, the DCA, and the hard data they provided completely contradicts the misleading
narrative presented to this council and to the public. First, we are led to believe that getting a mix of rides certified and approved is a logistical nightmare. The truth? The DCA maintains a list of over 67
pages, thousands of already approved type certified rides. Furthermore, the DCA has explicit, clear processes in place specifically to grant variances for classic or historic rides when an original manufacturer no longer
exists or cannot provide paperwork. The state does not block family entertainment. In fact, it accommodates it. Secondly, let's talk about the supposed prohibitive regulatory cost used to scare us into believing that independent
cart park is non-viable. According to the DCA's actual fee schedules, the approval cost for a small ride is less than $300 a year. Even a massive massive major thrill ride
costs less than $1,000 per year for state approval. These are standard manageable business expenses. They are not an impossible barrier to entry. These are baseline safety checks. When Councilman Loudcheck changed his
vote to support a rehabilitation designation, he did so by painting the state approval process as an absolute death sentence for the boardwalk and for boardwalk amusements. The actual data from the DCA proves this is simply not true.
The justification for bypassing our master plan and opening the door to massive commercial rezoning has crumbled. We do not have a ride approval problem. We have a political narrative problem and I urge this council to halt this rehabilitated process, look at the
actual data, and protect the zoning integrity of America's greatest family resort. Thank you. >> [applause] >> Chris Chris Chrissy Trigiani. Chrissy. >> Chrissy Trigiani, 242 Wesley.
Uh I'm a resident and business owner on the boardwalk and I'll keep this short. I'm asking council to please vote yes for rehabilitation. It's time. Let's keep this moving. Thank you. >> [applause]
>> Dr. Rapp. Thank you everyone. Mark Rob, 12 West Aberdeen Road. Don't take it personally. I've seen way too much of you guys in the last 2 years. Um >> Ditto. >> [laughter] >> I'm sure.
Last year I stood in front of this council and I issued a grave warning. I said the closing of Wonderland Pier and their willingness to move forward with redevelopment would have a profound negative impact on our boardwalk. [clears throat] This year for the first time in 40 years
we're able to we're unable to find a suitable tenant for one of our properties. 712 Boardwalk will remain boarded up through the season. This was not our decision. The list of possibilities for running
certainly did not fit what Ocean City would want on the boardwalk. A weed-based gift shop or political gift shop were some of the tenants we
were looking at. We decided this doesn't fit Ocean City. Next year's projections are looking even dimmer. We have five storefronts up for lease next year
and we have two definite not coming back and three definite maybes. This is a crossroads that we are enduring. Thousands of people are going to walk by
that boarded-up store and wonder why. Do we want Ocean City to be another second homeowners vacation spot which will make dramatic tax burdens placed on the locals, or do we truly
want to be a great family resort? Please, redevelopment is the right thing to do. We are out of time. Thank you. >> [applause] >> Okay, that wraps up public comment. We're going to
move into the regular meeting for There'll be another public comment, but this is for people that signed up. Um We're going to get through the the meeting process here. So, I'm going to go to reports from city council. David? >> No report. >> Jody? >> Nothing at this time. >> Keith? >> I'm good, sir. Thank you. >> John? >> No report.
>> Tony? >> No report. [snorts] >> Peter? >> No report. >> Okay, nothing for me. Can I have a motion to adopt the regular city council meetings of Thursday, June 11th, 2026? >> So moved, Winslow. >> Second. >> Mr. Crowley? >> Yes. >> Mr. Madden? >> Yes. >> Mr. Winslow? [clears throat] >> Yes. >> Mr. Lovchuk?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Hartzell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Barnes? >> Yes. >> Mr. Polcini? >> Yes. >> Have a motion to adopt the closed session meetings of Thursday, June 11th, 2026. >> So moved, Winslow. >> Second, Hartzell. >> Mr. Crowley? >> Yes. >> Mr. Madden?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Winslow? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lovchuk? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hartzell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Barnes? >> Yes. >> Mr. Polcini? >> Yes. >> Okay, we have one ordinance this evening. It's a first reading. It's ordinance 2608. Can I have a motion to introduce 2608 for first reading?
>> So moved, Winslow. >> Second. >> [snorts] >> Mr. Crowley? >> Yes. >> Mr. Madden? >> Yes. >> Mr. Winslow? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lovchuk? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hartzell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Barnes? >> Yes. >> Mr. Polcini? >> Yes. >> 2608, an ordinance amending and
supplementing chapter 4, police regulations of the revised ordinances of the city of Ocean City, prohibiting camping or sleeping on public property. >> Good evening, council. This ordinance would do just what the title indicates. So it prohibit camping or sleeping on
public property as defined within the ordinance. In the fields, on the boardwalks, on in gazebos, anything like that. Um there is an exception of course for napping on the beach, but other than that sleeping in public will not be permitted.
>> Okay, thank you. Any questions or comments from council? Okay, seeing none. Can I have a motion to adopt 2608 on first reading introduction? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Barnes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Yes. >> Mr. Madden. >> Yes. >> Mr. Winslow. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Lovchak. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hartzell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Barnes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Pulcini. >> Yes. >> Okay, second reading and public hearing will be held on Thursday, July 16th at 6:00 p.m. and will be published according to law. Which moves us into the consent agenda. All resolutions listed on the consent
agenda are considered to be routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. If the mayor or any councilperson wish to have a particular resolution to be considered separately, it will be removed from the consent agenda. >> I I have 126177, please.
>> You want 177? >> Number 12. >> Number 12. >> Got it. >> You got it? >> Mhm. >> Okay, anyone else? Okay. Um Keith, you pulled it. >> Yes. So I have a number of people here from from ward two and and also people
who would tuning in. >> I'm sorry Keith, let her We have to read the title for the record. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> My bad. Not your bad, my bad. >> I did what you told me to do. >> 26177. A resolution expressing support of application by 10th Street Wharf LLC to
the Cape May County Open Space Advisory Board for the Maritime Preservation Program. >> Okay, back to you Keith. >> And Becky says I don't listen and don't directions. I want to duly note that I did and got in trouble. Um so I would a number of people here
from Ward 2 tonight and many people that would be tuning in and I I told Mrs. McCrossan that I was going to ask for an explanation exactly what this means um cuz some some people don't don't know and some do um but it is and the other reason is why it's being considered and
that I do know is that the county asked us to go ahead and to consider this and and to give them our opinion. So that's why this is on on the resolution as it stands. Uh it is something still the county is going to want to do and do that just asking us to to weigh in but I wanted a further explanation from you as
well as the county. >> defer to um Mr. Savastano on this one. >> What Am I on? >> Mhm. >> Hear me? Okay. What this resolution does is it supports the as it says a grant agreement um
I'm sorry. Um the grant application Which one am I looking at? Which one is it? It supports the application. I'm sorry. Uh to the Cape May County Open Space Advisory Board for the purchase of for the county to
provide funding to the owner that would preserve two parcels on that property to keep it as a marina. If the county if the if the if the applicant is successful the county would pay to the to the owner.
Uh their request is for $2.5 million. And it would require that property to main to be maintained as a marina. Could not be developed uh in any other manner. That's basically what this does.
>> So this means it would be this um would be the same ownership and that ownership can be passed as long as it's followed that it always stays a marina. >> Yes. >> Correct. Yes. And I did have some questions from some of the neighbors. Um Will the county require any kind of
other changes? In other words, there was questions back in the day and I don't know if these are valid, invalid. Um but people did ask me to ask them. Um people wanted to know, I think at one point there was supposed to be a pump station required. Is that true, not true? >> I I didn't I didn't I didn't catch that.
What was the question? >> Whether or not the DEP wanted a pump station required there. On that property. Do you know the answer to that? >> Councilman, I don't know if you're conflating this with the
um marina development or proposed marina development in Glen Cove uh lagoon. This is not that. >> No, no, I'm just saying on the 10th Street Wharf itself, will it remain running the same and is there any things
that need to be done there that was was supposed to be done? In other words, bathroom. >> Not as a result of this resolution. >> Not as a result of this. So, there's no there'll be no uh change. The county's not going to make a change. It will still run the same as it was. So, the questions I have are not >> I I suppose the county could condition
the grant on some kind of change, but not that we're aware of. What's before you is all that was proposed. >> Okay, cuz I think there was a question whether or not will the will the county say we need to do this, that, and the other thing and that's not the case. This is just an overall protection of that land. Okay, thank you.
>> Okay, um any other questions from council? Okay, since this was a pulled resolution, we'll go out to public comment just on this uh resolution 26.177. If anyone would like to speak, Frank,
come on up. >> 3307 Simpson Avenue. I came here tonight just as an observer. I'm here now as a meekus curiae. Uh 4 years ago I voted for Pete Madden. Four Four weeks ago I voted for this
man, but Pete Madden is elected for a 4-year term, and I expect that to be filled. >> Frank, just on this ordinance only. Do you want to comment on this or we'll have another public comment? >> Okay, I'll get back on It's all right. We did a lot of give and take here tonight. We relaxed the rules. I thought you might be a little sweeter,
but all right. Uh I believe I'm the only person here that hasn't made up his mind or what should happen at at with the at the old amusement pier. I I would like to see
>> I love you. We're going to have another public comment. This is just on the marina at 10th Street. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Okay. No worries. That's okay. >> I got bad hearing. >> It happens to me all the time. >> Sorry to bother you. >> No, no, no. I'll get back to you. All right. Anyone else? >> up, though. >> A- Anyone else on this just this
resolution? Uh okay. I'm seeing none. Can I have a motion to adopt 26.177? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Who is the second? >> Hartsell. Sorry.
I'm getting it. >> Mr. Crowley? >> Yes. >> Mr. Madden? >> Yes. >> Mr. Winslow? >> I have to abstain. I have a family member that works for the one of the affiliates of the owner. >> Okay. Mr. Lovchuk? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hartsell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Barnes? >> Yes. >> Mr. Pulchini? >> Yes.
>> Okay, which moves us to the remaining items on the consent agenda. Can I have a motion to adopt the remaining items on the consent agenda? >> So moved. >> Winslow. >> Second. >> Mr. Crowley? >> Yes. >> Mr. Madden? >> Yes. >> Mr. Winslow? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lovchuk? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hartsell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Barnes?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Pulcini. >> Sure. >> Mr. Curley, I'm going to excuse myself for the next part of the meeting. >> Okay, I'd like to welcome uh Mr. Ridgeway to the council table. Please note that Ms. McCrossen has stepped out of the meeting. Mr. Ridgeway will handle
the non-consent resolution. There we go. Hey, welcome John. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Which brings us to the um resolution non-consent resolution designating block 600.05 lots 1 and 2 located at 600 Boardwalk as
an area in need of rehabilitation. John, do you want to explain? >> Yes, so Mr. Chairman, this is um or Mr. President, this is uh a continuation of a uh statutory process that was started uh with referral uh from city council to the planning board.
Uh the planning board conducted a uh hearing on the matter. There was uh submissions of planning reports uh both the planning board uh planner as well as uh the property owners planners report. In addition, there was a report of a
special planner uh which council uh engaged Jen Heller's office uh to prepare. And so, uh tonight, uh council is at the crossroads which it may consider uh the rehab designation based upon the
input from the professional planners as well as the other uh information before the board. For the governing body. >> Okay. Thanks, John. Questions of council, David? Jody? >> No questions at this time. >> Keith? >> No.
>> Uh Shawn? >> Yeah, Mr. President, I move that we table this resolution to a first full council meeting in July, 3 weeks from today. And I will support that. >> As a second. >> Comments? >> I second. Keith will second.
>> I support >> Okay, motion. Okay, so Mr. Crowley? >> Can I make some comments first? >> Oh. >> Sure, go ahead. So, just to be clear, this is not a motion to stop redevelopment. This is not a motion against Mr. Meeda.
And it is certainly not a motion against investment in Ocean City. It is a motion to to take 3 weeks to make sure we get the one of the most important land use decisions in our city's history right. I have said from the beginning that I
support thoughtful growth. Ocean City cannot stand still. Our boardwalk is the economic engine of this community, and it must continue to evolve, attract visitors, and support businesses for generations to come.
I believe 600 Boardwalk represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. But opportunities this significant deserve thoughtful decisions, not rushed ones. I do not support declaring this property as an area in need of rehabilitation
because I do not believe that it meets the intent of the designation or the criteria. This law exhibits exist to address areas suffering from deterioration and blight. We are talking about 300 ft of boardwalk
frontage in America's greatest family resort. I do not believe this site warrants public assistance. And that distinction matters because laws matter. If we begin applying this designation where legal standard is uncertain, we
establish a precedent that reaches far beyond this property. Other property owners will understandably ask for the same treatment. And for more than a century, thorough thoughtful zoning has protected Ocean City's neighborhoods, strengthened
property values, and preserved the character that generations have worked so hard to build. Those protections have served this city well, and I believe that they deserve our respect. But saying no that to this designation is not the same as saying no to
redevelopment, to be clear. In fact, I believe compromise is not only possible, it is achievable. If the developer is willing to sit down with council and work toward a project that reflects our community's values and respects the unique character of this location,
I believe we can move quickly. I believe we can adopt the necessary ordinances and move this project forward within a matter of months, not years. That is the path that I support. 7 months ago, this council asked a group
of experienced volunteers to study the future of our boardwalk, and they did exactly what we asked. They listened, they researched, they debated, and they sought public input. And they produced the first comprehensive vision for the future of
our boardwalk that this council has received in years. That work deserves more than a passing glance. It deserves consideration, it deserves discussion, and most importantly, it deserves to be completed.
The logical next step is not to set that work aside. The logical next step is to use it to evaluate these recommendations to determine how they align with our master plan. To decide whether changes to our zoning
should come first before we reach for extraordinary legal tools. If we intended to move forward before considering the recommendations of the boardwalk subcommittee, then why did we ask them to spend 7 months on this work?
Those volunteers deserve better. The public deserves better. And this council deserves the benefit of the work we commissioned before taking a vote of this magnitude. Questions have also been raised throughout the process regarding
procedure and potential legal implications. Now, [snorts] whether those questions ultimately change anyone's vote is almost beside the point. They deserve thoughtful answers before, not after, we make a decision that will
shape our city for generations. As someone who spent much of my career evaluating investments and identifying risks, I have learned that good decisions are rarely made quickly. They're the ones that have been
evaluated thoroughly. My concern is not development. My concern is promoting responsible development and limiting risk to the city of Ocean City. When there are unanswered legal questions, unfinished planning work, and
a newly elected council about to take office, I do not believe taking three more weeks increases our risks. In fact, I believe it reduces it. Most importantly, a newly elected council will take an take office in just a few days.
The voters have spoken. Those newly elected members will inherit the consequences of what we decide here tonight, and they deserve the opportunity to participate in the decision that will shape this boardwalk for decades.
Waiting 3 weeks is not unreasonable. Waiting 3 weeks does not stop redevelopment. Waiting 3 weeks simply allows us to finish the planning process that we ourselves began. I was elected to represent the people of Ocean City.
Over the past several months, I have heard one message over and over and over again. People are not asking us to stop progress. They are asking us to get it right. They want transparency, they want thoughtful planning,
and they want their voices to matter. Rushing a vote just days before a newly elected council takes office is not the kind of government I believe our residents want or expect. My responsibility is not simply to make decisions quickly.
It is to make decisions wisely. Tonight, I ask my colleagues to give this process 3 more weeks. Give the incoming council a seat at the table. Honor the work of this count that this council has commissioned.
Welcome real conversations and negotiations with the developer starting tomorrow. And give the people of Ocean City confidence that we chose patience over politics, planning over pressure,
and wisdom over what haste. History will not judge us whether we acted quickly, but it will judge us by whether we acted wisely. I thank you for your the time. >> [applause]
[applause] [applause] [applause] >> Okay Tony, anything for discussion? >> I'm going to wait. >> Okay, Peter, anything? Okay, so we have a motion, we have a second. Should we go to a roll call? Okay, we have a first and second to
table. Should we go to a roll call? >> Mr. Crowley? >> This is We can't hear. Can we hear what what the votes are, please? >> Mr. Madden? >> No. >> Mr. Winslow? >> What Sorry, what's the What are we We're
voting to table. >> Okay, to table. To table for 3 weeks. >> Okay, yes or no to >> Are you voting to table it, yes or no? >> There's two no votes. >> Mr. Crowley vote? >> Yes, no, no. >> No, he's he's going to vote. Madden voted first. >> No. Terry already voted. >> To table
>> A no >> We we can't hear down here, sorry. >> Sorry, we're we're getting there. Sorry. The question is to table this motion. >> Who's voting to table? >> I voted no. >> to table and it was seconded by Hartzell. And so I just did roll call. So to table the resolution, the first
vote for Mr. Crowley was no to table and Mr. Madden no to table. So now we're on Mr. Winslow. >> No to table. >> Mr. Lovchak? >> No to No to table. >> [applause] >> Okay.
>> Hold on, I didn't get my vote. >> What we have >> She has She has what she needs. >> Oh. >> You have four. >> It's not tabled. >> All right, since this is a non-consent agenda, we will go out to public comment. If you've already spoken on this matter. >> I think it would be a procedural error
if the entire council is not pulled to vote. You don't ask for a vote and only take four. So, I'm I'm directing that to council to to call out what I believe is a error in the process. If it goes however it goes, there still needs to be a
record of how people vote on a motion. There was a motion and a second. >> Um um yes. Table. >> Okay. Mr. Barnes? >> Yes, table. >> And Mr. Pulcini? >> No. >> Okay. Once again, we we will go out to public comment. If
you've already spoken on this matter, you can't speak again, but if you haven't, feel free to come on up. Just name and address for the record, please. >> Thank you. Hi. Hi, my name is Bill Nicoletti. I live at 4061 Asbury Avenue, and I am 100% for rehabilitation designation.
Um been through like a lot of you here have been to every one of these meetings um from the city council to the planning board to the subcommittee, and my observation is is that the property meets the qualifications for rehabilitation by virtue of being an
abandoned blight that is uninhabited, and it has major major safety concerns. Last year I was a tenant there, and in just 1 year from last year to this year, um I I couldn't go back. I mean, that the building in just 1 year has
deteriorated to the point where I wasn't subjecting my staff to that. And and one of the things I heard at the planning meeting from Dean Adams was the combination of salt air, wind, and elements have unquestionably made this building beyond repair, without a doubt.
The thing that I think is a slam dunk on all of this is [clears throat] that what we learned from all of these meetings is that an amusement park is no longer viable. And that is by far the biggest one. We heard it at the subcommittee planning board at Tabernacle 2 weeks ago.
We heard it from the owners of Morey's Pier. And it's one of the the findings. So so with that information, I think it's very important to understand that we can no longer do an amusement park there, people. That's that's the bottom line.
Our our town was founded by Christians and built by entrepreneurs. And every entrepreneur group from Asbury Avenue Association building boardwalk merchants association, the chamber, all unanimously unanimously agree that the way towards progress
is through rehabilitation. All you have to do is hear Dr. Rob. Five properties, that's amazing. And I got to tell you, when I go down the boardwalk, what stands out to me? His one property that's boarded up. An amusement park is no longer viable. We've heard it over and over again. And
for that reason, I support rehabilitation. My name is Bill Nicoletti. Thank you for your time. >> Thanks, Bill. >> [applause] >> Good evening. I swore I wasn't going to say anything today, but I am Paul Levchuk, 1168 Boardwalk, Unit 1. For those of you who couldn't figure it out, I am Jody's dad. And I'm here to defend
some of the things that were said today. Number one, I am past president of the New Jersey Amusement Association, and we have paid full-time lawyers who fight the DCA all day long. Your information is incorrect, ma'am. What it costs to get a >> Mr. Levchuk
>> Yes. What it costs to get a permit is not the thing. You got to go in there and try to fight them for the rides. And And currently two of the um two brand new rides are sitting in Wildwood, New Jersey belong to Castaway Cove that are being waited for permits from that group. And we fight them all
day long with our lawyers. We can go anywhere from Kingsburg Amusement Park to Point Pleasant to Great Adventure to the Morey's to Castaway Cove. All these people are members and I sit on that board regularly as does Jody. So, the information that was given makes it sound real easy, but she should go sit
with the DCA with our lawyers one day. On another note, to the lawyer who brought up the Nutton building, my wife and I are the original owners of the Nutton building and we are the only owners of all of our boardwalk properties on the boardwalk. Jody is not a member. He gets charged a very large rent for being a tenant and so is his
brother. And I want to make that clear. He has We are not looking for any type of rehab for any of our properties. If you go to 12th Street, we are always improving it. And how dare anybody think that we're looking to make money here. We just want to see 600 boardwalk developed
correctly. One way or the other. And Mr. Lawyer, I own Nutton building and so does my wife Jill as you could figure it under Jilly's. And I don't you know, Jody can defend himself very well without me helping doing it for him, but I'm defending our business. We got 50 some odd years here and I resent the fact that people think
we're here trying to make money off of this city. How dare you? >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Good evening. Uh my name is Mark Benevento and uh I >> [clears throat] >> 807 East East Street. Uh Shawn, uh Mr. Barnes, you said a few
things about the uh or maybe I heard a few things about uh the Sole and uh a dangerous path we're going down. Well, the the which is the Flanders parking lot,
and the Flanders were designated in a redevelopment zone, and are currently in a redevelopment zone, and have been for many, many years. And nothing has been done down there.
And that I hear something's going to be done down there, but that is not the reason it didn't tumble down a little bit of the boardwalk over here 20 years later. So, I'm a resident, I'm a business owner.
We own a lot of businesses up here on this boardwalk, as well as real estate on this boardwalk. And I'm here to support a once-in-a-lifetime, a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Three weeks, Mr. Barnes, is not going to
change your vote. >> Mark, if I may, please. >> Okay. Three weeks, Terry, is not going to change your vote. I'm here tonight because I support placing 600 Boardwalk into rehabilitation. This vote doesn't approve a project
tonight. It simply gives the city and newly elected city councilman Jim Kelly more control over what eventually gets built there, including the design, traffic, parking, and how it fits into our boardwalk.
Doing nothing isn't a solution. This property isn't going to fix itself. I believe rehabilitation is the responsible path, and I please ask for you to vote this. Vote yes for this. Thank you. >> [applause] >> Helen, you've already spoken on this
matter, so Yeah, yeah. If if you If you spoke before you were speaking on an an item that's on the agenda. So that was the intent, that's what you did. No, not a second time.
Thank you. Anyone else for public comment on the non-consent resolution? >> Hi, my name's Heather Neville. I am all the way up Heather. Heather Neville, I have a business at 854 Asbury. Sean, you said that 3 weeks isn't a long time. As a property as a
business owner on the boardwalk, 3 weeks is a third of our season. It's a very very very long time. A couple of comments about Jody being having to recuse himself. I think Jody is a wonderful asset on the board because he truly understands like a lot
of comments about people have said you know, community community. Something that hasn't been said tonight is tourism. Tourism is huge and when you make your decisions, you really need to look at the tourism aspect of Ocean City, which Jody has a better grasp than anybody else on this boardwalk. And if
you're looking for insight, if you're looking for a guide, he's your best guide on this situation because he understands that aspect of Ocean City, which is tremendous. You say Ocean City is the greatest family resort, then you should be focused you should really key in on tourism. And yeah, community is
important you all you residents are wonderful, but this is a tourist town and that needs to be your main objective. Thanks, have a great night. >> [applause] >> Hi, Glenn Gibbons, 809 Sea Cliff Road. You know, Terry, you held a meeting back
in December over at the Ocean Yacht Club for the residents and I went up and I went up to you afterwards and complimented you on setting up the subcommittee. I thought that was a good way to diffuse things and get the input from from everybody. Dave, when you had the
meeting, I sent you a email complimenting you on taking the lead on that and putting together a good group of people and getting the feedback. It absolutely amazes me
that you go through this process and you don't listen to the subcommittee. So, when the people here ask about a 3-week delay, the delay has been about 9 months. And if you were not going to listen to the
subcommittee, why'd you put it together? So, when you the business owners ask about the delay, guys, it's on you. You need to get together with Mr. Mehta
and have a conversation with him. He has not brought anything to the table that he's going to do other than a high-rise hotel. Somebody on this council needs to reach out to him, sit down with
him, and have a conversation about what he wants to do. These meetings are tearing the community apart. Some of the information going around on Facebook, one of the reasons I don't go on Facebook.
But, you know, people pass them on to me. One of them I I don't want to be on Facebook. They're nasty. We need to find a way to pull the community together, and one or two of you on council need to meet with Mr. Mehta. He is totally behind the scenes, and I'm
curious, what does he want other than rehab? Thank you. >> [applause] >> Kiley Robb, 233 West Atlantic Boulevard. Um, I wasn't planning on talking, so I didn't prepare anything, but I just wanted to say from like a younger perspective in the town, um, I own a
business, I own a school right on Second and Haven, and I think business is the livelihood of this town. It's what this town runs on. Um, certainly the community is a wonderful aspect, but the community would be nothing without the tourists that come in in the summer,
without um, the people that build up our economy, and that's the businesses. Um, we're all choosing to live in a tourist town, and choosing to live here, we're choosing to support the businesses that build up our economy. Our houses would be nothing
without the businesses that build the economy. Our views wouldn't really matter without the businesses. When you choose to live in Ocean City, you're choosing to support the businesses. Um, and the businesses need to move forward, and the town needs to grow, and from the
future of the town, I just thought that that might be a perspective that people want to hear, because not only myself, but owning a town, or owning a school in this town where young families with young kids are through my doors every day, um, they want it. They want growth.
They want something there. My family used to go to the boardwalk every Wednesday, and we would do, um, the rides at Wonderland, Tee Time Mini Golf. We would go to the Promenade for cheesesteaks, and then we would go get Kohr Brothers. And last night we went for our first boardwalk night with all
the grandkids, and um, walking down to that end of the boardwalk, it was completely empty. Um, it was so crowded at Playland. The Promenade was even crowded by the time we went there to eat Kohr Brothers, but that end was dead, and it's it's heartbreaking. It's horrible to see.
It's horrible to see stores boarded up. Um, that's not what our town needs, and I think fighting for this end of the boardwalk is hard enough and if we don't make progress we're going to be fighting for a dying tourist town, you know, a dying resort town and that's not what we want. So, I think we need to move
forward. The future of this town wants us to move forward. Thank you. >> [applause] [snorts] >> Jim Carlin, 841 Forest Street. This is the third time, I believe, this issue of rehab has been put on the agenda.
The last time it was moved to the planning committee and the planning board opted not to designate the property as in need of rehab and frankly that makes sense. It's not an amusement park. It's no longer going to be and it never will be.
The subcommittee completed its work and I think came up with some very objective data-driven recommendations. Yet, here we are again notwithstanding those recommendations with no apparent consideration and three or six days away from swearing in a new
council choosing again to act on the same requested resolution. I strongly recommend against rehab designation. I ask you to please vote no. Furthermore, I ask you to review the subcommittee recommendations and propose a recommendation to incorporate those
findings into the city's master plan. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Good evening. I hadn't [clears throat] prepared any remarks, but I just want to make a couple comments. My name's Lisa Sarajian. I live at 837 Forest Street.
My parents bought our home in 1965. I basically grew up um um, going to Wonderland Pier. I'm very familiar with that end of the end of the boardwalk. And I guess I'm not going to speak to, um, the bulk of what's been discussed tonight. I basically just want to say
how two things. What an extraordinary opportunity this is, this whole issue around how to redevelop this parcel. It should be It should be an opportunity of of something joyous. We should be so
excited about this, and there's just so much rancor and and, um, division. So, it it's There's so much good that come from that could come from this process. The second
comment I want to make is how disappointed I am from a from a governance standpoint in, um, in you guys. I mean, it's your job to de-escalate. It's your job to bring us
together as a community. It's your job to compromise when that makes sense, and I think you're letting us down. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Liz Nicoletti, 40th Street.
Um, I just want to say, um, no to the 3-week delay. Um, I hope you vote against, um, sorry, Shawn and Keith. Um, I just want to appreciate I want to appreciate what my husband just said. I want to personally thank the
entrepreneurs in our town, and I appreciate Dean Adams' findings. We have tabled this long enough. People do not Please do not table this. We've been waiting. We've been showing
up at the meetings. I agree with the the woman who just shared. Um, it's time to bring our town together and make a decision. Please vote yes to the rehab. Thank you for your service, Jody. I'm sorry about what was said.
Really disappointed in that. I appreciate your dad stepping up for you. I like that. And um Pete [snorts] uh you know, blessings to you moving forward. And thanks, Tony, for um
bringing up order and just confronting the crowd to like bring us together. I appreciate that. So, I just um hope and pray for all you guys. I know it's hard to make a decision. It's hard to be in the hot seat. But um I appreciate if you would move this
along. There are people that are their livelihoods are at stake. Thanks. >> [applause] >> I'm Robert I'm Robert Marslook, and we live at 864 Plaza Place, and we own an undeveloped nature preserve at 866
Parker Place. I'm one of only two properties that are residential that are propinquitous. It's in my backyard. Absolutely, and that's not why I'm here. I'm here because I don't understand. And I have an MBA from the Wharton School, and people don't do market research. Why
would anybody go to a luxury hotel and then go down the boardwalk? Why would somebody come from I just got a two-week rental today where people from out of town. They're not going to come to see a hotel. More entertainment, more reason to come here.
Fewer We don't need additional rooms. I've looked into this. A hotel cannot survive with less than 70% year-round occupancy. And a hotel cannot survive without banquets, and it cannot have banquets without alcohol.
So, you're buying into something on a dream that for some reason your business on Asbury Avenue is going to get more business because somebody's going to be going to see a hotel. After the first time that people go and see it for curiosity, that
end of the boardwalk just as dead as it is now. I thank you for your attention. >> Thank you. >> [applause] >> Okay, anyone else for public comment? Good. All right, good. Before we make a motion, John, can you just speak to, you
know, the process of, you know, where we are right now with this? And then what would be the next steps if it were to move? >> So, on the agenda, Mr. Council President, is a vote for designation for rehabilitation.
What that designation serves as is the first tool which the governing body can use in order to then develop a redevelopment plan for the property. I think it's important for the public as well as
Council to be reminded that it is the city or the planning board as directed by the city that will write the redevelopment plan. That's key.
And as a result, the rehab designation being debated and potentially acted upon tonight is a mandatory step, a prerequisite
which the governing body must go through if it is to develop a redevelopment plan for the property. There is no statutory authority to develop a redevelopment plan for the property unless it's been designated as
an area in need of rehabilitation. So, this is part of a sequential part of the statutory scheme um that the designation is required before there can be a plan. And the plan is
drafted by the city and or planning board if directed to do so by the city. So, that is uh the summary of procedurally where we are. So, then the next thing that would happen in the event there were a designation the next uh procedural step under the
statute would be the adoption of a redevelopment plan. Uh typically that is uh follow follows uh a appointment of a redevelopment committee which would uh gather input into the site and into
prospective uses uh and and various other considerations um and then would make a recommendation to the governing body on a plan. Um but it is a process after uh
designation for rehab that the city controls. The city writes the plan. Whether it's through the planning board or through city the governing body, the city writes the plan. So, that is uh a clarification I think is important to be made tonight for both the public as well
as the governing body. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. With public comment being closed, um can I have a motion to adopt the resolution the non-consent resolution? >> We're going to have chance for any more comments? >> You must. >> But you can comment when when when you vote.
>> What? Oh, okay. >> I need a motion to >> Oh, just to vote. >> I'll make a motion. >> I'm sorry. >> Second. >> So >> Mr. Crowley >> Um What are we I'm sorry. Doing two things at
>> You're voting to adopt the resolution. >> Okay. All right. So, I will say um in this process, um I've been elected a couple times and people ask how your thought process is when you approach difficult matters. Um it's the same as it is in my 30-year career and that is I
gather all the information. Um I look to experts in the field. Uh certainly in this process, there's been three different uh planners. These uh planners are uh certified, they're licensed. Uh all three of them
have uh written an opinion that the criteria for rehabilitation has been met. They're the experts, not me. We've engaged an an attorney that has a 30-year career in this process uh who I've relied on through this.
Um and at the end of the day, the reason we're all in here is we want a state-of-the-art product at the end of the at the north end of the boardwalk. I don't know that's what's been suggested or what you've seen in um newspaper ads uh or articles about
what's been projected up there. What we need to do is we need to get into a process listening to the experts on what is going to be up there. And the thought that the subcommittee started and they ended
and that was it. No, that's a working document. It's 85 pages and it speaks to the spirit of what should be on the boardwalk and what it should look like forward. And it talks about compromise, it talks about a smaller footprint. It talks about
entertainment. Um and it talks about being respectful of the neighbors in that area. So, in the spirit of all that, based on our the reports from the planners that we have, based on the advice of our
attorney, and with living through the subcommittee's findings, that's going to guide us as we go through that process. There's no guarantees. As Mr. Ridgeway said, this is the first step of a process that we
need to go through to see if we can get an acceptable product. If we don't get an acceptable product, it won't go forward. There'll be two readings on that end result. It'll go to the planning board again. But, we need to move forward. So, with
that said, I'm a yes. >> Mr. Madden. >> Yes. >> Mr. Winslow. >> Um, I just need to make a few statements before I say anything. Um, can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> No, I didn't think so.
My mic's My mic's not working. There we go. Can you hear me now? Hear me now? Okay. Um, I'd like to thank everyone for their comments tonight. As you've all As you've all likely done, I've thought long and hard about this process and this issue before us. In the past, I was
opposed to rehabilitation designation due to a lack of information and a lack of a plan going forward cuz I really didn't know what it really meant and where we were going to go from there. Since then, I've been developing a more under thorough understanding of the process,
uh, as well as we have the plan, uh, from the Boardwalk subcommittee, which which I was a part of, and I see things in a little bit different perspective. The resolution tonight before us is not about what's going to be built, but it's
rather a designation of the property that's going to be need needed in rehabilitation. All this designation does is get the process started. Gets it started. That's it. We've had three independent professional
land use planners that have concurred that the property meets the statutory requirement to be designated as an area of rehabilitation. And they based on substantial credible evidence. I'm not in a position to challenge uh their professional findings. Again, they
were all consistent. As such, I will base my decision on the data and professional opinions. My decisions are not arbitrary and not based on emotions. What I do know is that there's an urgency to restore the north end of the
boardwalk to its former glory for the benefit of all of Ocean City. Designating the the property as one in need of rehabilitation gives zero approval to build anything. Zero approval. What
it does do is put the future development of the property clearly in hands of this governing body to make decisions on the nature and scope of the proposed development through, as Mr. Ridgeway said, a development plan drafted by the city.
As opposed to exi- just having the developer go directly to the planning or zoning board to make that determination. Remember the zoning board uh is not in a position to negotiate what's going to be there. They take a plan and
they either accept it or reject it or they grant variances. So, city council really loses control by going by going that method. Development at 600 Boardwalk is is very complex issue and only city council is in a position to
negotiate some type of spectacular development that that can dictate what's going to be built. Then it goes to the planning board for final review. It also also remember that no one else has come forward to build anything on this property.
So, what are we waiting for? Ocean City does really want the property to further deteriorate and be blighted? Are we okay if it becomes unsafe and it gets red tagged? I don't think so. Now that the boardwalk sub committee and our 85 page report
we've rendered our final report and recommendations. It's time for action. By the way, I would like to commend my fellow members of the boardwalk sub committee for their dedication. Couple of them are up here tonight. We worked long and hard for 7 months and I think we came up with a really good
guide and a plan for future development of of the iconic boardwalk. Number of people have said this is just this is just a waste. Just throw it out. I say that's absolutely the wrong statement. It's absolutely the opposite,
the absolute opposite of what really is reality. At this at some point in time the building at 600 boardwalk will give way to something new and spectacular. Once city council receives a development plan and develops it, we'll have guidelines
as outlined here as what we want built there in that on that location. If you attended the boardwalk sub committee meeting at the Tabernacle or read the committee's final report, you'll have noted that there were very specific future development guidelines
and parameters that were established. We recommended conditional mixed-use variant zoning development which included a high qua not a high-rise, a high-quality resort hotel integrated and boardwalk frontage that preserves the
character of the famous walkway and upscale hotel rooms with amenities and entertainment offerings to serve the modern day visitor and an upscale retail component. And we also said complimentary uses
uh would include wedding convention banquet facilities family event spaces. Committee also said and it's right in the report. The committee also said development of 600 Boardwalk should take into consideration the adjoining
neighborhoods and not be overbearing to such a degree that it entirely changes the landscape of that area. The goal is for the property to serve as an anchor and restore the economic ecosystem disrupt disrupted by the
closure of Wonderland. And just as important such a development shall not replace the spirit of the Boardwalk but rather reinforce and sustain it in a modern context. Again, all I'm saying is all in this report.
Um I've I've observed the community reaction to these parameters and they were very positive and everybody felt that we were moving in the right direction. As a member of city council I will use these parameters when negotiating plans for 600 Boardwalk
so that the Boardwalk subcommittee recommendations have very very significant relevance to the future of the Boardwalk and I think we all agree we kind of like the recommendations. Um I expect the city council that's going to be seated on July 1st to be tasked with the negotiations and they
will be a big part of the process. So, my closing statement is let's get the process started. Thank you. >> Jody, hold on. Dave, you still have to give me a yes or no. I'm sorry. >> I'm a yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Mr. Lovechak?
>> I want to thank everybody for here this evening and um um you know, as a leader in this town, I will I just want to say my apologies to everybody that came here this evening for my quick outburst there. It was not very becoming of me. I should have
allowed our public speaker to have their way even though what they were saying was completely false and out of line. I should have allowed it. And ma'am, I apologize and I apologize to the rest of the crowd here. It's not very becoming of me to do that and I sincerely mean that. As a leader in this community, you know,
you got to you got to accept fault on things and that's just you know, that's one of them. I'm not a perfect person. But you know, we started this process a long time ago and back in August when this first came into this council this council's hands not not anybody elected
recently which I very much respect and I'm looking forward to working with Mr. Kelly. We've been on this for a long time now and there's a lot of there's a lot of discussions, there's a lot of meetings, there's a lot of public input we've had. I've spent the better part of the last year and a half listening to my
constituents not just in the meetings but at my children's schools, at the fronts of my business, on the telephone, through God knows how many social media um you know, domains. Okay? And and you know, I've learned a lot through this process and that's proof of when we
started in August. When we started in August I even though I saw the bigger picture down there and that we would eventually perhaps get to this moment, it wasn't the right moment then. It didn't make sense to me. We didn't have reports then. We didn't have committees then. It
seemed rushed. It felt rushed. Didn't seem right to me. I didn't think it was fair to other boardwalk property owners which I'm not one of them but I know all of them and I didn't think it was fair to all of them and we needed fairness in all of this that we were doing. So, that's why I recommended that we started
this boardwalk committee. Everybody agreed to it. Mr. Crowley appointed nine members from all walks of life in this town. We came together. We had very good meetings. We debated I mean is about I wish everybody would debate as kindly as we did in in for
those for those months in that room. We we we we really came together as a good team. Almost as good as a team that you see up here right now. We all have little different visions of how we want to move forward, but I think at the end of the day we have way more in common up here of what we want to see. It's just a
little bit different of a deliberation and that's okay. That's why we're here. That's what public process is all about and that's why I sent out that email Monday. I wanted as many people to know and have a chance to be able to come here and let us know the way they felt, reach out to us through email, call us on the telephone. It's been a rough
week. I'll I'll be mercy, I'll get honestly, it's been a rough week, but it's all worth it because we're going to come together with something great. This is a great team that we have up here and and it's going to remain a great team. We have one new council member coming. We're going to remain a great team. We're We have a lot of variety up here of of
the way that we think and our backgrounds and what we do and that's and because we all respect each other, that's what makes it a great team up here. So, I'm excited to keep working about this, but in August I just I wasn't there. I didn't have all my peas and cues in order. I think most of us didn't, but I I I know I don't think I
know we are at a place right now where I almost feel it would be hypocritical to not say yes. All of us up here have in some way, shape or form said and this isn't about a hotel or any particular project, but everybody up here is come
to realize that there cannot be any advancement on that particular property. This is a very specific special situation that I just don't I'm very familiar with this boardwalk from 14th to 6th, my favorite place in the world. Been here my entire life. I've never been anywhere else
other than here in the summertime and um, there's just with my knowledge there's no doubt in my mind that there is nothing that can be done at that end of the boardwalk that is going to benefit Ocean City, that's going to benefit its neighbors next to it if we do not immediately
address this. And it's it's it's time. I I showcased in our last meeting, which was not to classify this area in need of rehabilitation. Our last meeting was literally just to send it to planning board for their recommendation. We took no vote or action on what would happen
with that property except to seek professional recommendations in a public transparent way. People were frustrated by that. I mean, that's the most public transparent way to do it, but we're being told we're not being transparent. And so, there's a lot of things that really don't make sense to me. I I I've heard recommendations
tonight from some people saying that we should speak with Mr. Mita one-on-one. Well, imagine if we did that. You know, really we would be called backdoor dealing. So, that's not what I want to do. I want to get to a process which Mr. Crowley and Mr. Winslow both just fully explained.
Our attorney, our planner, as well as several other planners, reports, city reports, parking reports, everything leads to what is right now the demise of the north end of the boardwalk north of the music pier. And
I illustrated last time that we were here what would happen if Mr. Mita or whoever owns that property decided to go the direction of what the current zoning allows. And I'm going to repeat what
that current zoning allows. So, if this piece of paper represents 600 boardwalk, which is roughly a 300 by 300 parcel of land, okay, on boardwalk zoning, he or whoever owns that property can do this
right now. They don't need city council, they don't need planning board, they don't need all this stuff going on. They could go and put in for a by right subdivision of the property. I don't know that anybody in this room would like to be excited to see that happen. I
don't know what that does for our boardwalk. I don't know what does that that does for the businesses on the north end of the boardwalk. That subdivision, all that would do was create a repeat of what you already see for well over a mile from 14th Street to 6th Street. You'll just see way more of
that. So, if you have if you have properties that are over there now that are majorly struggling, and I'm telling you they're majorly majorly struggling because there is no attraction to this north end of the of the boardwalk. The water park's great, but they're closed in the evening. They're finished by
5:00. So, that's a dark block. And then you got a block that's in between another dark block. Okay? And there is a hardship there. There is a hardship there for the community that's making tourism possible in this city. And it's if the more and the longer we wait, and
none of this from my end is any sort of disrespect. I want to make that very clear. I called Mr. Kelly this week. This isn't a holdout so he can't vote on this. Okay? You know, it it it it's you could say a lot of things. You could say it all different ways. You know, some could argue that it wouldn't be fair to Mr. Mann to allow him to have his vote
on it. You know, it's it's a it's irrelevant to me. The time for action is now, and I'm a yes. Thank you. >> [applause] >> MR. BARTSO. >> SO, THE TRAIN JUST KEEPS ROLLING, and what I want to talk about is the actual length of time and intention.
This doesn't go back 1 or 2 years. It goes back to March 2021. An Atlantic City Press article announcing the the purchase of the park, and we were promised the best park on the East Coast. So, this this is way back. This isn't recent. I
don't want anybody to think that this is recent. In separate in in September of 2021, I was involved in a private conversation that led me to believe that the intent of that property >> [clears throat] >> was to build a high-rise hotel and it
was to do it in 3 years. That's what I walked away. That was my what I felt was going to happen. It happened the exact day I said it would at the exact time. So again, what what was the intent when it was purchased in 2021?
In that conversation, the park was described in such a derogatory manner that I can't repeat it. Um and basically it was said that there should be a luxury high-rise hotel there. I later discovered in January 18th,
2021, 600 Boardwalk LLC was formed and the business pur- purpose was to develop real estate. So it was still back in 2021. 2022, we were told the park was thriving. It's going to be there forever. There
wouldn't be any changes and it was against the law to do so. In 2024, after 3 years of decline the park was closed. No improvements were made and it was closed at the exact time that I was led to believe it would
close. Mrs. Crawford brought up the point about the living and breathing document of the consulting agreement. There's nothing wrong with the consulting agreement in and of itself. But that agreement was not going to be issued until after the park closed. So I
think the intention all along from 2021 to 2024 was to close the park and have a high-rise hotel. Why didn't they just do that in 2021, folks? Nobody's questioning why that 3 years occurred. No one. I am.
Okay? It should have. Because all the intention is there and all the evidence that was there that this was never going to be anything but where we are today. We're 5 years later. During Boardwalk Merchants meeting after the park closed, Mr. Mehta
uh made some comments. I won't go through all of them the length of time, but one of them that uh kind of shook me a little bit was he pointed to other members in the room and said they should get a hotel, too. That's his opinion. But folks, if we're if we're going to focus on this here,
then I'm telling you there'll be more and we have to get this right, okay? Is it a legal precedent to do that? No, it's not a legal precedent, but it's a precedent because really, if you look at how this all happened, all you have to do is say, "Hey, I can't make money. It's not viable. Don't take care of it.
Don't put any money into it." And eventually I need something else. So, that something else is very, very important. And basically, that's where the where the um battle began. And the battle really is whether or not
we're going to have a family-friendly vision. For 2 years, it's divided this community, but again, this started in 2021 and divided the community, folks. Okay? It's always been said that it was it was going to be a luxury high-rise hotel and
people that said it like myself was constantly called a liar. Well, here we are. And that's what we're looking at. So, when I when I look at the subcommittee report, I say it's an awesome report. It has a process, which is normal zoning powers, market studies, focus on
incentive and entertainment. So, we want to have more entertainment up there. We're not doing that today, and the risks are real. The risk of rushing the vote are real. I can't change the past. I can't change the broken promises and the financial
entanglements, but they're there. The The always there. You have to learn from the past. But I say this, Mr. Beeda now has a roadmap to develop something that I think is mutually everybody believes up here is a good
idea. Which is a reduced-size hotel that doesn't affect the neighborhood at the same time has entertainment in front of it. I think the differences is is is how do we get there? This just seems to be short notice to me and I and I and I do uphold the fact that we're going to have
a a new council in 6 days and I think we should wait. There has been repeated influence on this project I believe by the mayor and and it's been talked about a lot and it had it has happened. So I look at it and I say, "Well, you
know what? Why don't we wipe the wipe the slate clean? Cuz that's what my mother used to say. Just wipe the slate clean. All right? Let's not get back into this happened, that happened, this guy said, that guy said. I gave you the history. That's got to be pushed away. Well, how do we wipe the slate clean?
Well, we we do it by negotiating right now. Not individually. Okay? Not individually. But as a group. So we would do a process where Mr. Beeda would come in and I'm not asking for his plan, I'm asking for his concept. There's a big difference because we all
know what the his concept is. It's 252 rooms, 375 parking spots, so on and so forth. So we can get the conceptual part of this in. All right? And we have a precedent of how that has actually happened. Because when the Hal Group came to us
with 34th Street, that's exactly what they did. Did they sit down with the exact plan? No, they sat down with a concept. But they gave us all the things that you need to make the right decision. How many How many condos? How many bedrooms? The height. Okay? All this was
fine. There was nothing wrong with doing it this way. Okay? Amount of parking. All the essentials that you need to know conceptually to say, "Does this make sense?" So, what happened was is we listened to that and we made comments back to them and
then they came back to us. And they answered those comments. So, what we were doing, we were negotiating the concept, right? We weren't in the nitty-gritty of the plan, we were negotiating the concept. I was initially against that project mentally. I had some reservations, but
because they took the time because they wanted to sit with us and really get our opinion, changed my mind that level of professionalism. And by the way that process went fast. months
How about months? Just because the extra care and time was taken. They went so far because the first building they drew looked like it was belonged in Philadelphia. Would have been great in Philly. Wouldn't going to be good here. So, they bring their families down, stay here for 2 weeks on
vacation look around and they come back and they give us the concept that we said, "Boy, we can sink our teeth into." So, Mr. Barnes said earlier, "When should we start negotiating?" I say as soon as we walk out of this room. And we can do it just as quickly as we
did with the Hell Group. People talked about leverage tonight. And and I believe in leverage in in negotiation. I've done large deals in the past. I know Mr. Meador wants this rehabilitation zone.
I want to know more before I give it to him. Just like we did with the Hell Group. I want to know more. I want to get down to the nitty-gritty of actually what it's going to be like. Cuz we've already seen that from him, right? We saw original picture. I think it had nine rides. Now, I don't think it has
any. All right. So, we've seen different pictures that kind of changed shape and form. I want to know what that picture and concept looks like. And then whether or not a rehab gets us there. That's not going to take that long. It didn't take that long with the help group.
I I do worry about um the rehabilitation setting up a fact that if it if at any time he wants to go to the zoning board, he has a road map to say that there should be a change of use here. Um I think that it's a situation
where we have the subcommittee report. We have a really good road map on how to get there that most of us agree upon. I would just like more conceptual information about that to move that forward. And I want to hang on to the leverage I have. See, the help group let us have our
leverage. But we didn't need the leverage in the end because we we all came to the conclusion that this would be good for the city. It doesn't slow the process down. In fact, I think it I think it really speeds it up. And along the way, we can be looking at um
changing zoning and making those kind of suggestions that we need to make. The subcommittee report is excellent. And if the negotiations fail, we'll be able to zone it ourselves. So, there's other ways to do this. There's a way of sitting with with the
developer, getting it the nitty-gritty out to the point we say, "Hey, we we maybe we should use rehab." We'll have way more information at that point. Or we may say, "You know what? We're not going to get to that point with this developer, but what we should zone it anyway." And
by zoning it anyway, what what that will allow is for us to have the road map not only for 600 Boardwalk, but for the entire the entire Boardwalk. I'm voting no because I believe that we can get there quicker with the examples I just used.
We can we can protect the city's um findings through the through the uh subcommittee report and we can look at the fact that all the questions that people have whether there's conflicts, not conflicts, whether there's legal matters and those types of things can be
pushed aside as we move that all in the past and start a fresh. Start a fresh with the same approach that we used at 34th Street. It gets us there faster and that's why I'm voting no. I'm voting for speed and I'm voting for progress. Thank you.
>> Mr. Barnes >> [applause] >> Thank you. I thank you everybody for showing up tonight. I really appreciate all the comments we had from the public. As in every meeting that we've had since August, this was first presented to council in August of last year. And as I stated that night and I've stated every
council meeting since then and I also sit on the planning board and I I stated it several times there that everybody in this room including myself wants something to happen at at Wonderland property, 600 Boardwalk. To me it's about the process. The process I believe this is the work undertaking
tonight or looking at tonight, this rehab process, I do not believe is the right process to take. Um for a couple reasons that I've stated several times over and nothing has changed since the planning board meeting back in January where we stated there was a a four to four split so meant that
the designation for an area need a rehab was not advanced by the planning board. The professional said no, we're not going to advance this because they didn't believe that it met the criteria. I still don't believe it meets the criteria and I don't believe that it meets the the purpose of the statute
which is to help really stressed areas and stressed properties, not one single property that's fronting the Boardwalk as I stated. So I'm not going to go through that but um one thing that really helped gave me confidence that we're going to arrive at the right process was
recommendation seven in our in our report that we did a subcommittee report we all worked on for seven months. Recommendation seven states that we're going to institute a or we recommend institute instituting a holistic model for for new development island-wide
including the on board And then specifically we're going to use existing planning did I mess it up? Thanks. Uh specifically we're going to use existing planning board and zoning board process to guide that development. As
Mr. Hartzell said I believe that's the fastest way to go the most efficient way to go. We've had zoning laws in place in this town for over a hundred years and they work they work pretty well in this town whether do are there times when we need changes? Yes, right now we need changes down on
600 Boardwalk but processes matter for a good new sustainable development to be feasible there. I think we need to follow a better process than this rehab designation. So I'm voting no. >> [applause] >> Mr. Pulcini
>> Uh first thank you for everybody coming. Secondly Pete thank you for being a great example uh teacher to me the last four years. Thanks for getting me involved in this four years ago. >> [laughter]
>> You sure? He's blaming >> You're welcome. >> But you know one thing you can say about Pete and the example that I saw and maybe everybody can attest this whether you liked him or not
he answered everybody back. Every email if there was a phone call he answered it. That to me is integrity and somebody that I want to emulate too. And I thank you for all your examples. >> [clears throat] >> Secondly
Mr. Kelly the highest respect. I look forward to working with you. And tonight is no disrespect to you at all. To me, I look forward to making these decisions that we go forward with you and your
expertise. >> [clears throat] >> Subcommittee, thank you for all your hard work, all your input. I definitely believe it was very uh valuable to us in the information.
That being said, we can take that with this designation and do what we're supposed to do and um negotiate with Mr. Amida. Keep it moving. You know, there's a lot
of families here um I wanted to speak about There's so much you want to speak about, but I don't I'm tired. Um One thing I did want to say is there's a lot of people here that are for it. A lot of people here are against it.
And I spoke about this a long time ago. You know, I never got I first said no. You know, just like Jody, you know, but our minds changed. We got information. Things changed. But I never got a nasty email from the
people that were for it. From day one, they were more quiet about it. But never a nasty email. But to the people that were not for it, man, tough. Tough emails.
You know, again, I don't judge you. I pray for you daily, but I don't judge you. I really don't. You know, you guys are entitled to your opinions. But again, it's how we treat people.
I sit on this council with highest regards and I want to treat everybody with respect and do what is right by people. That's what I'm about. And I will continue to do that. Whether you agree with me or not. But
I am for this because we have the opportunity to negotiate. This process is a process and I think we're continuing to do it. You know, talk about transparency. We wouldn't be at this position right now if we weren't
transparent, you know. We would already be having probably filings or something up there, but we we did listen to all of you. It's a tough decision. We don't I don't want to hurt anybody. I don't want to hurt people's homes, livelihood.
But there's a lot of people here on this boardwalk and I've been on this boardwalk my whole life. Iconic families. Businesses that have worked industriously. It's not easy working on this boardwalk for 10 weeks and making
your livelihood. Let me tell you, I did it. I killed myself. Families that have worked tirelessly to make a name for themselves and to attribute to this boardwalk's success and the avenue. That's what people come here for. It's a family destination. The
beach and the boardwalk are part of our livelihood and and why our homes are worth so much and the value. So, really I feel like we're just giving hope to the people that work hard and not to the people that don't want it either.
Don't I don't disrespect that. I understand your fears. You know. But some of you bought a home behind an amusement park with lights, screaming kids till 11:00, 12:00 o'clock at night. You survived that.
You know, I I part of it is it's even myself we don't embrace change. I don't embrace change well. We might be scared. I understand that and respect that. But I really truly feel that moving this process forward to a
yes will allow us to negotiate and do what is best for Ocean City and for all of you. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> [applause] >> Okay, Tony, not to be a stickler, but I need a yes or a no. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Peter. >> I thought I said yes. Uh I was supposed to give a reason for
my yes. So, I apologize. From the get-go, I've been a yes. It was a lonely yes in the beginning. So, I'm glad to have some friends. Um but I'm looking forward to the awesome opportunity that we have to do something very special at that location. >> All right, thank you. >> [applause]
>> Okay, with that the motion passes. Uh we'll move on to any new or pending business, guys? >> The only thing I want to mention is we've talked about 34th Street and the Sea Spray. They're beginning to tear that building down now. So, hopefully within a few weeks it'll be down.
>> A- Anyone else new or pending? >> New or pending? >> Nothing pending. >> Keith. Good. I just can you can hear? >> I can hear you. Did you say? Yeah. >> Nothing pending. >> You guys good? >> I have pending. All right, Pete. >> Yeah. Um
So, I just I just wanted to speak um uh number one, if I knew if I knew there was a vacancy up on the boardwalk uh and I did not I was not aware of that. Uh I would have done everything in my power to fill it. Um cuz we do have the 600 boardwalk uh 600 block of boardwalk
um full. And I don't think it's quite as decimated as people are saying. Um I'm going to have the privilege of working one of those businesses uh this summer and assisting. I was in training today. It's exciting. Uh the two new stores that are up there
are part of the 7th Street Surf Shop brand the two new stores that are up there are part of the 7th Street Surf Shop brand, which is a destination brand. that block alone um four stores.
Okay, so four stores. Actually, five. No, four. Four. And I'm excited about the opportunity up there. And I can tell you this, that if I knew there was another store available, I'm pretty sure uh, that would have got rented as well. So, when you have stores that are available,
part of my job as a Second Ward Council person uh, is to help and assist with that. Um but but I can tell you there's a lot of excitement down that that block. Don't count us out. Don't count us out. We're down there working, and we're working hard. Um
and the initial store that's been opened has done very well, and we're going to have a soft opening on on the burger place uh, next week. And I I really think that concept's just going to blow people away. So, I'm extremely excited about that. I know that we still have to
do something, but people are stepping up saying, "No, I'm I'm I'm not going to just sit and do nothing. We're going to put our money where our mouth is, and I'm certainly right involved with that and very supportive of that as well." >> Thank you, Keith. >> Thanks, Keith. Sean? >> Nothing.
>> Tony? >> Nothing. >> Peter? >> All right, I got a little speech. It's my last meeting, so as I sit here for my final council meeting, I'm filled with gratitude and humbled by the opportunity I've had to serve this community. From my years on the Ocean City Board of Education to my time on City Council,
I've never take it taken for granted the trust that the people of Ocean City have placed in me. Serving this city has been one of the greatest honors of my life. Public service teaches you many things, but perhaps the most important lesson is that no one accomplishes anything alone. Every success is a result of people working together because they care
deeply about the place they call home. I want to thank my fellow council members, past and present, for their partnership, friendship, and commitment to Ocean City. While we may not have always agreed, we have always shared a love for this community and a desire to see it succeed. I also want to thank our administration
and city employees. The work you do often happens quietly and behind the scenes, but what matter but it is what matters. Whether it's keeping our streets safe, our beaches clean, our infrastructure functioning, or our city moving forward, Ocean City is stronger because of your dedication and service. Thank you.
Most importantly, I want to thank my family. To my children, thank you for your patience, love, and support throughout the years. Public service also means missed dinners, interrupted weekends, and countless meetings, and I'm grateful for the sacrifices you've made along the way. And to Tracy, thank you for always being
by my side. Thank you for your encouragement, your friendship, and your belief in me. Your support has meant more than you know. As I leave office, I'm excited about Ocean City's future. I'm especially encouraged to see projects like Icona, led by Eustis Management, continuing to move forward. Progress requires vision. It requires
leadership willing to look ahead and the courage to pursue ambitious goals. Projects like a world-class hotel on our boardwalk are more than investments in brick and mortar. They're investments in Ocean City's future. They create opportunity, they strengthen our economy, and support local businesses,
and help ensure our community remains vibrant for generations to come. If I can leave If I can leave this council with one final thought, it would be this. Focus on creating the conditions for success. The question should never be who wins an argument. The question should always be
what gives a project, a location, and ultimately our city the greatest chance to succeed. If we continue to chip away at ideas until they no longer work, we risk ending up exactly where we are today with an empty building and a missed opportunity. Success is rarely achieved by standing
still. It comes from setting goals, working together, and having the confidence to pursue them. At the same time, we must never lose sight of what makes Ocean City special. We are America's greatest family resort. That's just not a slogan, it's a responsibility.
As we grow, as we invest, and as we embrace new opportunities, we must always protect the values, traditions, and family-centered character that have made this city so beloved for generations. I truly believe Ocean City's best days are still ahead. I believe the future is bright. I believe we can continue to
honor our past while creating new opportunities for the next generation. As legendary coach John Wooden once said, "Success is a peace of mind, which is a direct result of knowing you made the effort to become the best you were capable of becoming." Looking back on my years of service, I can honestly say that I gave the city my
best effort. Not because I had all the answers, but because I love Ocean City and wanted to do my part to help move it forward. So, thank you for allowing me to serve. Thank you for your trust. Thank you for your friendship. And thank you for the privilege of giving back to a community that has given so much to me and my family. It's truly been one of the
greatest honors of my life. God bless Ocean City. Thank you. >> [applause] >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Pete. And on behalf of all the city council, we um Oh, sorry. Uh have this proclamation, your honor. It's been an honor to serve with you. And um
you've always uh told me the truth even sometimes when I want to hear it. So, I appreciate that. And I know you'll go on to do great things. With that, gentlemen, and um people, thank you for coming very much. Can I have a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. So moved. >> [applause]
>> Vote.