OCEAN CITY — The Mayor and Council last week got their first look at a proposed code amendment that would clarify the definition of “water-related recreational activity” that could ultimately dictate where simulated wave machines can be located in the resort.
Last year, a businessman requested permission to install a wave machine, to be known as the OC Big Wave, on a vacant lot that was part of the old Cropper Concrete plant on the bayside at 1st Street. Satisfied the wave machine fit the definition of a water-related recreational activity, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted a special use exception for the site, but it was never developed where it was originally intended.
Instead, a pitch was made to develop the wave machine at the 45th Street Village site, but that proposal was challenged by Jolly Roger Amusements and the appeal is still mired in Worcester County Circuit Court. In the meantime, the Planning and Zoning Commission in February nailed down language that would allow the Flow Rider wave machine and similar amusement devices only in amusement overlay districts.
Essentially, the new definition separates the wave machine and similar man-made devices from traditional water-bound activities, such as jet skis, sail boards, paddle boards and wave runners, for example. The new definition lumps wave machines into a class of man-made water-related recreational activities such as water parks and water slides, which are regulated by the state’s Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR) and does not allow them anywhere outside the resort’s amusement overlay districts.
Planning and Community Development Director Bill Neville outlined the proposed code change recommended by the Planning Commission for the Mayor and Council last Tuesday. Neville explained the change clarified in the code just where wave machines and similar devices could be located.
“It makes a small, but important change to the code,” he said. “We found that there was not a definition in the code that made it difficult to administer. It’s important that we make the distinction and clear up that issue.”
Neville explained the Planning Commission tackled the definition in an effort to clear up issues that arose last year. With that said, the council voted unanimously to move the code change to first reading.