Ocean City Mayor and Council Work Session – November 25, 2025
Ocean City Mayor and Council Work Session – November 25, 2025
The Mayor and City Council of Ocean City, Maryland held a work session on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, at 1:00 PM. The session began with a closed session report (12:00–1:00 PM on legal and personnel matters), followed by public comments, approval of minutes, committee reports, a conditional use approval, and a lengthy discussion on short‑term rental regulations in R‑1 and MH zoning districts. No final votes were taken on the rental‑related items; staff was given direction to bring back detailed options for future work sessions.
Consent Calendar
- Closed Session Report: The closed session (12:00–1:00 PM) covered legal and personnel matters. Motion to close passed 7‑0 (Mayor Rick Mean, City Manager Terry McGean, Deputy City Manager J.R. Harmon, Council President Matt James, Council Secretary Tony DeLuca, Councilmembers Will Savage, Larry Yates, John Garrick, Jake Motresk, Carol Proctor, City Clerk Diana Chavis, City Solicitor Heather Stansbury). No action taken.
- Minutes: Approved unanimously for Regular Meeting #20 (November 17, 2025).
- Recreation and Parks Committee: Report from November 13 acknowledged.
- Pension Committee Report: Approved replacement of Aristotle Large Cap Value Fund with Great Lakes Large Cap Value Fund (unanimous, 7‑0).
- Conditional Use – Water Taxi Business: Approved with conditions 1–9 for OC Bay Hopper Blue Bimini, Inc. at 11703 Coastal Highway (SC‑1 district). Renewal for five years; conditions include a life ring and bike racks. Unanimous.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Neil Scully (405 142nd St) challenged a statement in the staff packet that “none of the 25 communities reviewed have a shorter minimum than seven days.” He provided examples (Hilton Head, Charleston, Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach, Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach, Virginia Beach) showing no seven‑day requirement, and asked for a correction.
- Linda Tucker (303 South Ocean Drive) opposed a seven‑day minimum and the moratorium, asked the mayor to honor the referendum outcome, and suggested a stakeholder roundtable.
- Eileen Ruark (1538 Teal Dr) urged protection of year‑round family values and suggested an R‑1A zoning designation for limited protection.
- Robert Canauer (1321 Peachtree Road) stated short‑term renters are an asset, not a liability. He opposed a seven‑day minimum, noted that a three‑night minimum is reasonable, and provided data showing average stay in R‑1/MH is 3.5 days. He expressed willingness to work on common‑sense solutions.
- Gordon Kretzer (1529 Teal Dr) supported extending the moratorium (calling it a “strategic pause”) to develop sustainable policies.
- Terry Miller (116 Bering Road) opposed new restrictions, citing the July referendum (vote margin of 34). She argued that Little Salisbury was built on seven‑day rentals and that current data (four noise complaints, 13 disorderly incidents) does not justify changes.
- Another speaker (name not provided) supported the moratorium and urged a “full‑throated discussion” tied to the comprehensive plan update.
- Jody Larrison (606 Oyster Line) asked why the council was revisiting short‑term rentals after the vote, urging them to “leave us alone.”
Discussion Items
- Short‑Term Rentals in R‑1 and MH Districts – This was the primary new business item. Planning Director George Bendler and staff presented a survey completed by council members, covering goals (reduce turnover, limit number, reduce impacts) and specific regulatory options. The options were grouped into three categories:
- 3A – Reduce Rental Turnover: Minimum length of stay (7‑night or 1 rental per 7 days) or restriction on number of rentals per period. Council members expressed interest in a “one per seven consecutive days” model (Councilman Garrick) and a seven‑night minimum (Council President James). Councilmember Proctor opposed any new length‑of‑stay requirement, citing the referendum and proximity to competitors with no minimum.
- 3B – Limit Quantity of Short‑Term Rentals: Options included a phase‑out (licenses expire with sale or non‑renewal), a freeze (existing licenses retained, new ones on waiting list), or a cap (fixed number higher than current, with lottery). Also discussed were ownership bans: prohibit corporate/multi‑partner ownership (option 4) and limit to one STR license per person/entity in R‑1/MH (option 5). There was consensus to bring back options 1, 2, 3 (phase‑out, freeze, cap) and options 4 and 5 for further review.
- 3C – Reduce Adverse Impacts: Possible changes included capping occupancy (e.g., 12 adults in R‑1, 6 or 8 in MH), tightening the local‑agent requirement (within city limits or 30‑minute response), requiring insurance proof, a rental registry with a QR‑coded sign, and prohibiting events >20 people. Consensus to improve the online landing page and information transparency; sign requirement was debated (Councilman Garrick favored, others opposed).
- Enforcement Update: Staff reported completing 304 inspections since August (28 violations, primarily illegal bedroom conversions). They are fully staffed and continuing inspections.
- Comprehensive Plan: Update is on track for a January 13 work session, first reading February 2, second reading February 17. Strategic planning session scheduled for late March.
Key Outcomes
- No binding decisions were made on short‑term rental regulations; the session was for workshopping ideas.
- Staff received consensus direction to:
- Bring back refined options for length of stay (one rental per seven consecutive nights and/or a seven‑night minimum).
- Bring back detailed proposals on quantity controls: phase‑out, freeze, and cap (options 1–3) in a future work session.
- Bring back ownership restrictions: ban on corporate/multi‑partner ownership (option 4) and limit to one STR license per person/entity in R‑1/MH (option 5).
- Consider tightening the local‑agent rule (requiring agent within city limits or 30‑minute response) and improving the online rental information page (with clear link, complaint form).
- No further action on changing the child‑age exclusion for occupancy; no consensus on mandatory yard signs.
- Moratorium: The second reading of the 12‑month moratorium extension is scheduled for Monday, November 25, 2025 (evening). Councilmembers expressed differing views; some (e.g., Mayor Mean) indicated support for extending the moratorium until comprehensive plan and inspection data are available.
- Next Steps: Staff will prepare additional analysis and bring back the options for a future work session (likely January 2026). The council will vote on the moratorium extension on Monday.
Meeting Transcript
Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this work session of the Mayor and City Council being held Tuesday, November 25th, 2025 at 1 p.m. First, on the agenda, we have a notice and a report on our closed session. Prior to the Mayor and City Council open session being held today at 1 p.m. here at City Hall. There was a closed session today beginning at 12 noon. Topics of discussion were legal and personnel matters. Persons present were Mayor Rick Mean, City Manager Terry McGean, Deputy City Manager J.R. Harmon, Council President Matt James, Council Secretary Tony DeLuca, Councilmembers Will Savage, Larry Yates, John Garrick, Jake Motresk, and Carol Proctor. City Clerk Diana Chavis. City Solicitor Heather Stansbury. There was no action taken. Did have a motion from Secretary DeLuca, seconded by Councilmember Savage to close the closed session. And that passed with seven in favor at 1 p.m. Next on the agenda we have comments from the public. Any person who may wish to speak on a matter that is scheduled for discussion on the work session agenda may be heard during comments from the public for a period of three minutes or such time as may be deemed appropriate by the council president. Anyone wishing to be heard shall state their name, their address, and the agenda item on which he or she wishes to speak. Would anyone like to speak today? Sir in the back. With the hat on afternoon. I am surprised that we're doing this again. But I think it helps uh everybody visually see things a little bit better. But I do have to take some exception with uh 3A1. And I know I have and I have some other things as well, and maybe I can get those get to those at another meeting. So just for the record, could you give us your name and your address? Oh, I'm sorry, yeah. Neil Scully, 405 142nd Street. Thank you. So 3A1 states. One approach to reducing rental turnover is through the establishment of minimum length of stays. Many communities have done this with a seven-day minimum length of stay being a common restriction. None of the 25 communities, none of the 25 communities reviewed have a shorter minimum than seven days. These restrictions can be implemented either year-round or seasonally. That's a pretty pretty substantial statement there. That's why I've highlighted. So I said, well, you know what? I've stayed in some of the communities that show up in this report, and that wasn't my experience. So I wanted to refer to your own report. And your own report that apparently is substantiating the comment that none of the communities reviewed had a shorter minimum stay than seven days, uh, does not support that. I see in Hilton Head, South Carolina, there's no minimum length of stay defined. I'm not going to go through all of these. This is just a random page. But if you look through all of them, I can't find one seven-day restriction in any of these. I found one 14-day in uh East Hamden. Uh that's not seven. Right here, it says very specifically in Charleston, Carolina, that it's between one and twenty-nine consecutive days. So that's not seven. I don't know why New York or Washington, D.C. would even be included in this packet, but they're not seven.
openpublica.com