Pocomoke council fails to adopt rezoning for 1013 Clark Avenue after public hearing

Pocomoke City — At its June 16 meeting, the Pocomoke City mayor and council considered Ordinance 2025-O-5, a second-reading zoning map amendment that would have rezoned 1013 Clark Avenue from R-2 (single-family) to R-3 (multifamily). After a public hearing and extended discussion that included the property owner and neighbors, a council motion to adopt the ordinance failed for lack of a second, so the rezoning was not adopted.

The mayor opened the hearing by reading the ordinance and the statutory publication requirements the city followed. Planning and zoning staff told the council the parcel at 1013 Clark had been vacant for six months or more and, under current city code, would revert to single-family status; the staff report and the Pocomoke City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial in an April 8, 2025 finding of facts. Planning staff also told the council that the city will need to interpret a new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) state law when it takes effect, which may create an alternative path for property owners in some cases.

Edwin Flores, owner of I Corps LLC and the applicant, said the building was originally constructed as a duplex and that its layout, existing parking and “two existing driveways” make it better suited to two units than to conversion to a single-family home. Flores said he planned to occupy one unit and rent the other at a moderate rate to help supply affordable housing in town.

Planning staff (identified in the hearing as “Miss Teller”) told the council the commission’s denial was based on the code’s vacancy and utilities standards: at the time of the commission’s inspection the property had no full utilities in operation, which triggers the code’s reversion language. Teller also noted the commission had considered the new ADU statute and that owners who live in one unit and rent another may have a separate application route once the state law is implemented.

Several neighbors spoke during the hearing. Sarah Chapman of Market Street described prior inspections and the effects of fire damage to parts of the building; other residents said older, large houses in town often function better as multifamily units because single occupants can’t afford the operating costs. Council members discussed whether the six-month vacancy threshold in the code is appropriate, whether utility reconnection should be an explicit metric and whether the city should pursue a targeted code amendment or a comprehensive-plan/zoning update to address recurring cases.

When the council returned to the question of adoption, a council member moved to adopt Ordinance 2025-O-5 but the motion received no second and therefore died. The council did not adopt the rezoning; the property remains zoned R-2 under the city map.

Council members and staff said several next steps remain possible: (1) the property owner may reapply if he can demonstrate compliance with the existing code or pursue the ADU route once the state rule is in effect; (2) the mayor and council can direct staff to draft a code amendment or comprehensive-plan change for Planning & Zoning to consider that would alter vacancy or occupancy timeframes or add a targeted “floating” zone for older, large houses; and (3) Planning & Zoning will continue to interpret how the new ADU statute applies when it takes effect.