A group of connected downtown buildings on Market and Clarke Avenue are expected to be renovated to include at least a half dozen apartments — a project apparently approved by the City of Pocomoke without review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, despite city code requiring such review for upper-floor residential units in the B-1 Shopping District.
The properties involved include 132 Market Street, 204 Clarke Avenue, and 206 Clarke Avenue, which share walls and are part of a single redevelopment project.
Under Pocomoke City Code §230-62, second- and third-floor dwelling units in the B-1 district must undergo site plan and parking review by the Planning Commission. The requirement, established by Ordinance No. 449 (adopted March 16, 2020), is meant to ensure that new downtown housing does not negatively affect neighboring businesses or reduce already limited parking availability. City code typically requires two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit, though exceptions have been made in the past.
On August 4, I contacted city officials expressing concern that a zoning permit may have been issued on or around July 23, 2025, for the Market and Clarke Avenue properties without the required Planning Commission review. The project had been publicly described on social media as “new apartments,” with architectural drawings suggesting a substantial renovation that should have triggered public oversight.
Mayor Todd Nock responded on August 26, stating that I “raise a very valid point” and that he would seek legal guidance for the elected body through the city attorney. No action was publicly taken to pause or review the permits while those questions were pending.
On September 22, I notified the City that my August 4 message should be treated as a formal appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals, citing code provisions that allow affected property owners to appeal zoning decisions within 20 days.
Closed Session and Legal Denial
Before issuing a formal response, the Mayor and Council met in closed session on September 19 to receive legal advice “on procedural process for the issuance and rescission of zoning permits” and to discuss “possible litigation… as it relates to 132 Market Street and 204–206 Clarke Avenue,” according to the meeting agenda.
No public action or decision appeared to follow that session.
On October 17, City Attorney Andrew Illuminati issued a letter denying my appeal. The letter states that my August 4 email “did not reference the Board of Zoning Appeals” and therefore did not qualify as a formal appeal under §230-106, also citing the absence of a filing fee and a lack of clarification as to whether I was writing as a Planning Commission member or as an affected business owner.
“For these reasons, your August 4 email does not constitute an effective appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals,” the letter reads. The City apparently considers the matter closed and the project permitted to move forward. At no time prior to or following my correspondence did the City inform me that a filing fee was required for an appeal to be heard, nor has the city addressed questions regarding why permits may have been issued without the required Planning Commission review.
Project Scope and Current Status
Sources familiar with the project say the renovations may include raising the height of the building’s third floor at 132 Market Street to accommodate an additional apartment, making the structure taller than before, a substantial physical alteration. As of mid-October, no visible construction progress appears to be taking place at the site.
Community Awareness
The issue has drawn attention for its implications on transparency and process. City officials have not indicated whether similar permits have been issued under the same interpretation of code, or whether the Planning Commission will review future upper-floor apartment projects in the B-1 district. The City has made no further public comment, and the project appears to remain officially approved. With no Planning Commission review, it is unclear how the additional apartments may impact other downtown businesses through the use of limited on-street parking.
Editor’s Note: The author of this article is a member of the Pocomoke City Planning and Zoning Commission. The views expressed herein are his own and do not represent the official position of the Commission or the City of Pocomoke.
