The Pocomoke City Mayor and Council spent the evening of Monday, August 10 working through several issues that could shape city policy in the coming months, including proposed changes to the city’s trash ordinance, new regulations for accessory dwelling units, a potential lot-line adjustment involving city property along Riverside Drive, and the city’s process for approving events.
The August 10 meeting was a work session, with several matters still requiring additional staff, Planning and Zoning Commission, or legal review before formal action.
Mayor Todd Nock opened the meeting by asking those present to observe a moment of silence for Beryl Feinberg, a former Rockville council member who died Monday following a battle with cancer.
Trash ordinance sent back for more work
The first substantive discussion centered on Ordinance 2026-O-12, which would amend the city’s code governing littering and solid waste.
City Manager Brandy Matthews asked the council to allow staff additional time to review the proposed language and guidelines before bringing the ordinance back for consideration. Nock agreed that significant issues remained unresolved, particularly concerning enforcement and the potential penalties.
One concern involved the proposed $5,000 maximum fine and the circumstances under which someone could be held responsible for material found in or around their trash receptacle. Nock pointed out that residents may put trash out hours before it is collected, creating a period during which material could potentially be added to a container by someone else. He questioned what safeguards would exist and how the city would establish that a particular piece of waste actually came from a particular property.
City Attorney Andrew Illuminati explained that the $5,000 figure would be a maximum penalty and that the ordinance could instead establish a lower first-offense fine, with suspension of services and escalating penalties for subsequent violations.
Nock said he would prefer for staff to rework the ordinance rather than move forward with the current version. He also asked that staff research how neighboring municipalities and other Maryland communities address similar issues. The ordinance was therefore not finalized during the work session.
Council weighs limits on accessory dwelling units
The most extensive discussion of the evening involved accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, as the city works to respond to recent state legislation requiring local regulations.
Planning Director Kristen Tremblay told the council that the city has an October 1 deadline to complete its work. She said some components could potentially be amended later, but the city needs to establish its initial framework.
One of the central questions was how large an ADU should be allowed to be. The state definition permits an ADU of up to 75% of the size of the primary dwelling. Nock said he believed that was too large for Pocomoke. He gave several examples, noting that a 75% limit would allow a 750-square-foot ADU on a 1,000-square-foot home, a 1,125-square-foot ADU on a 1,500-square-foot home, and a 1,500-square-foot ADU on a 2,000-square-foot home.
Nock said he had researched regulations in several other jurisdictions. He cited Queenstown, Anne Arundel County, Annapolis and Rockville as examples where a 50% limit is used, while Worcester County uses 35% of the primary dwelling or 900 square feet, whichever is less, with a minimum ADU size requirement. His recommendation was to use 50% of the primary dwelling or 850 square feet, whichever is less.
Tremblay also raised concerns about the practical implications of allowing large ADUs, particularly on smaller city lots. Larger units could create additional demands for water and sewer capacity and could increase parking requirements. The council also discussed whether ADUs should be permitted by right or require review on a case-by-case basis.
Nock said he preferred sending individual proposals to the Board of Zoning Appeals, arguing that the process would give neighbors an opportunity to participate and allow the city to consider the characteristics of individual neighborhoods. Among the issues discussed were setbacks, parking, neighborhood compatibility, views, fencing and landscaping. Tremblay noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals could potentially establish reasonable conditions, such as landscaping to provide screening between an ADU and an adjacent property.
Design and construction requirements discussed
The council also discussed how ADUs should look and what types of structures should qualify. Nock said an ADU should visually complement the primary residence, giving examples of matching the home’s exterior color and shutters.
The discussion also included whether manufactured homes, modular homes, trailers or recreational vehicles should qualify. Nock specifically said he did not want trailers or RVs used as ADUs.
Officials also discussed the requirement for a bathroom, minimum dwelling sizes, fire-suppression requirements, water and sewer connections, and the potential additional costs associated with detached units. The city’s existing minimum single-family dwelling size was identified during the discussion as 950 square feet.
Officials discussed an accelerated schedule for developing legislation before the state’s October 1 deadline. Illuminati said a draft was being prepared, while Tremblay indicated she would work with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The possibility of a joint work session between the Mayor and Council and Planning and Zoning Commission was also discussed. Nock said he wanted the council to review proposed legislation before it goes to the Planning and Zoning Commission so that significant disagreements could be resolved before the commission spends months working on a proposal.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to meet August 27, although officials discussed whether an earlier meeting could be arranged. A possible council work session on August 17 was also discussed.
Nock additionally suggested contacting the Maryland Municipal League for guidance on the new state requirements.
City moves toward separating Riverside Drive restaurant property from dock
The council next discussed a proposed lot-line adjustment involving 2 Riverside Drive and city property surrounding the restaurant and dock area. Project & Operations Manager Michael Wyatt explained that the existing parcel boundaries could create a problem if the city eventually sells the restaurant property.
According to Wyatt, the parcel associated with the restaurant currently extends down toward the city’s dock and boat ramp. If the restaurant were sold without adjusting the lot line, the dock area could potentially become part of the property transferred with the restaurant.
Wyatt recommended establishing a new lot line near the rear of the restaurant, approximately along the existing fence and concrete walkway area, so the city would retain the dock and related property. Nock said the city has discussed potentially selling the restaurant property in the future and agreed that the lot-line issue should be addressed before any sale.
The council directed Wyatt to begin the process of obtaining a survey and to prepare a request for proposals for the necessary work. The goal discussed was to have proposals available for council consideration at the second Mayor and Council meeting in September.
Event permits could move to Events Coordinator
The final major discussion concerned the city’s event permit process. Nock said the city has historically placed too much responsibility on the city clerk and now has an Events, Facilities and Engagement Coordinator, Michael Shannon, who can take on the responsibility.
He proposed that event permits generally be handled through Shannon rather than remaining with Economic Development Director Karah Lacey.
Council members expressed support for the idea, with officials noting Shannon’s experience with events of varying sizes. The discussion included whether large events at locations such as the fairgrounds or Cypress Park should still require direct council approval. Nock said the council should be notified about those events and should ensure that appropriate timelines are being followed, but indicated that the Events Coordinator could handle the actual permit process.
Alcohol-related permits would remain a matter for the Mayor and Council. Nock also suggested that the city review its fees and procedures for alcohol-related events, noting that the county charges fees for its portion of the permitting process and that the city is also involved.
Several issues remain in development
The trash ordinance will return after additional staff and legal review. The ADU regulations will require further drafting and review by city officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission before returning to the Mayor and Council for final action.
The city will begin the process of obtaining a survey and proposals for the Riverside Drive lot-line adjustment.
And the event-permitting process appears headed toward greater responsibility for the city’s Events Coordinator, while the council continues to examine its role in larger events and alcohol-related permits.
The council further discussed the role of its monthly work sessions. Nock argued that work sessions should be used to address legislation and other matters in advance of formal Mayor and Council meetings, allowing regular meeting agendas to focus more directly on legislative action.
