A rezoning request for 100 Mulberry Street has become a broader test of how St. Michaels balances workforce housing, redevelopment, and the boundary between its commercial corridor and surrounding residential neighborhoods.
At its Oct. 1 meeting, the St. Michaels Planning Commission spent much of its time debating whether the three-unit apartment property should remain in the R-2 residential district or be moved into Central Commercial zoning. The building has been used as apartments for decades but is now a legal nonconforming use, limiting how substantially it can be altered or expanded under current zoning.
Attorney Brendan Mullaney, representing the applicant, argued that the existing rules leave little incentive for substantial renovation.
“What we’re looking for is really an avenue to be able to justify investment and improvement in this property,” Mullaney told the commission.
Planning Commission Chairman J. Douglas Rollow focused instead on what a change to Central Commercial zoning could mean over time. Rollow said the three apartments currently rent for $1,600, $1,800 and $2,000 a month and said they qualify as workforce housing for purposes of the town’s Comprehensive Plan.
If the property were commercially zoned, Rollow said, “whether it happens immediately or whether it happens later, eventually this property could be converted to something other than residential use.”
“If it’s not housing, it’s not workforce housing,” he said.
The commission also wrestled with whether moving the commercial boundary onto Mulberry Street could strengthen future arguments for similar rezonings along residential streets near Talbot Street. Members generally viewed the immediate area around the property as a residential neighborhood adjoining, rather than becoming part of, the commercial district.
The legal question is also significant. Maryland’s “change or mistake” standard requires a case for piecemeal rezoning to establish either a mistake in the existing zoning or a sufficient change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioners questioned whether either condition had been established in this case.
Rollow offered perhaps the simplest description of how the property ended up in its unusual position as zoning rules evolved around it.
“I’m not sure I characterize it as a mistake,” he said. “It’s simply a victim of progress.”
The discussion did not entirely close the door on redevelopment. Commissioners raised possible alternatives, including examining the town’s rules governing nonconforming uses, that might provide greater flexibility without opening the property to the full range of Central Commercial uses.
The Planning Commission took no final action on the rezoning. It plans to prepare a written report for the Town Commissioners, who will ultimately decide the request.
