OCEAN CITY — In a somewhat bizarre action, resort planners this week conditionally approved a site plan for the redevelopment of an historic downtown property for a project that will likely never be built as planned.
For roughly a century, the historic building at the corner of Talbot Street and Baltimore Avenue stood as perhaps one of the best examples of early Ocean City architecture. The original structure was built in 1920 and was a throw-back to an earlier era in the resort. Called the Perdue House and the Taylor House at different times during its century-long existence, the mixed-use structure that featured commercial businesses on the street level and residential on the second- and third floors.
Its most distinctive features included the wrap-around enclosed porch area that ran from its second-floor entrance on Talbot Street across the building’s façade along Baltimore Avenue, complete with dozens of windows overlooking the downtown streetscape. The third floor featured unique eaves, bump-outs and even a cupola of sorts over the corner of Baltimore Avenue and Talbot Street. But alas, the aging structure fell into disrepair over the years.
In 2017, a developer with a background of renovating historic structures bought the property with the intent of restoring it to its former glory. However, after purchasing the property, developer Larry Payne and his crews discovered the historic building on the corner of Talbot Street and Baltimore Avenue had suffered too much structural damage and could not be salvaged. The old building was demolished in 2019.
Payne at the time vowed to redevelop the historic property with many of the same architectural features that had made the old building so prominent on the downtown landscape for nearly a century. In 2018, town planners extended certain non-comformities for the property in terms of residential density, setbacks and parking, for example. Those non-comformity allowances are set to expire at the end of June, so Payne has submitted a tentative site plan for the redevelopment of the parcel with the intent of preserving those non-comformity allowances that will allow him flexibility in the proposed project.
On Tuesday, the Ocean City Planning Commission had before it a tentative site plan, which includes an attractive five-unit residential project that preserves many of the historical features of the original structure. However, it was determined that plan might never come to fruition and was submitted tentatively as a means to preserve the non-comformities granted three years ago.
It put the planning commission in the unique position of approving a site plan for a project that might change substantially before a shovel hits the dirt. The commission was sensitive to the deadline approaching on the existing non-comformities and expressed a desire to work with the developer on the attractive project, but wanted to take a deeper dive into some of the nuances of the site plan.
“I don’t know if we’ve ever seen something like this before,” said Planning Commissioner Peck Miller. “I’m not entirely comfortable with this because it’s really not a working plan.”
Planning Commission Chair Pam Buckley questioned if there was a way to extend the non-comformity without committing to the tentative site plan.
“Can’t we just approve continuing the non-comformity?” she said. “We can approve this conditioned upon them coming back for a full review before applying for a building permit. I don’t have a problem giving them the non-comformity for one unit and requiring two parking spaces for the other four units. They might not need the non-comformity if they don’t build this.”
Planning Commissioner Palmer Gillis said he was comfortable with extending the non-comformity to allow the developer flexibility in the project, but raised concern about approving the site plan as presented.
“The goal here is to allow a continuance of the non-comformity,” he said. “If this panel approves this plan, my legal fear is the applicant will come back and say we already approved it. I have a laundry list of questions about this site plan. I think it’s a little disingenuous for us to approve this in my opinion.”
Buckley said, and the commission’s legal counsel agreed, the site plan approval requested on Tuesday could be conditioned on a final review of the finished product.
“Any amendment to the plan has to come back to the planning commission and is subject to a full review,” she said. “That’s where we are right now. If they come back with a whole different project, it’s subject to our review and approval.”
Somewhat humorously, Miller said the commission could approve the plan for a project that might never be built as presented.
“I would recommend accepting this and one of the conditions is the applicant agrees not to use it,” he said. “That’s how crazy this is. The bottom line is, the applicant promises not to use this. They are using this for the purpose of preserving the non-conformity. They can sign an agreement to that effect.”
The commission ultimately voted unanimously to approve the site plan for the project with several conditions, including another review of the final plan.
