Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns Salisbury zoning code blocks density variances, urges council to act on three-phase roadmap
Summary
A resident told the Salisbury City Council that a recent court ruling created a conflict between city zoning provisions and state law that prevents approval of density-increase variances; he urged the council to direct staff to draft code changes and run a public legislative process to restore the board of appeals' authority.
Salisbury — A Salisbury resident told the City Council that a gap between city code and state law is preventing the board that handles zoning appeals from approving variances to increase residential density, and urged immediate city action to fix the rule and reopen the variance process.
“Right now there's no legal process to approve these requests, effectively presenting a huge barrier to new development in key growth areas of our city,” said Matt Drew, who identified himself as a Salisbury resident during the public-comment period.
Drew said the city code currently requires a special exception for density increases in multiple parts of the zoning ordinance — including the apartment standards, Riverfront Redevelopment Districts 1 and 2, and the Central Business District — but a recent court ruling has exposed a conflict that removes the board of appeals' authority to consider such variances. He asked the council to direct the city attorney and planning department to draft code amendments.
He proposed a three-phase roadmap:
- Immediate action (by May 30): direct the city attorney and planning department to review the court ruling and draft necessary zoning code amendments. - Legislative process (June–September): hold a council work session to review draft revisions, offer public review and comment, hold a public hearing, and vote on the changes. - Implementation (October onward): update city processes, train staff and reopen the variance process for density-related requests.
“If any of these efforts to resolve this issue are already underway, I urge the council to ensure transparency and keep the public informed,” Drew said. “Developers, business owners, and residents deserve clear communication about the steps being taken to restore a functional zoning process.”
Drew told the council the lack of a variance path disproportionately affects projects in downtown, riverfront and other high-density areas that the city has identified for growth.
The council did not take formal action on the comment during the meeting. The remark was made during the public-comment period; the transcript does not show a formal council directive or vote to start the drafting process that Drew requested.
The city attorney or planning staff may already be aware of the court decision and any required edits; Drew asked the council to make the process transparent and to keep the public informed if staff work is underway.
