Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation North Shoemaker topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Salisbury council tables decision on North Shoemaker Drive annexation amid zoning dispute
Summary
Council postponed action after staff, planning commission and a developer proposed three different zoning classifications for a 12.465-acre annexation that would allow as many as 60 townhomes; council asked for more information and a developer presentation before moving legislation forward.
The Salisbury City Council on Monday tabled a decision on the proposed annexation of a 12.465-acre parcel on North Shoemaker Drive after staff, the planning commission and the petitioner proposed three different zoning classifications.
The parcel, which staff said could accommodate roughly 60 townhomes, was introduced as an annexation request with an initial petitioner proposal of R‑8A zoning. Planning staff recommended R‑10S and the planning commission recommended R‑10A, creating what Associate Planner Zach White described as three competing zoning options for council to weigh.
The zoning dispute centers on whether apartment-style units and townhomes would be allowed. "The 10 is 10,000 square foot minimum. The A allows for apartments and townhomes. The regular R‑10 that we have doesn't allow for apartments and townhomes," White said. He described R‑10S as a cluster-development option that keeps a 10,000-square-foot minimum but allows smaller building lots by allocating some acreage to open space.
Council members expressed concern about the order and timing of the review. Several said that planning commission recommendations typically guide council action, and expressed frustration that council was being asked to pick a zoning classification after planning commission action. Council members also raised affordability and developer‑requirements questions. Councilman DeSuell said the city should craft clearer guidelines for developer expectations on affordable housing before annexing new land.
Mayor Taylor and staff said the mayor has scheduled meetings with the county about affordable housing and that further work would follow to develop models or task forces. In the meantime council chose to delay, with a motion to table the annexation decision. The chair called for the voice vote and recorded ayes; the item was tabled pending a future work session and a developer presentation.
Next steps identified by staff include inviting the petitioner to present their proposed project, allowing council and staff to deliberate zoning options and any potential affordable-housing expectations before drafting annexation legislation for a later legislative session.
