Salisbury council discusses creating city planning commission as county moves to separate body

Salisbury council members and staff spent substantial time at the July 16 work session discussing the city’s plan to form its own planning commission after a joint Salisbury–Wicomico commission is dissolved.

City attorney/administrator (presenting) said the county is scheduled to hold a public hearing and second reading on its separate commission and that, if the county proceeds, full separation would be expected about 60 days later. The presenter said the city needs to finalize a planning commission membership and ordinance “over the next couple of months” so it does not fall into a gap in September.

Council discussion centered on membership size and composition, removal provisions and conflict-of-interest safeguards. The draft in the packet used seven members; several council members and public commenters urged prioritizing existing local commissioners and increasing the portion of members who reside within Salisbury city limits. The draft text included a minimum of three members who “shall reside in the municipal boundaries of the city of Salisbury” and language allowing remaining members to “reside or be employed in the Greater Salisbury area,” defined in the draft by zip codes 21801 and 21804.

Public commenters and a local zoning attorney urged stricter conflict-of-interest and recusal rules. Joe Venosis told the council to “please do is to have some stipulation in there regarding conflicts of interests,” citing past instances where members with financial interests did not recuse. Robert Taylor, a Salisbury resident who provided a draft ordinance, argued for an independent commission and suggested prioritizing appointment of members who are not investors or otherwise involved in active or potential real-estate development. Taylor also proposed a five-member commission as an alternative to seven.

Council members directed legal staff to continue drafting and to prepare recommended rules and a code of conduct the new commission should adopt; staff noted the prepared draft already requires adoption of rules (section 2.2803). The council discussed scheduling the next review for an upcoming work session and then a first reading of an ordinance, with dates discussed during the meeting (work session on July 14 and a first reading at the July 28 legislative meeting were mentioned as the likely path, subject to staff revisions and council input).

Ending: Council asked the public and current commission members to send comments to staff; legal and planning staff will revise the draft ordinance, prioritize rules of conduct and report back to the council for a decision before the separation becomes effective.