Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Salisbury annexation zoning waiver after neighbors and members seek more review
Summary
The council postponed consideration of a City of Salisbury request for a zoning waiver tied to a 13-acre annexation on North Shoemaker Drive proposed for up to 60 townhomes, after neighbors raised compatibility and sitescaping concerns and members requested a public hearing and more time to review.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Wicomico County Council on April 21 voted to table a request from the City of Salisbury for a zoning waiver tied to the proposed annexation and redevelopment of a roughly 13-acre parcel on North Shoemaker Drive.
City staff and the property's developer described a plan for about 60 townhomes and said the proposed municipal zoning (R-10A) would produce approximately 4.6 dwelling units per acre, a density the city's comprehensive plan classifies within its low-density residential range. County planning staff advised the council that the municipal zoning permits uses substantially different from the county's R-20 district and increases allowed density by more than 50%, which triggers a county waiver review under state law.
Neighbors who testified before the council said they preferred single-family homes and asked for stronger buffering and sitescaping along property edges. Several council members asked city and developer representatives for more time to review the plan details, including landscaping and how the project fits with adjacent neighborhoods; one member said the council should hold a public hearing to give neighbors a formal opportunity to comment.
After debate, a majority of the council voted to postpone action for two weeks and schedule a hearing. City staff and the developer had previously obtained a unanimous recommended zoning classification from the Salisbury planning body and said the proposal would include tree preservation and other measures, but the council indicated it wanted additional assurance about site-edge treatment before granting the waiver.

