Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Resolution 34 72 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors urge council to amend North Shoemaker annexation (Resolution 34-72) to R10S zoning
Summary
Multiple Granby's Cove and Shoemaker Woods residents asked the council to change the proposed annexation zoning in resolution 34-72 to R10S, citing traffic, infrastructure, and potential damage to Shoemaker Pond; petition and staff report references were presented.
Get email alerts on the Resolution 34 72 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Multiple residents of Granby's Cove and adjacent neighborhoods asked the Salisbury City Council to amend resolution 34-72 (the North Shoemaker Drive annexation) to R10S zoning, citing neighborhood character, traffic and environmental concerns.
Ken Maderas said the city's staff recommendation favored R10S to preserve single-family character and protect environmental features, and he warned that the developer's proposed density would increase impervious surface and harm Shoemaker Pond. "Please restore public's faith that local government can be responsive," Maderas said, noting roughly 52 petition signatures opposing the current zoning proposal.
Ruth Baker, who said she and her husband have lived in Granby's Cove for more than 30 years, urged the council to be mindful of a state-designated wetland bordering the proposed development and asked the council to align zoning with staff recommendations. Michael Langford and Eric Miller raised similar infrastructure and safety concerns, including potential cut-through traffic into Granby's Cove and limits the city's infrastructure can handle.
Several speakers noted the joint city-county planning commission and county council process and said staff infrastructure reports recommended lower density; residents asked the city to provide missing infrastructure data (including flow test data for fire hydrants) and to clarify whether required work would disrupt North Shoemaker Drive.
Council members acknowledged the comments and thanked residents for their petitions and participation; no vote on resolution 34-72 was recorded in the public-comment portion of the meeting.

