Council approves Salisbury annexation waiver over resident and environmental objections, 6–1

Wicomico County Council voted 6–1 on May 5 to approve Resolution 67‑2026, a zoning waiver tied to a City of Salisbury annexation of land on North Shoemaker Drive that would permit an R‑10A municipal zoning designation intended to support townhomes at about 4.66 dwelling units per acre.

The decision followed an extended public hearing in which numerous residents and technical witnesses opposed the waiver on environmental and neighborhood‑character grounds. "I urge you to vote no on the zoning waiver," Carolyn Wolgamuth, who lives in Granby's Cove, told the council, saying the waiver "far exceeds the 50% density threshold" and risks increased stormwater runoff that will affect Shoemaker Pond and downstream waters.

Ken Medeiros, identifying himself as a retired environmental consultant from the City of Salisbury, testified that the pond is "already in an impaired condition" and called for the county to return to the planning staff recommendation of single‑family zoning rather than the townhome allowance the planning commission endorsed.

Planning Director Tracy Taylor explained the applicable annexation process and state law: county review is required when municipal zoning differs substantially from county zoning or increases density by more than 50%, and the council can grant or deny a waiver. Taylor noted the city comprehensive plan positions the parcel in a future growth area and that the planning commission ultimately recommended R‑10A after discussion; she also described the five‑year effect if the waiver is denied — county zoning would remain in place for five years but municipal zoning could later apply. "If the county council were to determine that you did not wanna grant the waiver, it would go into the 5 year period where the county zoning stays in place for 5 years... After the 5 year period, the developer can develop the property in any way they wish," Taylor said.

Council members debated the tradeoffs: opponents argued the waiver would threaten wetlands, increase traffic and erode trust with long‑time residents; proponents and some members warned that denying the waiver could allow a developer to return later and seek even higher densities under municipal rules or state preemption, a risk the planning staff said could lead to up to eight dwelling units per acre after the five‑year vesting period.

The motion to approve Resolution 67 carried by a 6–1 vote; the council did not adopt additional conditions in that motion. The planning commission record and subsequent city review will govern detailed site design, stormwater management and environmental protections should the annexation proceed.

Next steps: the annexation will proceed through the City's planning commission process for a comprehensive development plan and environmental permitting; residents were urged by council members to remain engaged at upcoming city hearings.