A Letter To The Editor By Jim Ireton 10-16-06

October 16, 2006

Dear Editor,

It comes as welcome news that the City of Salisbury is going to work with the developers of the old Salisbury Mall to reduce density and achieve a better mix of residential and commercial space. Why? Because the mall project has been promoted as an “urban village,” and its current plan does not meet that design goal.

When I served on the Salisbury City Council, a Planned Residential District (PRD) was approved in 1998 for St. Albans Commons, the adjacent vacant land adjoining the mall. It is on this plan that the mall petitioners based their recommendations to the Planning & Zoning Commission on September 18 to achieve a true urban village with St. Albans Drive as its walkable main street.

Given the announcement by the city that the current plan before the Planning & Zoning Commission is “unacceptable,” it would be prudent for the commission to put further consideration of the current plan on hold at their hearing on Thursday, October 19, at 2:45 p.m.

With the plan destined for revision, it does not serve the citizens or the developer to approve the current plan. It does not have to be approved to maintain the Tax Incremental Financing deal of $14 million from the city, for as City Council President Mike Dunn said, the deadline can easily be extended by the council.

Mayor Barrie Parsons Tilghman was quoted as saying, “Who would spend $3 million plus dollars to demolish a property without approval to develop it?” At this point, it is not the developer’s choice. On July 7, 2006, the city ordered demolition and removal of the structure by January 5, 2007. The city must enforce what it has ordered.

The demolition will only increase the property’s value, and once the revised plan with a true “urban village” is approved, the owners will have a handsome return on their investment. With the owners’ affiliation with Alex Brown Realty, Inc., a Baltimore-based investment firm that advertises it has done projects nationwide costing $1.5 billion, the financial hardship argument carries little weight.

Therefore, demolishing the old mall should not be an issue from either a legal or a financial viewpoint.

The current plan’s commercial space proposal is subject to legal challenge because it does not meet the code’s standard of being constructed primarily for the neighborhood it’s serving. A large commercial complex more than half the size of the Salisbury Mall, facing away from the neighborhood the plan says it serves, clearly is not in compliance with either the letter or the spirit of the zoning code.

The mall petitioners were upfront about their concerns and their grounds for appeal, and the Judge heartily supported this most important point. Let’s learn from the past year that it’s not so important to do things quickly as it is to do them right, and to do them well. If we don’t have time to do it right the first time, when will we have time to do it over? As Judge Newt Jackson said, “Zoning is democracy at its most grassroots level.”

Jim Ireton, Former Salisbury City Council Member
Salisbury