After receiving a number of complaints, Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton has directed Neighborhood Services and Code Compliance Director Tom Stevenson to issue a notice requiring the owner of the old Salisbury Mall property [Salisbury Mall Associates, LLC] to remove the pulverized debris which has remained on the site since the building was demolished in August of 2007. The demolition permit was closed June 2008.
The notice, which was issued on Tuesday, June 14, 2011, gives the owner until Wednesday, September 14, 2011 to remove the material. If the owner fails to comply with the order municipal citations will be issued. In addition to being fined the material can be removed by the City of Salisbury. All costs for such removal will be at the owner’s expense.
William Holland, Director of Building, Permits and Inspections stated that “according to our records there are no active building permits for that address and that the zoning designation does not allow prolonged storage of such aggregate material.”
Mayor Ireton added, “Business owners in the Twilley Center, and residents of the area have voiced concern over the huge pile of rubble. There are environmental risks as well. It is well past time that the pile be removed.”
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
16 comments:
What about the half built condo on Fitzwater Street?
This stuff has been laying there for three years and officials are only now getting to the paperwork?
What will happen is this: The city will pay to clean it up (probably next spring,) they will bill the owners, the owners will never pay, and the city will then be celebrating the 10th anniversary of the demolition of the old mall.
And the grass will keep growing there. And nothing will ever be built. And on and on and on.
Is there any truth to the rumor that it's full of ground up asbestos?
The Old Mall Property owner should just let the City & County lien the property and repossess it.
The last time I checked - the Old Mall property was being taxed a little more than $100,000 per year. They have been fighting to get requisite zoning for well over a decade.
DA - by my calculations they have spent well over 1 million dollars in real estate taxes alone. Add to that a Court judgement against the Old Mall owners for the demolition company judgement.
Sometimes it is just better to take-a-walk and let the financing company have it back.
This is one of those occasions.
Anon 3:32 I'm sure that will happen, but then the city will issue a lien against the property and seize it. Who knows what will happen then, maybe they will build another super Fire Dept, etc.etc.
I remember hearing that they were finally tearing down that mess down, and I was happy that MAYBE something would happen to the property moving forward(say, a large county athletic park)...lol thank God I moved away from Salisbury.
Ireton trying to release "good news" after making a total ___ of himself yesterday.
Maybe they could move it all to the "Lines" and just let it sink in the mud. Would that shore up the land so the fire house would stop shifting?
Joe,
How about if you find out what the real deal is with that pile. I thought it was suppose to be used to build new roads.
Is it a safe product? If the standards do not allow it to qualify for road construction can the public buy it and use it on private lanes?
Why don't you research all of this and tell us the whole story?
I agree with the question. What is the story on the unfinished building on Fitzwater St.
Talk about a hazzard?
I said they should take it by way of Imminant Domain when the county wasted MILLIONS on a very small area of this lot for parking. A lot of people disagreed and now the Tax Payer will be stuck again and these "Good Ole Boys " will profit some more off the Tax Payer. Where is the common sense Tax Payer. How many more MILLIONS will these "Good Ole Boys" screw the Tax Payer out of?
919-If the product can be used for road construction you don't need someone to buy it. Put it on craigslist and it will be picked up. You may think I'm joking, but free construction fill always goes fast.
It's time to pull the plug on that sweetheart "TIF" deal too.
The product is very questionable for building roads. Along with concrete, brick, etc., there was quite a bit of organic material ground up along with it (wood for one). I am not saying that this material couldn't be used for something, I am just saying that until it goes through testing, no government agency would allow it to be used in the construction of roads. The best thing the owner could do, is find someone that would want the material, for some other reason, and give it away. It would cost him a fortune to haul it off the property, much less find a suitable location while maintaining the necessary MDE requirements. I am suprised that MDE hasn't fined them already. The sediment and erosion controls on that property are very questionable. The existing inlets in the parking lot are no longer covered, allowing all the sediment to go into the stormwater system. If MDE starts enforcing some things, along with the city, they might make the developer move on either building or selling it. They might have even been able to condem it and then the county could have ended up with a parking lot for free.
The material is suitable for sub base for road conatruction. it has been tested by several geo tech engineering firms.
9:08, That is questionable. Why did the county not use it for the new collector road then?
10:49 the county used recycled material that was located much closer to the collector rd. saving the county a lot of money in hauling.
Post a Comment