By Mark Wineka
mwineka@salisburypost.com
The city’s Land Development Ordinance requires a builder to include sidewalks no matter whether his construction is along a new or existing street.
Salisbury City Council is giving serious thought to easing that requirement when someone builds on infill lots ó those random, vacant properties scattered throughout established neighborhoods.
City staff has recommended that new sidewalks for infill lots only be required if there are existing sidewalks within 300 feet or less of the property.
If no sidewalk exists within that 300 feet, then the builder would not have to include a sidewalk or make a payment in lieu, which is an option offered now.
Richard Miller, who is developing 124 Circle M Drive, urged council members Tuesday to apply the same thinking to industrially zoned properties.
He said requiring a small business such as his to invest thousands of dollars for sidewalks where there are virtually no pedestrians questions common sense.
“With today’s economic climate, enforcement of such sidewalk ordinances defies sound economics and will serve to discourage economic development,” Miller said.
If anything, pedestrian traffic should be discouraged in the Circle M Industrial Park because of all the heavy trucks, Miller said.
The Land Development Ordinance, as written now, would require Miller to install 722 feet of sidewalk.
Several individual property owners who have sought building permits for residential infill lots have complained to the city about the sidewalk requirement, mainly because of the extra costs.
They argue the sidewalks often don’t link to anything else. If the property owner has a corner lot, installing sidewalk (and curb and gutter) along both street frontages can be very expensive.
Builders also have complained about the payment-in-lieu policy, which allows them to avoid building the sidewalk but requires them to pay the cost into an account which the city uses to build sidewalks somewhere else.
Councilman William “Pete” Kennedy said the staff recommendation requiring sidewalks on infill lots only if existing sidewalks are within 300 feet would be a good amendment. The city should not be requiring sidewalks where none exists in the rest of a neighborhood, he said.
During a public hearing, Salisbury architect Karen Alexander, who is a member of the Planning Board, also spoke in favor of the change and agreed with Miller that it should be considered for both residential and industrially zoned areas.
The amendment probably would help private property owners more than developers, Kennedy said. Many of these property owners have been saving money for years to be able to build on their individual lots, and unnecessary sidewalks would be an added expense, he said.
When the Land Development Ordinance was written, Councilman Bill Burgin said, developers on the committee took the position that if sidewalks are a requirement for new development, they should also be expected for infill properties.
“Fundamentally,” Burgin said, “I’m still comfortable with payment in lieu of.”
How does Salisbury ever get back to having sidewalks again, Burgin asked, if no one ever builds them.
Burgin said he saw more logic in not requiring sidewalks in industrial areas such as Miller’s, but the argument could be made that employees of industries might want to walk or exercise during their breaks away from work.
Councilman Mark Lewis said he thought the recommended change for residential lots would encourage infill development, “and that’s what we’re after.”
Lewis supported a look at the sidewalk question for heavy- and light-industrial properties but said the requirement for sidewalks should not be lifted for retail and commercial construction.
The city planning staff will return at a later meeting with recommended changes.