I appreciate Janet Briggs’ report on the proposed Teacher Village at Milford Hills United Methodist Church and her effort to present both sides. The central issue is whether the public should support rezoning before the project’s assumptions, impacts and long-term commitments are clearly defined.
Let me start with what this is not about: whether teachers deserve support. I am the daughter of a retired educator and have enormous respect for teachers. If Salisbury needs housing that helps teachers remain here, I am willing to have that conversation. But support for teachers should not move rezoning forward before the public knows who would qualify, how affordability would be protected and how the development would affect the neighborhood.
The church is presenting this as affordable housing for teachers, yet there does not appear to be a defined plan for eligibility, rents or long-term affordability. Its own website describes the project as exploratory and says rezoning is necessary, with traffic, stormwater and infrastructure studies still to come.
Those are not small details. They are the details.
Neighbors have also been told the church seeks sustainable income as its congregation declines. That is understandable. A church can pursue both a financial need and a community mission, but nearby residents are entitled to understand both purposes before being asked to support rezoning.
The proposed development sits in a single-family neighborhood. Rezoning would change its character by allowing denser, apartment-style housing where single-family homes surround the site. Whether residents are teachers or anyone else does not change the land-use question. Density is density.
The church now calls the proposal a “walkable village,” not apartments. If so, it should explain why rezoning beyond the existing six-units-per-acre designation is necessary. On fewer than three acres, current zoning already allows meaningful residential development. The public deserves to know what cannot be accomplished under existing rules and what additional density rezoning would permit.
If affordable housing is the urgent need driving this proposal, why has the church’s nearby parsonage remained vacant for over five years, while the pastor lives in another neighborhood? Using that property for affordable housing, even on a smaller scale, could have demonstrated commitment before asking neighbors to accept a much larger rezoning and density change.
I was also concerned by the way this project was initially presented as having the support of the City of Salisbury and the Robertson Foundation, which could lead the public to believe the proposal had already undergone significant outside review. My understanding is that funding was provided to explore the concept, not as an endorsement of a final development plan. That distinction matters, particularly when critical questions about traffic, stormwater, infrastructure and the ultimate scale of the project remain unanswered.
About 500 people have signed a petition opposing the project, including teachers and a sitting school board member. This is not simply a handful of neighbors resisting change; it is a sizable group asking that consequences be studied before decisions are made.
We attended the church’s “sacred circle” meeting in good faith, bringing questions and hoping for collaboration. Instead, we heard continued commitment to rezoning and assurances that our concerns would eventually be addressed.
But words are not a traffic study, a stormwater plan or an infrastructure analysis. I do not oppose affordable housing, helping teachers or helping the church find a sustainable future. I oppose advancing rezoning for a dense development before questions about eligibility, affordability, traffic, stormwater, infrastructure and neighborhood impact have been answered.
If Milford Hills United Methodist Church wants to show this project is about people first, it should slow down, complete the traffic, stormwater and infrastructure studies, disclose the financial model, explain affordability commitments, consider less intensive alternatives and listen to the people who will live beside it.
City leaders should not approve this rezoning until these questions are answered and the community has a full, transparent review.
Mary B. Rosser lives in Salisbury.
