ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, September 10, 1996 TAG: 9609100036
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-3 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
DATELINE: PULASKI
SOURCE: PAUL DELLINGER STAFF WRITER
The landowner who has protested approval of an apartment project by the Pulaski County Planning Commission argues that no adequate channel exists through his property to drain runoff from the development.
Billy J. Watson says the proposed detention pond that would store and release drainage water from the 60-unit Silvanway Apartments project would not meet state requirements for runoff through his and other neighboring properties.
He appealed the commission approval to the county Board of Supervisors. The supervisors tabled a decision until its Sept. 23 meeting. They recommended that developer Mark Wiley and the neighboring landowners try to work out a compromise. The site of the proposed development is on Belspring Road (Virginia 600) in the Cloyd District of Pulaski County.
The matter had been before the Planning Commission for about nine months. At the Aug. 26 Board of Supervisors meeting, both sides had professional engineers speak in support of their positions. Several supervisors frankly admitted that they were at a loss as to how two engineers could come to opposite conclusions from the same data.
The supervisors said it would be best for all concerned if both sides worked out a compromise. If they did not, the board said it would make a decision without hearing further arguments Sept. 23.
While there is no adequate runoff channel through his property, Watson said, there is a swale or small depression through which water now runs perhaps a couple times a year in the winter. The drainage pond would release much more water, although in a controlled manner.
"This is a far cry from what we now experience," Watson said.
He said the swale is 35 feet from the back patio of his home, which is south of the apartment site. "It runs under our clothesline."
Wiley said he has built three similar detention ponds that have all functioned as designed. Such a pond releases more water but lets it out more slowly to lessen drainage effects.
"The difference here is no adequate channel exists," Watson said. "We do not feel the developer has the right to change conditions on our property."
Watson said one reason his protest seems to have "fallen through the cracks" is that the state Department of Environmental Quality requires a storm-water discharge permit only for projects of five acres or more. The Silvanway project is 4.25 acres.
The greater amount of water could erode the ground away from the roots of trees in his yard and cause them to fall on his house, he said. He is also concerned about contaminants from leaking vehicles on the project's planned 1.25-acre parking lot. "I'm just going to see water every time it rains."
One suggestion from the supervisors was for Wiley to seek an easement through the neighboring properties for the drainage. So far, that has not happened.
"All we're trying to do is protect the value of our property," Watson said. "It comes down to what the board feels is legal and whose rights would be violated."
LENGTH: Medium: 60 linesby CNB