Augusta County supervisors postpone decision on Stuarts Draft proffer change after residents raise drainage, density concerns

Augusta County supervisors on Monday postponed consideration of a proffer amendment for an 8.9-acre subdivision in Stuarts Draft after residents raised repeated concerns about drainage, traffic and the size and number of new homes.

The amendment by EJ's LLC would lower the minimum square footage for a single‑family dwelling on the parcel from 1,800 to 1,400 square feet. Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval; staff told the board the property is in an urban service area and the concept plan shows roughly 26 lots (about 2.92 dwelling units per acre). Supervisor Bragg withdrew a motion to amend the proffers and instead moved to postpone the request to a definite date of July 23 so the county, the applicant and residents could pursue follow‑up on drainage and related concerns.

Why it matters: Residents and several supervisors said the site drains into an existing network of culverts and streams that already cause flooding downstream. Speakers argued the change could increase impervious surface area and add traffic to narrow local roads, and some asked for larger minimum home sizes so new construction would better match neighborhood character.

Staff presentation and the applicant Julia Hensley, planning staff, summarized the request and placed the parcel in context of the county comprehensive plan and planning policy maps. She said the only change proposed in the amended proffers was the reduction of minimum home size from 1,800 to 1,400 square feet and noted the property has been zoned single‑family with proffers since February 2004.

Barry Lodge, representing the developer and owner, said the concept includes stormwater basins along Wayne Avenue and that the design will “neck it down” to limit additional flooding. “We'll go hopefully as long as we can, but as you said, when you get a storm… it's got to be the slow release on it,” Lodge said.

Public comments and concerns Several residents who said they live adjacent to or within sight of the parcel urged the board not to approve the reduction in minimum home size without more study of drainage and road capacity.

- Rebecca Angelo, who said she lives at 26 East High Street, opposed 1,400‑square‑foot homes next to larger, long‑established houses: “1,400 square feet kind of just doesn't cut the mustard with me.” She also said sidewalks proposed in the concept “go nowhere” and expressed concern about increased traffic on Sylvan Drive and the condition of local roads.

- Rebecca Glass (Lexington) described repeated flooding on her property and urged county coordination with VDOT and property owners to clear culverts and improve downstream conveyance.

- Kenneth Moore (43 Crestview Drive) and Doug Huffman (130 Sylvan Drive) raised similar points about drainage, road maintenance and school capacity. Huffman gave an engineering‑style estimate of increased runoff, saying, “On an inch of rain, it's about 43,000 gallons; in an instance like we had the other day with 4 inches of rain, it would generate over 184,000 gallons of water coming off of that surface.”

Board discussion and next steps Supervisor Bragg — who initially moved to amend the proffers — said she had spoken with many residents and visited the site, then withdrew her approval motion and instead moved to postpone the item to July 23 to give time for further work on drainage and stakeholder discussions. The county attorney recommended postponing to a definite date rather than tabling. The board agreed to schedule the item for July 23.

The postponement leaves the proffer amendment open; staff emphasized that the parcel is already zoned for residential use and that the developer can pursue a site plan subject to current stormwater and construction regulations. Supervisors and residents said they want more detailed stormwater designs and coordination with VDOT and the railroad on culverts and conveyance before any final action.

Ending The board set a definite date, July 23, to reconsider the proffer amendment. Staff indicated any revised proffers, drainage analyses or agreements with external parties would be considered in the intervening weeks and reported back to the board for the July hearing.