Prince George County leaders and planning staff held a joint work session Oct. 22 to review the October 14 draft of the Prince George 2045 comprehensive plan and to discuss public and agency comments received during the draft review phase.

The Berkeley Group consultant Catherine Redfern told the Board and Planning Commission this is the project’s final work session before public hearings and adoption: "This is our final work session as part of the Prince George 2045 comprehensive plan update," she said, and summarized outreach and next steps.

Why it matters: the draft plan will guide the county’s future land-use and ordinance updates. The meeting resolved several policy questions for staff to carry into ordinance drafting and set a schedule for final public review: written revisions were requested by Oct. 29, a Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for Nov. 20, and the Board of Supervisors will consider adoption on Dec. 9.

What the draft contains and public response

Redfern said the draft posted July 19 followed nearly 12 months of drafting and about 19 months total since the project kickoff on 03/21/2024. The county received 71 public comments during the draft review phase and agency review comments from the Crater Planning District Commission (CRATER PDC), VDOT, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Most agency comments were editorial or requests for additional maps or data — for example improvements to crash data maps, mapping water-access points, and a congestion map that Redfern said was not available in time for the draft but will be incorporated after the meeting.

Disputanta: planning-area inclusion

One recurring public question was why Disputanta (sometimes spoken in the transcript as "Disputana") is included in the planning-area boundary. Redfern said the draft boundary reflects existing patterns on the ground — a concentration of community amenities (library, community center, school, emergency services), commercial uses along Route 460 and nearby suburban-style neighborhoods — and sewer service in parts of the area. She said inclusion is not meant to increase density: "That including it in the planning area reflects what is already on the ground and then allows us to do some planning for safety improvements, for amenity improvements," she said.

Board members expressed differing views about how far the planning-area boundary should extend around Disputanta and whether village-center commercial designations should be shifted up or down Route 460 to encourage business. One board member suggested keeping the planning boundary close to Route 460 and not expanding into adjacent rural roads.

Private roads

The draft transportation chapter recognizes private roads as contributors to maintenance, safety and access issues and recommends addressing the issue through the county’s ordinance update process rather than by adopting a new policy in the comprehensive plan itself. Redfern summarized the draft language and recommended using the forthcoming ordinance updates to determine the county’s policy and regulatory approach. Board members noted practical challenges (for example, existing properties that rely on private access and the need to bring roads to VDOT standards before VDOT will accept them).

Rural preservation footprint and ecological cores

The draft currently designates roughly 50,000 acres as "rural preservation" (dark green on the map), a category Redfern said was derived from combining floodplain/RPA/RMA boundaries, conservation easements and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) natural landscape assessment ecological-core data. Redfern presented an alternative that would include DCR’s high-value ecological cores (the next ranking down from outstanding/very high value), which would expand the rural preservation footprint to a little over 72,000 acres.

Board members discussed trade-offs between protecting large, unfragmented natural and agricultural parcels and preserving transition zones near existing development. Several speakers asked staff to refine the map using the interactive online layer, road names and parcel context.

Lot-size guidance for the rural land-use category

The draft’s descriptive guidance distinguishes the dark-green rural preservation category (described in the draft as a 20-acre minimum) and the lighter-green rural category (described as a 5-acre minimum). Public reviewers commonly said a 5-acre descriptive was insufficient to curb sprawl; Redfern presented 10 acres as an alternative descriptive.

On the Board of Supervisors side, members took a de facto consensus to change the light-green rural description from 5 acres to 10 acres (a 3–2 split among supervisors present, per the transcript). Supervisors voiced differing concerns: "I'm I'm fine with the 10 acres. We need to slow the build out," said Mr. Cox. Mr. Pugh said, "If I had 10 kids and I own 200 acres, are we going to allow 10 1 acre lots so my kids can build on that?" expressing concern about family subdivisions and the need for options for landowners. Mrs. Wymack said, "I have concern with 20 acres. I even have concern with 10 acres ... that's going to really limit people's affordability." Other supervisors warned that higher acre minimums could make small-scale farming or timbering uneconomic on leftover parcels.

Redfern and staff repeatedly emphasized that these lot-size numbers in the draft are descriptive guidance, not immediate zoning changes: "These acreage minimums are meant as descriptions rather than regulation, if that helps anyone," she said. The consultant and staff told the boards that the next step is to reconcile comprehensive-plan guidance with a later zoning ordinance update so the two documents align.

Next steps and directions to staff

Redfern asked for any additional edits to be submitted to staff by Oct. 29. The draft will go to the Planning Commission public hearing on Nov. 20; the Board will consider adoption on Dec. 9. Staff will incorporate agency-requested data and maps (for example the congestion map and water-access mapping) into the plan after the meeting.

Votes and formal actions taken at the meeting

The board recorded and approved several procedural motions during the session (roll-call results reflected on the record):
- A motion to permit Supervisor Webb to attend the meeting virtually (moved by Mrs. Wymack, seconded by Mr. Cox); the roll call recorded all supervisors present as voting yes and the motion carried.
- A motion to adopt the evening’s agenda (moved by Mr. Cox, seconded by Mrs. Wymack); roll call approved the agenda.
- A motion to enter closed session addressing legal discussions regarding Hopewell and Sussex wastewater-treatment expansion contracts under the statutory citation as read aloud in the meeting (the motion text referenced "Virginia code 2.2371188" and specified "Hopewell and Sussex wastewater treatment expansion contracts"). The board recessed to closed session and later reconvened.
- After returning from closed session the board moved to certify the closed session record (moved by Mr. Pew and seconded by Mr. Cox), and the clerk recorded a roll-call certification. The board then moved to adjourn and the clerk recorded the roll call for adjournment.

What was not decided

No zoning ordinance changes were adopted at this meeting. The change from 5 to 10 acres discussed during the session was approved as a descriptive direction on the Board side (for use in drafting and ordinance discussion), not as an immediate regulatory change. Several supervisors and commissioners said detailed policy and regulatory language will be developed during the ordinance-update process, and that family-subdivision rules, clustering and road-acceptance standards will need specific attention.

For readers and stakeholders

Staff asked members of the public and agencies to submit additional revisions by Oct. 29. Planning Commission will hold a public hearing Nov. 20; the Board will consider the plan Dec. 9. Staff said they will incorporate outstanding agency-requested maps and respond to the full comment log in the final draft.

Ending

The Board adjourned after completing the evening’s business and certifying the closed session record. Staff and the consultant return to work to incorporate the minor agency edits and the Board’s direction to adjust the descriptive lot-size guidance for the rural land-use category and further refine the rural-preservation mapping for the next public hearing.