Prince George County Board receives comprehensive-plan update; consultants present future land-use concepts

Prince George County Board of Supervisors members heard an update on the countycomprehensive plan at a work session in April, when the countyplanning department and consultant Berkeley Group presented draft planning goals, a development-suitability model and preliminary future land-use concepts. The presentation outlined a schedule for completing the plan and described six core land-use types and four overlay categories that would guide future zoning and infrastructure decisions.

The Berkeley Groupproject manager, Katherine Redfern, told the board the project remains in Phase 2 (drafting) and that staff and consultants plan to present a full draft to the Planning Commission in May and then to VDOT, DEQ and the public for review. "This is both to inform you but also the goals that were drafted for the chapters really feed into item number 3 on our schedule here, the future land use concept," Redfern said.

The draft plan is organized around introductory chapters and six policy chapters grouped as: community assets (natural and cultural resources, community resources), economic drivers (transportation and connectivity, economic development), and strategic growth (housing and land use and infrastructure). Redfern said chapter 9 (implementation) will function as a work plan listing actions, approximate costs, time frames and responsible parties.

A key element of the presentation was a GIS-based development suitability analysis intended to show where the county is most and least suitable for development. The model combined constraints (for example, floodplain and Resource Protection Areas) with development opportunities (existing development concentrations, water/sewer infrastructure and a draft utility service area) to produce a suitability spectrum from "most suitable" to "least suitable." Redfern said the tool is not the future land-use map but will inform recommendations.

Based on public input and the suitability model, consultants identified five study areas (labelled A through E) where the planning-area boundary might be adjusted: expanding to include Templeton (area A), pulling the boundary back near Route 156 to preserve rural lands (area B and D), encouraging development along the Route 460 corridor toward Disputanta (area C), and incorporating an area around North Elementary where community services exist (area E). Redfern noted that Planning Commission workshopped these concepts and reached consensus that these were reasonable areas to consider.

The presentation also described six draft base land-use types that move from least to most intensive: rural preservation, rural, suburban residential, market residential, neighborhood commercial (village-center style mixed use) and commercial/industrial. Four overlaysvillage centers, interstate exits, a Route 460 corridor overlay and a Fort Gregg-Adams bufferare proposed to provide site- and corridor-specific guidance.

Board members asked several clarifying questions. A board member asked whether consultants had defined what "rural" means; Redfern said the community engagement maps and written responses collected during outreach addressed the question but acknowledged that the term means different things to different people and that the plan will seek to define rural land-use types more precisely during the next land-use discussions. When a board member asked whether the plan would factor in a potential regionally proposed casino, Redfern said regional considerations and developments outside the county would be taken into account in mapping and policy decisions.

Board members and staff also discussed utility connections. Several supervisors expressed concern about allowing "private community systems" (clustered private water/sewer systems) and urged high design and maintenance standards if such systems are allowed. Planning staff said any new private community systems would be required to meet modern design standards intended to allow later public takeover and that utilities staff would review and enforce appropriate criteria.

Redfern said the planincluding goals and the future land-use conceptwill be refined with additional Planning Commission work sessions and public review; after that the final draft will enter the public hearing process. "We will be working furiously over the next few weeks to finish up the land use plan, workshopping that with Planning Commission, and then we will see you all again probably in late summer or the fall," she said.

Votes at a glance: the meeting opened with a motion to approve the agenda (moved by Mr. Pugh; seconded by Mrs. Womack) and concluded with a motion to adjourn (moved by Mr. Pugh; seconded by Mr. Cox); both motions were approved by roll call.

The presentation materials, drafted goals and supporting strategies were posted as part of the draft chapters; consultants said additional small-area and implementation-level diagnostics (zoning/subdivision ordinance comparisons) will follow to align the countyordinances with the adopted plan.