Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning staff recommends approval in principle of rezoning request at 6010 Courthouse Road; utilities and easements remain issues

3118263 · April 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Prince George County planning staff summarized a rezoning request (Case 250001) at a work session on April 24 for a 4.25‑acre parcel at 6010 Courthouse Road, seeking to rezone the site to R‑2 to enable subdivision into two lots.

Prince George County planning staff summarized a rezoning request (Case 250001) at a work session on April 24 for a 4.25‑acre parcel at 6010 Courthouse Road. The applicant seeks to rezone a split‑zoned parcel from Residential‑Agriculture (RA) and Limited Residential (R‑2) to solely R‑2 to allow subdivision into two lots, including a proposed 1.2‑acre new lot and a residual roughly 2.9‑acre lot with the existing home.

Staff said the parcel’s future land‑use designation on the county comprehensive plan is Village Center and described surrounding zoning and land uses as residential, concluding the request appears consistent with the plan and adjacent zoning. Staff recommended approval in principle and provided the commission with the list of uses allowed in R‑2.

Staff and VDOT comments attached to the staff report flagged technical requirements: because the parcel is within the Prince George Planning Area, any new lots created will be required to connect to public water and wastewater systems, and doing so will require extension of the public gravity wastewater line. VDOT noted driveway‑entrance requirements and that, given the road classification, any two lots would likely need to share an entrance easement.

Commissioners asked about site easements and a power line that runs across the property. Staff said recorded easements should be shown on a final plat and that the county would not knowingly approve construction inside a sewer or utility easement; buyers would be informed by the plat. Staff also reiterated that the drawings reviewed were a conceptual layout and that final subdivision and building permits must meet all ordinance and zoning requirements.

No vote or formal action on the rezoning request was taken at the work session; staff said the matter would proceed through the formal application and hearing processes, including plat review and any special‑exception applications if new uses require them.