Prince George supervisors approve RZ24-06 to allow up to 106 single‑family lots on Longwood Drive

Prince George County’s Board of Supervisors voted 3–2 on Jan. 28 to approve RZ24‑06, a conditional rezoning that will allow roughly 61 acres on Longwood Drive to be rezoned from RA (residential‑agricultural) to R2 (limited residential) and developed with up to 106 single‑family dwellings.

The county’s planning staff presented the case as a request to conditionally rezone the property to R2 to permit a maximum of 106 single‑family lots. Planning staff said the county’s comprehensive plan calls for residential uses at the site. The developer proffered sidewalks on both sides of streets, a cash proffer of about $3,500 per lot as lots are built, minimum house sizes (1,600 square feet for one‑story homes, 1,800 square feet for larger dwellings) and a required left‑turn lane on Middle Road.

The rezoning drew more than a dozen residents to the public hearing. Supporters said the project would bring needed, moderately priced housing and tax revenue to the county. Opponents raised concerns about traffic, schools, fire and EMS capacity, and environmental impacts to nearby waterways.

Mark Esposito, trustee for the family trust that owns the site, told the board the developer intends to create a homeowners association and build “affordable” lots consistent with his family’s long history of local development. Dino Lunsford, the developer, said the team is willing to work with neighbors and county staff on connectivity and engineering details.

Several nearby residents, including speakers from Brick House Landing, urged the board to delay action until the county could confirm impacts on schools, fire and EMS staffing, and water resources. Raymond Beal, who lives on Impala Drive, asked the board to “delay any decision” until additional reviews by the Virginia Department of Health, the Department of Environmental Quality, and local emergency services could be completed.

Planning staff said the project went to the Planning Commission on Nov. 21, which recommended approval subject to proffers dated Sept. 19; the applicant later revised proffers and the conceptual plan and submitted amended proffers dated Jan. 15. Staff also noted the applicant provided a VDOT turn‑lane warrant (a turn‑lane/warrant analysis) showing a left‑turn lane would be required on Middle Road and that both the original and revised connectivity layouts met VDOT and county connectivity requirements.

After extended public comment and board discussion about growth policy, infrastructure capacity and proffer amounts, Supervisor Womack moved to approve the rezoning and accept the proffers dated Jan. 15; a second was recorded and the motion passed on a 3–2 roll call (Cox opposed; Pugh opposed). The board chair said the rezoning decision covers land‑use entitlement only; subdivision plans, engineering details, and final connectivity and construction requirements will be reviewed at later subdivision and site‑plan stages.

The approved proffers limit density to no more than 106 single‑family lots, require sidewalks on both sides of internal streets (greater than the county minimum), and require the developer to construct a left‑turn lane on Middle Road as part of the subdivision work. The applicant also proffered a cash contribution of roughly $3,500 per lot.

Board members who voted in favor said the site is in the county’s planning area and conforms to the comprehensive plan’s residential designation; supervisors who opposed cited unresolved infrastructure and public‑safety capacity concerns.

The developer now moves to subdivision plan review, at which point engineering details, final lot layout, stormwater controls and any required mitigation will be reviewed by county staff, VDOT and other reviewing agencies. The board noted that if additional information about traffic, utilities, or emergency services changes materially, those matters can be considered during the subdivision review or in future budget cycles for staffing and capital improvements.

The board’s packet recorded 15 written public comments received before the hearing and the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval with proffers. The county staff presentation and the applicant’s proffers form part of the public record for RZ24‑06.