Prince George planning panel forwards 46.73‑acre rezoning for 106 homes to supervisors after 4–3 vote

The Prince George County Planning Commission voted 4–3 on Dec. 18, 2025, to forward RZ250007 — a conditional rezoning of approximately 46.73 acres from RA (residential agricultural) to R‑3 (general residential) — to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval subject to conditions dated Dec. 10, 2025.

Planning staff summarized the request and recommended approval. “Staff's recommendation for this proposal is approval subject to the proper conditions dated 12/10/2025,” the presentation stated, noting the request would allow a maximum of 106 single‑family lots and identified anticipated off‑site impacts including traffic and increased demand on public services. Staff noted VDOT secondary street acceptance requirements, required site plan review and utility connections. The staff report recorded a cash proffer of $3,544 per unit and said that amount was about 15% of the maximum recommended amount under the county’s cash‑proffer policy.

The applicant’s representatives told the commission the project (branded in the presentation as Southerly Run) is intended to match nearby subdivisions and supply housing for a range of buyers. Anne Miller, a planner with Balzer and Associates, said the request seeks “106 detached single family units on individual lots on about 47 acres,” with minimum lot sizes of about 10,000 square feet and a 100‑foot resource protection buffer along the northern creek. Brian Rowe, division vice president for D.R. Horton Southern Virginia, said homes would likely range from roughly 1,700 to 2,500 square feet, with price points starting in the mid‑$400,000s, four stormwater ponds, sidewalks on both sides of internal streets and an internal road network that would be brought into the VDOT system and must meet SSAR requirements. The applicant offered a voluntary proffer to construct an off‑site right‑turn taper at Takach and Middle Road.

Members of the public spoke mostly in opposition. Neighbor Patrick Mahoney said the scale of development diverged from expectations when he bought a nearby 7‑acre lot: “There wasn't gonna be 106 homes in my front yard,” he told the commission, raising concerns about construction traffic, road closures and runoff into an adjacent creek. Catherine Sissery, whose home backs up to the proposed site, urged the commission to “slow it down,” citing well water concerns, strain on wastewater infrastructure and impacts to wildlife habitat. Don Matipo warned of cumulative effects if multiple nearby projects move forward, citing traffic and school capacity. Local builder Justin Noblin spoke in favor, saying the developer had followed county requirements and arguing that recent housing growth had not produced proportional increases in students.

Commissioners discussed water capacity, school impacts and traffic before voting. The motion to forward the application to the Board of Supervisors carried by a 4–3 roll‑call vote. The Planning Commission recorded the item to be transmitted to the Board with a tentative date of Jan. 27, 2026, pending the Board’s agenda adoption.

What’s next: the Board of Supervisors will hold another public hearing and make the final decision; the Planning Commission's vote was advisory only.

Provenance: This article is based on staff presentation and public hearing testimony recorded in the Planning Commission meeting transcript (topic introduced at SEG 154 and last discussed at SEG 809).