Residents press supervisors over Green Ridge landfill CUP; board considers moving hearing and meeting location

At a recent Cumberland County Board of Supervisors meeting, residents pressed the board to delay or relocate the public hearing on a conditional use permit application for the proposed Green Ridge Recycling Disposal Facility, citing environmental, public‑safety and legal concerns and the involvement of a large private operator.

The matter matters because the CUP request would allow construction and operation of a municipal solid waste landfill and related facilities near Route 60 on parcels described in county materials as totaling approximately 1,177 acres. Residents said the county and state review documents and the host agreement with the project developer appear inconsistent and requested more time and transparency before a hearing.

Public commenters repeatedly referenced a DEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality) Part B submission and questioned whether the developer had relied on the older host agreement or new terms that have not been renegotiated. “GFL is a very large company… they have a $25,000,000,000 market cap,” said Matthew, a resident of District 3, who warned that a large operator could be difficult for the county to hold to contractual limits. Other speakers raised concerns about methane and waste‑fire risks and said the developer had previously submitted multiple changes to DEQ without county input.

County staff included setting a public hearing for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2401 on June 10, 2025, as part of the consent agenda. During the meeting supervisors debated separating consent items so each could be voted on individually and discussed motions to postpone or reschedule the Green Ridge hearing. One supervisor moved to amend the Green Ridge public hearing date to Aug. 12, 2025; another motion to change the June meeting location to Cumberland High/Middle School also was made and seconded. The transcript records the motions being made and seconded but does not record final vote tallies in the excerpt provided.

Speakers asked whether the company had followed the terms of the host agreement and whether DEQ filings referenced the older conditional use terms or a set of changes the company had submitted. Several commenters asked the board to renegotiate the host agreement before the CUP hearing or to ensure the board and public have full access to the developer’s DEQ submissions. A board member who spoke during public remarks said the CUP hearing was premature until the host agreement was renegotiated and that the developer had acted unilaterally in past changes.

During public comment, one resident criticized several supervisors by name for not responding to constituents’ communications and called for officials to be replaced; another resident urged the board not to take “desperate” actions and to shape county growth deliberately. Board members also noted procedural questions about agenda posting and state code requirements for changing a meeting location.

The board packet and staff remarks identify the CUP request as replacing an earlier CUP (referred to in meeting materials as “CUP eighteen‑six”) and as involving multiple M‑2 zoned parcels on the north side of Route 60 near the Powhatan County line in Election District 2. County staff advised that if the board passes a resolution to change the meeting place it must be published in a paper of general circulation at least seven days prior to the meeting, citing state code provisions referenced in the meeting (staff cited 15.2‑1416 during discussion of meeting location procedure).

The meeting produced motions to separate consent agenda items, to reschedule the Green Ridge public hearing, and to change the June meeting location; the transcript excerpt does not show final recorded outcomes for those motions. Several speakers said they would follow up with the county administrator for written responses.

The board did not take a final, recorded action on the CUP itself during the meeting excerpt provided. County staff indicated the CUP public hearing and related planning commission materials would be set for board consideration at a future meeting; residents asked the board to ensure the public has access to the developer’s DEQ filings and to renegotiate the host agreement before proceeding.