Applicant requests deferral after board raises traffic and notice concerns for Dollar General rezoning

Valco Investments requested a deferral of Rezoning Application 2501, a proposal for a Dollar General store near the intersection of Glenwood Road and Route 60, after the board of supervisors raised concerns about traffic and the adequacy of posted notice. Planning staff said the planning commission had previously recommended approval with reduced parking and proffers; the board referred the item back to the commission after one board member raised traffic and posting issues.

Staff reported the applicant asked to defer the rezoning and that staff will meet with the applicant and county administrator to address questions and concerns. A VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) follow-up email read into the record stated that a formal traffic impact statement is not required for the project because the project does not meet VDOT’s thresholds (development generating more than 5,000 vehicles per day at the site connection or a residential development generating more than 400 vehicles per day and doubling the traffic of the receiving roadway). VDOT’s written guidance said site-plan review will require a turn-lane analysis and verification of truck turning movements and that the intersection of Route 60 and Blenheim is considered off-site so VDOT cannot require an intersection analysis as part of site-plan review.

Commissioners and several residents urged caution about the proposed location. Gina Martin, who identified herself as living at 518 Carter School Road, said the location is “bad” and expressed concern about large trucks backing on Glenwood and potential traffic backups. Betty Myers, of 577 Deep Run Road, told commissioners she is concerned Dollar General locates in “underserved areas” and could affect a planned grocery store that residents want; she asked the commission to consider potential impacts on local businesses and traffic safety.

Staff said the applicant explored alternative sites and contacted a property across the street that was zoned business, but the owner was unwilling to sell or subdivide. Staff also said the initial failure to post a notice on the property was a mistake and that posting has since been completed as a courtesy (staff said the code does not require the extra posting but acknowledged the oversight). The applicant asked that the item be placed on the commission’s Aug. 18 agenda for further action after staff and the applicant meet to address outstanding issues.

No final rezoning vote or formal action on the deferral was recorded during the meeting; staff indicated the matter will return to the planning commission on Aug. 18 with additional materials and responses to the board’s concerns.