Cumberland supervisors table Dollar General rezoning after residents and a board member say notice was insufficient

The Cumberland County Board of Supervisors voted Sept. 9 to table a rezoning request from Balco (REZ25-01) that would allow construction of a DG Market (Dollar General) at the intersection of U.S. 60 and Blenheim Road after residents and one supervisor argued proper notice had not been given.

At a packed public-comment period that followed a presentation from the applicant, residents described safety and traffic worries on Blenheim Road and the adjoining stretch of U.S. 60, questioned the applicant’s estimate of travel time and community benefit, and said some neighbors had not received mailed notice of the hearing. Betty Myers, who lives on Deep Run Road, said the parcel “is the worst one I think you could find in Cumberland County to put this” and urged the board to prioritize the community’s wishes.

The applicant’s representatives, Carrie Hutcherson and Fred Stewart, told the board the site had been chosen because it matched market research and community-identified needs for access to groceries; they proffered conditions including dark-sky lighting, two architectural options, stormwater protections and signage prohibiting truck routing onto Blenheim Road. Hutcherson said traffic modeling showed a peak-hour total of about 34 vehicle trips and that the proposed 30 parking spaces would be sufficient.

But multiple residents disputed aspects of the traffic analysis and raised concerns about narrow roads, tractor-trailer access, light pollution and impacts to small local businesses. “If I knew that Cumberland would want to develop so quickly … I wouldn’t have invested so much,” said one resident, who described blind curves and safety risks for farm equipment.

A board member (recorded on the transcript as speaking at SEG 1285–1366) raised a point of order, arguing the July hearing had been remanded to the Planning Commission rather than closed and that additional notice should have been sent if the hearing continued. After a short recess to check the minutes, another supervisor moved to table the matter until surrounding property owners receive proper notice; that motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.

The board did not vote on the rezoning itself. The matter will return to the board at a later date once staff determines whether additional notice is required and the applicant has satisfied any procedural steps the board directs.

What’s next: The board directed that notices be reviewed and that the rezoning be reconvened only after any required additional mailing to adjacent property owners. No timetable was announced at the meeting.