The State of Virginia requires cities to have a comprehensive plan, and according to state law: “The comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.”
The question is, how much of this plan, which is supposed to protect our best interests as citizens, was instead influenced by developers? City Council Member Roger Fawcett says developers built our city and that they did a great job. (See video at the end)
Did developers help write the draft of Suffolk’s new 2045 Comprehensive Plan, too? It reads like they did. It certainly reflects a change from a focus on Suffolk, its people, heritage, and communities from the previous plan, to a focus on development. Just look at the Introduction and the “Guiding Values”.
Below is a side-by-side comparison of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan passed in 2015 and currently in effect with the new draft set to be voted on this year. When passed it will take effect immediately (despite the 2045 year plastered on there. The 2026 plan passed in 2006 and then was replaced in 2015, so the plan years don’t really mean very much.)
2035 Comprehensive Plan
2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT
The title of the section stays the same, but the overall tone and the emphasis is different. In the 2035 plan, they acknowledged there are traffic issues with regard to roads and railroad lines. They have had 10 years to fix this situation (that is the point of these comprehensive plans, right?) and it has only gotten worse. In the 2045 plan draft, they just come out and say what we already see as our reality: if you continue to grow, you will continue to get traffic.
They use the term ‘economic’ twice in the paragraph that the title says is about ‘efficient transportation’, and now they are basically telling citizens they just have to deal with the traffic. Here I am a little confused, because I keep being told by city managers, the planning department, and many of the city council members that the ONLY way to improve our roads is to develop. Yet with all the development in the last decade, we have more congestion, our roads are less safe, and in the document that is all about future planning, their guiding value for traffic is just deal with it!?
And in case you thought the solution would include alternative forms of transportation, they removed the part about “pedestrian and bicycle connections are still needed throughout the City” and replaced it with improved walkability in new development. See, all these new developments they are building off of these narrow country roads will have sidewalks. Perfect! People can walk to their neighbor’s house safely, but no further, because most of these developments do not connect significantly with the day-to-day needs of the people, so they will still be driving everywhere. They are planning on improving the transit system, so I will give them kudos for that, but won’t hold my breath.
2035 Comprehensive Plan
2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT
In the 2035 plan and the previous 2026 plan, they only increased the growth area by small, incremental amounts. Their focus was still maintaining the distinct character throughout the city. I think since the passage of the 2035 plan, the city managers have fallen short of that by allowing huge warehouses in residential neighborhoods and by increasing the suburban sprawl into agricultural areas. In the 2045 plan, they talk about preserving them as a value, but the growth area is set to expand by about 25%. A drastic increase in development is the opposite of preserving. It is set up to bring in warehouses and logistic centers as well as continue to build large densely packed suburban neighborhoods in rural areas.
At the end they threw in the statement, “Maintaining this variety and enhancing valued place types will ensure both that community members can continue to enjoy the areas they love and that new development further improves upon these places.” In the last sentence, they actually took out the part about enjoying “beautiful landscapes that exist today” and added “new development further improves upon these places.” I really want the city managers to explain how more warehouses and logistic centers will further improve upon any area in Suffolk. These changes may seem small at first glance, but there is a dramatic shift from the people to development, which is of course in the best interest of developers.
2035 Comprehensive Plan
Promote a diverse housing stock, providing options in terms of type, location, and affordability. Changing trends in the housing market constantly support the case for providing housing options. Dense communities, attached single-family homes, and rental units are drawing consumer attention. Additionally, to maintain a competitive workforce across multiple industries and pay grades, variation within the housing stock is an asset.
2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT
The 2035 plan value on housing sounds great. Suffolk does need a variety of housing options and needs more affordable housing. The 2045 plan contains this as well, so no complaints there. However, the first highlighted statement fragment seems oddly specific and isn’t actually true.
“…including housing on smaller lots and with fewer maintenance needs, continue to be in demand locally and nationally…”
According to James Hughes, a land developer in Charleston, the smaller lots are actually designed to make “entitlement groups” (those that buy land speculatively, rezone it and sell lots to builders) the maximum amount of profits by squeezing the most number of lots they can into a plan. It has nothing to do with what consumers want, or what builders would build on. It is due to the greed of these entitlement groups, that this is what is available.
And that’s not to say there is anything wrong with houses on smaller lots. We need variety: small lots, medium lots, big lots, townhomes, condos, apartments, single family homes, etc.. However, the vast majority of the new construction of single family homes doesn’t actually offer variety. It offers small lots because the person rezoning the land wants to maximize his profit and the city managers allow it. Its addition to the new comp plan draft just sounds like a developer marketing talking point. Maybe that’s because I heard these same words come out of the developer’s representative during a rezoning hearing.
The 2045 plan mentions infill is important and I agree with that wholeheartedly. Infill development is building on unused and underutilized land. It is aimed at areas with existing transportation and utility infrastructure. It repurposes or replaces existing buildings, parking lots, or other impervious areas to add homes and/or businesses near the center of cities and towns. It is a sound planning principle that keeps development close to the city center. It is better for infrastructure costs and helps create economic opportunities for downtown areas.
However, this isn’t how most of the development in Suffolk has been happening in the last decade. The city managers have been happy to have developers gobble up large swaths of valuable farmland in rural areas for both warehouses and housing developments and continue the sprawl which is unhealthy for a city. With this new growth area, the sprawl will continue and there will be no real emphasis on infill. They say so themselves:
“Local and regional examples of new housing development that have been constructed since the last comprehensive plan was adopted provide models that can be instructive for the future.”
The city plans to continue to promote these practices and they are clear about it.
2035 Comprehensive Plan
Protect the natural, cultural, and historical assets of the City. During public meetings, residents emphasized the value of Suffolk’s natural assets. The rural open spaces, an undisturbed rural night sky, the character-defining waterways, and the Great Dismal Swamp are treasured in the community and contribute to the quality-of-life. These natural assets, as well as the cultural and historic ties to the Nansemond, the defining early years of America, and agricultural production, are a part of what Suffolk is today, and should be preserved for the enjoyment and enrichment of future residents.
2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT
These two values are very similar in each plan. I wish I could believe the last sentence. However, this paragraph takes on a new meaning when you look at it as a whole with respect to the guiding values, and in light of the statement below:
“The plan seeks to identify new opportunities to maintain the conservation of natural resources and agricultural areas outside the Growth Area.” (2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT, p. 25)
The city managers aren’t concerned with any conservation in the designated growth areas. This is a big deviation from previous comp plans. In fact, they even want to change anything in the existing growth areas that are still classified agricultural, rural conservation, or wetlands to the new land use types of Employment Center or Suburban Neighborhood. They are also expanding the growth area by nearly 25%. I guess if you move land into the new growth area and state you will only look to preserve these ‘natural assets’ outside that growth area, that makes the job of rezoning those lands for developers much easier.
2035 Comprehensive Plan
Maintain high-quality services and facilities as growth occurs. As growth occurs, existing services and facilities will require maintenance and expansion to accommodate future growth. Facilities and services should be located with current population centers and future growth in mind to ensure that they are accessible from and adequately serve target communities.
2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT
Maintain high-quality services and facilities as growth occurs. As growth occurs, existing services, such as public safety, and facilities will require maintenance and expansion. Facilities and services should be located within current population centers and with future growth in mind to ensure that they are accessible from and adequately serve communities. This includes the quality of schools and parks and their relationship to land use and development.
It is great that the city wants to make sure that we as citizens continue to have high-quality services even as we grow, but they haven’t actually done this. Our schools are overcrowded, traffic is horrendous, and our roads are unsafe. Our hospital can’t accommodate demand and we don’t have the required number of teachers or emergency responders that are needed. Citizens are fed up with the growth coming before services, because we suffer as a result. City Council knows this because the citizens have been very vocal about it, including during all the engagement sessions the planning department held for the new comprehensive plan last year.
Every five years or so, the city is required to evaluate the current comprehensive plan and then make changes as necessary. This guiding value should address the previous comprehensive plan’s failure to uphold that value, not simply double down and then ignore it. The changes the city managers are making to the new plan will actually exacerbate these problems, not relieve them.
2035 Comprehensive Plan
Preserve the agricultural heritage and character of the City. This plan continues the ideals of the Comprehensive Plan for 2026 regarding the preservation of agricultural land. The public strongly supported this value during the public meetings, as residents of rural villages and areas emphasized their love for the rural way of life and the general public voiced support of varied landscapes and rural natural assets. As adequate capacity exists within the vicinity of the identified Growth Areas in the central and northern parts of the City, the more rural southern portions of the City will be preserved for low-density agricultural uses.
2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT
Let’s start with that second point first:
“It focuses on the idea of providing choices to farmers and agricultural property owners that both encourages the preservation of the rural landscape, where desired, and provides them with flexibility.”
This is exactly the language used by developers during rezoning applications. The farmer’s property rights are sacrosanct to developers. It is the farmer’s land and he should be able to do what he wants with it.
The problem is, the farmer’s do not actually have the right to rezone their land. We wrote about this previously. They can request a rezoning, but it is up to City Council to decide and the public gets to express their concerns. It may be in my best financial interest to put a gas station on my residential lot, but it would negatively impact my neighbors who intentionally purchased their homes to be in a residential neighborhood. The traffic and noise alone would diminish their quality of life. What about their property rights? This is why it is not just up to every resident or land owner to decide what they want to put on their land.
The farmer is free to sell his land as agricultural land anytime he wants. And let’s be really honest here. If a farmer came up and said he wanted to rezone his hundred acres and build 300 new homes, the city wouldn’t let him. There is a reason the farmer has to sell to these “entitlement groups” we spoke of earlier. These people don’t own the land or build the houses, but they know how to get land rezoned and make a bunch of money off of it. None of this is about helping farmers. This is about making it easier for developers. Look at the new growth areas being proposed. The majority of the land in these areas is currently agricultural, much of it currently being farmed. Adding this language to the comprehensive plan makes it that much easier for a developer when he goes before City Council. Now he will be able to quote the Comprehensive Plan (keeping in mind the new plan is really just quoting developers.)
Now let’s talk about the business and market realities. The city managers say they want to preserve agricultural land BUT there are these vague realities of business and market forces that have to be acknowledged. It is as if the city managers don’t know that it is within their purview to keep development out of agricultural areas, if they chose to.This makes it sound like these development decisions are forces beyond the city’s control. They aren’t.
There is room to grow within the current growth area. That is where the city managers should be focusing growth. It might mean that the city has to say no to most of the warehouses that the Port of Virginia would like to see built in Suffolk. It might mean that the city has to tell developers to build housing within the current growth areas. This would actually be best for Suffolk. It would keep development where public services already exist and spur economic development back to the downtown area which needs it. It isn’t that we don’t want any warehouses here – we actually have many. It isn’t that we don’t want new houses built. We recognize the needs for more houses, particularly affordable houses. It means that continuing the sprawl away from downtown Suffolk isn’t good for downtown or for Suffolk as a whole. The city managers work for the citizens of Suffolk. They are supposed to make decisions based on what is best for us.
The developers and builders will build where they are allowed to build. City managers could and should do this in and around the downtown area. Instead, this new comprehensive plan is giving developers exactly what they want. Farmland is cheap (comparable to land already zoned for industrial or residential in the city), flat, and easy to build on. The “entitlement groups” can make way more money building on Suffolk’s prime agricultural land, so why would they make efforts to improve other areas of Suffolk if the city is happy to give them exactly what they want? This is yet another reason why this plan feels like it is more about the developers than the citizens.
2035 Comprehensive Plan
Keep jobs and schools near population centers. A positive mix of jobs, schools, housing, retail, and recreation is the definition of a vibrant city. Single-family homes on large lots promote suburban isolation. The City has made positive steps towards achieving the goal including establishing a framework for incorporating smart growth principles in school planning, which emphasizes working together to make schools the focal point of communities, and the adoption of a mixed use zoning ordinance which allows for jobs and housing to be mixed on the same lot. This plan furthers this goal by promoting mixed use areas in more areas of the City and focusing growth in target areas.
2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT
This Guiding Value did not have an equivalent in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT.
This particular guiding value from the 2035 plan did not have an equivalent in the new draft. It is unfortunate that the city managers chose to cut this section out. The principles of smart growth help make for healthier and safer cities. Smart Growth promotes growth inwards toward city centers and is in opposition to suburban sprawls. This section promotes community, keeping housing next to the places they go: schools, shops, restaurants, work, churches, parks, etc., but I guess that doesn’t really fit with the future sprawl that is in this plan.
2035 Comprehensive Plan
This Guiding Value did not have an equivalent in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.
2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT
If you had any doubts as to the reason behind the changes in the new draft, it is right here with this new guiding value. I want to start by saying that I think economic growth is important. I don’t think any reasonable person opposes having a strong city economy. However, you will notice that with this new draft, the focus is all on the edges of the growth area in the new land use category: Employment Center. The city managers in their wisdom have decided to call it ‘Employment Center’ when in reality, this is where the new warehouses and logistics centers will be built.
This is NOT the economic growth Suffolk needs. The city receives more tax revenue from commercial properties than they do industrial (which is the zoning that corresponds to this land use category). Additionally, modern warehouses and logistic centers have constant tractor trailer traffic which makes our roads less safe and causes a lot of wear-and-tear on our roads, which ultimately, the citizens will have to cover. They are noisy because trucks come and go at all hours and they pollute.
Look at the map of existing land use below and the accompanying growth area map. (Left Map) The dark purple of the current map is industrial and where warehouses and logistic centers can currently be built. Now look at the growth area map with the land use type Employment Center in light purple. (Right Map) The Employment Center areas in future Suffolk are about four times current industrial zoning. The difference is staggering.
The city is about to offer developers easy access to land to build even more warehouses. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the public has told the city during this comprehensive plan process. We already have many warehouses and the citizens are frustrated with the truck traffic, accidents, litter, noise, and pollution that come with it. Instead of the city managers listening to the citizens and limiting warehouse constructions, they are about to make the situation in Suffolk so much worse. This guiding value is all about helping developers build more warehouses. And note, this new guiding value is the only one that uses ‘MUST’ instead of ‘SHOULD’. This differs from the other values about conservation or maintaining high quality services for citizens – those are just ‘SHOULD’. This is a MUST. The push to have warehouses all over Suffolk is a ‘MUST’ for the betterment of the region. This has nothing to do with what is best for the City of Suffolk and its citizens.
Suffolk needs economic investment, but that won’t come with warehouse sprawl. Just like with infill housing, the city needs to focus on bringing commercial business to downtown. Commercial businesses in the form of shops, restaurants, professional offices, corner grocery stores, hi-tech businesses, etc. all bring needed tax dollars while keeping growth where there are already public services. Suffolk is accepting the low hanging fruit instead of doing the hard work of out-of-the box thinking on economic growth. Instead of creating a strong identity for Suffolk and marketing its character, history and beauty, they are offering up Suffolk’s one non-renewable resource – land!
2035 Comprehensive Plan
This Guiding Value did not have an equivalent in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.
2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT
Here is another example of the city managers adding a guiding value that was not here before. The 2035 plan did discuss in parts about Suffolk’s position in the Hampton Roads area. However, it was not the main focus or a guiding value. In this draft they want to make sure that it is clear that all of this is being done to ‘support and enhance’ regional plans. I can translate that for you: the city managers want to turn Suffolk into a dry port. It isn’t just the city managers who want this. The State of Virginia, the Port of Virginia, and all the developers that are about to make a lot of money building warehouses in Suffolk want this. A dry port is an inland location away from a port where all the cargo can be taken and sorted and then sent on its way. A dry port can be a great economic opportunity for a city or community that is economically depressed and is looking to turn old manufacturing locations into warehouses. This does not apply to Suffolk. We are overall economically sound. These warehouses will not be occupying abandoned manufacturing, they will be paving over some of the most fertile soil in Virginia. This will clog our roads, pollute our water, destroy our farmland all in the name of regionalism and to line the pockets of developers. This is Region first, Suffolk last!
I propose that instead, in the name of Regionalism, we give farmers the support they need to continue to provide Suffolk, and the Hampton Roads area, with the many crops they grow that provide us the food we eat and cotton for the clothes we wear. Additionally, I propose that in the name of Regionalism, we stop developing on the reservoirs which pollutes the drinking water of the people of Suffolk, Portsmouth and Norfolk. Let’s NOT expand the growth zone in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area so that we can continue to protect our waterways and the Chesapeake Bay, a regional treasure. All of this would be for the benefit of Suffolk residents as well as for the region.
If you think the last 10 years has seen a huge shift in Suffolk with the construction of enormous warehouses bringing lines of tractor trailers and huge densely pack housing developments on rural farm roads, and you don’t like the over-crowded schools, heavy traffic, and unsafe road conditions, you need to check out this new comprehensive plan, because it is about to get a whole lot worse.
City Council Member Roger Fawcett speaking at the Suffolk City Council Join Work Session with Suffolk School Board, December 6, 2023.
Mr. Fawcett credits the developers for building this city. He thinks they did a good job. I’m not sure citizens agree. I know I don’t. I don’t fault the developers. This is what they do and they are looking out for their own best interest. I blame the city managers and City Council members who continue to let the developers dictate how growth will happen in our city.
It is the city managers’ and City Council’s responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the citizens of Suffolk, not what is best for developers or the Port of Virginia. Even the State of Virginia says that this plan must be: “with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.” This new comprehensive plan is a shift in focus from citizens to developers. This is not what Suffolk wants or needs.
Call or email your City Council member and let them know what you think.
Let City Council know what you think about this new growth area: council@suffolkva.us
Michael D. Duman, Mayor
mayor@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-514-4009
Lue R. Ward, Jr., Vice Mayor
(Nansemond Borough)
nansemond@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-377-6929
Shelley Butler Barlow,
Council Member
(Chuckatuck Borough)
chuckatuck@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-346-8355
Leroy Bennett, Council Member
(Cypress Borough)
cypress@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-3750
Timothy J. Johnson, Council Member
(Holy Neck Borough)
holyneck@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-0556
Roger W. Fawcett, Council Member
(Sleepy Hole Borough)
sleepyhole@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-377-8641
John Rector, Council Member
(Suffolk Borough)
suffolk@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-1953
LeOtis Williams, Council Member
(Whaleyville Borough)
whaleyville@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-402-7100