Care4Suffolk

Chuckatuck Borough City Council Race

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 17:31:46 +0000

Care4Suffolk is a nonpartisan organization and does not endorse any candidate for any public office. We encourage voters to research the candidates for the upcoming local City Council Member elections. We have asked all candidates the same questions regarding land use and rezoning. These questions are based on the topics and issues from participating members. Below are the answers provided by the Cypress Borough City Council candidates, along with their image and website contact, if they chose to provide it.

Early voting begins Friday, September 18th and election day is Tuesday, November 3rd. Please go to the Virginia Department of Elections for any questions.

Note: Questionnaires were sent to all candidates. Mary Hill running for City Council Chuckatuck Borough did not provide a response.Chuckatuck

Chuckatuck Borough City Council Candidates

Shelley Butler Barlow

Website: ButlerBarlowforChuckatuck.com

PRIORITIES

What do you consider the top two issues/needs of the City? What do you think is the top issue/need for your borough? How do you plan to address these issues/needs?

Growth is a necessary part of a vital community but unmanaged growth creates unnecessary burdens on residents. Where council is able to address managed growth, this should be a top priority.

Closely related, the competition for land use among all potential uses needs to be carefully considered for the future of our city. I believe we can have thriving urban, suburban, rural and waterfront communities existing in harmony with good planning.

These are core issues for my borough and all of Suffolk. I hope to continue working with other council members that share my concerns to make the best possible land use decisions for our city.

HOT TOPICS

1. There is currently a temporary ban on data centers in Suffolk. It will likely be the 2027 Council that votes on changes to the UDO (Unified Development Ordinances) regarding data centers. What do you consider to be the biggest issues that the city will need to address regarding data centers and how can that be accomplished within the UDO framework?

2. Northern Suffolk has seen a tremendous amount of growth in the past two decades, and the 2045 Comprehensive Plan adopted by Council in 2024 has added additional density to the land use in that area. The City has created some additional capacity to Rt. 17 (Bridge Rd), but there is more growth coming. Plans to expand Bridge Rd are in the CIP, but any widening of Bridge Road must necessarily narrow at the two bridges on Bridge Rd. What will you do on Council to ensure that the City can widen those bridges to truly accommodate the increased traffic from development? If the bridges can’t (or won’t) be widened, how will you approach rezoning applications for projects that will increase density in northern Suffolk? What are your views on a replacement for the Kings Highway Bridge?

1. Staff is currently working on an ordinance regarding data centers that will likely take many features of our solar ordinance and adapt them for this new potential land use. Questions about water and energy use, noise, environmental impacts and of course impacts to neighboring properties will all have to be answered definitively before any ordinance is approved.

2. Traffic in Northern Suffolk is an ongoing issue, much of it created by vehicles just passing through. Improvements to 17 and its major intersections will hopefully help some. Widening the two bridges requires state and federal level funding, as does the Kings Highway Bridge – these are far beyond the funding capacity of the city. Suffolk’s best strategy is to continue to submit proposals at both the state and federal level and to emphasize the importance of these roadways in evacuation situations. Limiting growth and not approving increased densities through rezonings may be a consideration.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

City Council approved the Port 460 rezoning project back in 2022. It is now known that there are issues with public water to the site, stormwater management issues, and increased costs for road improvements which will be borne by taxpayers. The City is currently working on creating a fiscal impact tool that will be used for land use applications. How would you ensure that Council, staff, and the citizens have accurate information about infrastructure needs BEFORE a rezoning is approved, including long-term infrastructure and service costs that the City will incur from the development, to prevent situations like this from happening in the future?

Predicting every possible issue with any project is nearly impossible. Can the city do a better job anticipating fiscal impact? Yes. I stand by my record opposing the Port 460 project for many of the reasons you’ve listed – and I hope to influence other council members to carefully and thoroughly review all impacts, fiscal and otherwise, before approving any future large scale land use rezonings.

TRANSPARENCY

1. Currently, meetings for the following city boards are live streamed: City Council, City Council Work Session, Planning Commission, Suffolk Board of Zoning Appeals, Suffolk Wetlands Board, and Historic Landmark Commission. The Economic Development Authority (EDA) meetings are NOT live streamed, although it is the only Council-appointed Board that is allowed to purchase, own, and sell land. Should you be elected, would you commit to ensuring full transparency of the EDA Board by streaming these meetings to allow for more public oversight? Please explain your reasoning behind your answer.

2. How will you ensure greater transparency with citizens when making decisions on key issues such as rezonings, large developments, data centers, and major spending? If your vote does not align with a Council Member whose borough will be directly affected by a certain project/issue, will you commit to clearly explaining your reasoning and the factors that influenced your decision in such cases?

1. I certainly support transparency with all city boards, but would have to investigate if there are particular reasons for not streaming EDA meetings. There are always legal and procedural considerations when financial transactions are being discussed.

2. All City Council meetings and agendas are available to the public. Some of the burden to stay informed falls to our citizens and I applaud Care4Suffolk for being proactive in staying very actively engaged. I try to make myself as available as possible to residents of my borough and all of Suffolk if there are issues people want to discuss. Council members try to communicate on major issues and especially with the member who’s borough is most affected. In my time on council, I have never hesitated to express my feelings and add my voice to deliberations where I felt I had good information to share. I will continue to stand up for our citizens in making good choices and will work with council and staff to this end, to the best of my ability.

Cypress Borough City Council Race

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 17:31:32 +0000

Care4Suffolk is a nonpartisan organization and does not endorse any candidate for any public office. We encourage voters to research the candidates for the upcoming local City Council Member elections. We have asked all candidates the same questions regarding land use and rezoning. These questions are based on the topics and issues from participating members. Below are the answers provided by the Suffolk Borough City Council candidates, along with their image and website contact, if they chose to provide it.

Early voting begins Friday, September 18th and election day is Tuesday, November 3rd. Please go to the Virginia Department of Elections for any questions.

Cypress Borough City Council Candidates

Leroy Bennett

Website: BennettforSuffolk.com

Will Smith

Website: WillSmithforSuffolk.com

PRIORITIES

What do you consider the top two issues/needs of the City? What do you think is the top issue/need for your borough? How do you plan to address these issues/needs?

Leroy Bennett

The City’s top two needs are managing growth according to our infrastructure capacity and protecting essential services, including public safety and schools.

Responsible growth requires infrastructure planning before development is approved. The roads, schools, utilities, drainage systems, and public safety services needed to support a project must be identified from the beginning. Necessary infrastructure must already exist, be fully funded, or be secured through enforceable developer commitments. Occupancy should not outpace the infrastructure and services required to support it.

The most immediate need in the Cypress Borough is transportation infrastructure. Residents continue to experience congestion, truck traffic, railroad crossing problems, and the effects of development on roads not designed for current traffic levels. I have advocated for additional truck enforcement on Shoulders Hill Road and Nansemond Parkway and worked to address railroad crossing conditions.

My record reflects my willingness to oppose major growth decisions when I am not satisfied that Suffolk’s long term interests are adequately protected. I voted against the Port 460 rezoning and the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. Although both measures moved forward, those votes demonstrate that my concerns about growth, infrastructure, and taxpayer exposure are reflected in my established record.

I recognize that Suffolk has not consistently met the infrastructure standard I have outlined. Some projects I supported based on the information presented at the time should, in hindsight, have received greater scrutiny or stronger conditions. I accept responsibility for my votes. Those experiences are why I have advocated for a fiscal impact analysis tool and more complete infrastructure information before Council acts.

I understand why residents may ask why more was not accomplished earlier. On many significant land use matters, the voting pattern was five to three. Three members could raise concerns and advocate for residents, but three votes could not stop a proposal or establish a different policy. That does not relieve me of responsibility, nor do I offer it as an excuse. It explains why Council composition affects results.

The more recent four to four composition has changed what is possible. The former VDOT site proposal demonstrated why that matters. I listened closely to residents, examined the concerns, and ensured that the community’s voice was fully represented at the dais. When the matter came before Council, sufficient members shared those concerns and the proposal was denied.

Public scrutiny, resident engagement, and Council attention also ensured that concerns about a recent proposed Shoulders Hill storage facility received serious consideration before the applicant withdrew it.

An effective Council needs both new perspectives and institutional knowledge. We have recently moved from three members who could raise concerns but were frequently outvoted to four members capable of stopping a proposal that lacks sufficient support. What we really need is an additional member who shares concerns about infrastructure, transparency, and developer accountability who could help move those priorities from opposition into policy. Change should be evaluated by the direction it moves Suffolk, not simply by how new it appears.

Will Smith

Two of Suffolk’s biggest needs are making sure our infrastructure and city services keep pace with growth and keeping Suffolk affordable for the people who already call it home.

In the Cypress Borough, traffic and infrastructure are at the top of that list. Cypress is the gateway to Suffolk, with residents and commuters traveling through the borough to Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, and other parts of the region. Because of that, Cypress deserves its fair share of attention and investment in roads, drainage, public safety, and other infrastructure. Suffolk, and specifically the Cypress Borough do not look the same as it did 30 years ago, and the way we plan has to evolve with it.

I would look closely at the infrastructure impact of projects, support responsible budgeting, and work to secure state, federal, and regional funding for needs that should not fall entirely on Suffolk taxpayers. Growth should improve our quality of life, not
outpace it.

HOT TOPICS

Leroy Bennett

1. I supported the temporary halt on data center applications because Suffolk must establish strong protections before any applications are considered. Based on the information currently available, I am not persuaded that data centers provide enough value to justify their electricity demand, water usage, infrastructure requirements, environmental effects, and potential costs to residents.

The burden of proof should rest with the industry. Projected tax revenue and broad claims of economic development are not enough. The data would have to demonstrate a substantial net benefit to Suffolk, meaningful permanent employment, protection for residential utility customers, sufficient grid and water capacity, enforceable environmental safeguards, and full developer responsibility for infrastructure and decommissioning costs.

Without compelling evidence that overcomes these concerns, I support prohibiting data centers in Suffolk to the fullest extent permitted by law.

If data centers are not prohibited, they should never be permitted by right. The UDO should require individual legislative review, extensive public notice, meaningful setbacks, enforceable noise limits, environmental protections, independent technical analysis, and financial assurances. Each application should disclose its electricity and water consumption, infrastructure requirements, emergency response demands, permanent employment, environmental effects, and decommissioning plan.

Suffolk must also defend its local authority. The General Assembly has enacted requirements affecting energy development and considered other proposals that could restrict local land use authority. Proposals that did not pass may return in a future session. When the state restricts local authority, it also restricts the ability of Council members to advocate for their residents.

The next Council will make consequential decisions about data centers, so residents should examine every candidate’s employment, financial interests, public positions, and ability to exercise independent judgment. My opponent is employed by the energy industry, whose business includes serving large energy users such as data centers. Employment alone does not determine how he would vote, but the relationship is relevant and deserves transparency.

My position is established. I voted for the temporary halt on data center applications. Without compelling evidence that overcomes the risks to Suffolk, I support prohibiting them to the fullest extent permitted by law.

2. Bridge Road must be treated as one coordinated transportation priority. I will continue advocating for regional, state, and federal funding, reliable engineering and cost information, and appropriate developer contributions toward the improvements their projects make necessary.

Adding roadway capacity without addressing the two bridge bottlenecks will not provide the relief residents need. If widening those bridges is not feasible within a reasonable period, Council must account for that limitation when considering additional density.

Rezoning decisions should be based on existing and funded infrastructure, not improvements that are merely anticipated. When roads, bridges, schools, utilities, and emergency services cannot accommodate additional development, I am prepared to vote no, require reduced density, or defer consideration until a reliable solution is identified.

I support a safe and dependable replacement for the Kings Highway Bridge. The City must evaluate cost, environmental consequences, agricultural preservation, emergency access, traffic patterns, and effects on surrounding communities. Residents must be included before an alternative is selected. A replacement should meet a demonstrated transportation need and should not primarily be used to justify additional development.

Will Smith

1. The biggest issues are location, infrastructure capacity, neighborhood and environmental impacts, and making sure the long term benefits justify the demands placed on the city. Suffolk is still determining what responsible data center development should look like and that’s why the UDO review is important. When the UDO is revisited, it should set clear standards for where data centers may or may not be appropriate and what protections must be in place. That gives residents, developers, staff, and council a consistent framework for evaluating future proposals while protecting Suffolk’s quality of life.

2. Northern Suffolk is outside of the Cypress borough, but decisions made there affect the entire
city. I would start by listening closely to the council member representing that area, and most importantly, the residents who experience that traffic everyday. If the infrastructure cannot reasonably support additional density, that would weigh heavily in my consideration. I would also review the engineering, costs, funding options, and what is realistically achievable before committing to a particular solution.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Leroy Bennett

I voted against the Port 460 rezoning. The issues that later emerged involving public water, stormwater management, and increased road improvement costs reinforce why major development proposals require complete financial and infrastructure analysis before approval.

I have advocated for the development and use of a formal fiscal impact analysis tool. The tool should give Council, staff, and citizens a consistent method for evaluating the full financial effect of a proposed development before a vote.

The analysis must examine more than projected tax revenue. It should calculate anticipated costs for roads, schools, water and sewer capacity, stormwater management, police, fire and emergency response, public facilities, maintenance, debt service, and future infrastructure replacement. It should distinguish temporary construction revenue from recurring revenue, identify which costs will be paid by the developer, evaluate cumulative impacts from other approved developments, and be available to Council and the public before the hearing.

Developers should not receive the benefits of a project while transferring its costs to taxpayers. Within the limits of Virginia law, applicants should provide lawful voluntary proffers or other enforceable commitments that reasonably address the impacts their projects create.

The current Council composition has created greater pressure for applicants to present stronger proposals and accept greater responsibility. If an applicant’s commitments are inadequate, Council should require improvement, reduce the project’s intensity, defer the application, or vote no.

My vote against Port 460 reflects the standard I continue to advocate. When information is incomplete, infrastructure concerns remain unresolved, or taxpayers may be left carrying unidentified costs, Council should not approve the project.

Will Smith

The city already provides staff reports and supporting information through the public meeting process. I support building on that by making sure the fiscal impact tool gives Council and residents a clearer picture of the long term infrastructure and service costs associated with major land use decisions. I also believe Council members should help keep residents informed, encourage them to participate or follow the council meetings virtually, and ask the tough questions on their behalf. The goal is to make decisions with the best information available and avoid surprises that later fall on taxpayers.

TRANSPARENCY

Leroy Bennett

1. Yes. I support livestreaming and archiving open meetings of the Economic Development Authority, subject to closed session exceptions permitted by Virginia law.

The EDA can purchase, own, transfer, and sell property and participate in agreements involving substantial public resources. Citizens should be able to observe its open discussions, presentations, and votes without having to attend a daytime meeting in person.

Agendas and supporting materials should be posted in advance whenever legally permissible, and recordings should remain publicly available. Greater transparency strengthens public confidence and helps citizens understand how economic development decisions are made.

2. Transparency must begin before the final public hearing. Citizens should receive earlier notice, plain language explanations, accessible community meetings, and sufficient time to review traffic, environmental, utility, and fiscal impact information. Developer commitments and potential taxpayer obligations should also be clearly identified.

Council has not always voted consistently with the recommendation of the representative whose borough would be most directly affected. Over the past two years, Council has given greater consideration to that representative’s position. I believe that is the right direction because the borough representative generally has the closest understanding of the area’s residents, infrastructure, history, and community concerns.

I will give considerable weight to that representative’s recommendation. A significant citywide concern, legal obligation, public safety issue, or financial consequence may require a different vote. If I vote differently, I will publicly explain the specific reason. Unless a substantial citywide consideration requires otherwise, I believe the affected borough representative is the best advocate for that community.

Transparency must also extend to campaign contributions, endorsements, employment, and other relationships that citizens may consider when evaluating independence.

Care4Suffolk’s own records provide an objective measure of my decisions. According to the campaign finance information Care4Suffolk published, Council Member Shelley Butler Barlow received far fewer contributions from individuals associated with development than I did. Yet, based on the voting record Care4Suffolk published on July 1, our overall scores on the matters the organization selected were the same.

That comparison demonstrates that receiving a lawful campaign contribution does not mean I am beholden to the contributor or that the contributor has secured my vote. Council Member Butler Barlow and I may not have voted identically on every item, but despite the difference in contributions, our overall scores were the same. My voting record shows that I evaluate each matter independently and that no contribution guarantees my agreement, support, or vote.

The same standard should apply to every candidate. A contribution from a state official does not establish how someone will vote. However, contributions, employment, endorsements, public positions, prior service, and Council relationships remain relevant when a candidate has no Council voting record for residents to examine.

At a time when Council must address data centers, major rezonings, infrastructure demands, and possible restrictions on local authority, residents should consider the practical effect of changing this seat. The question is whether that change will strengthen or weaken the votes available to protect their priorities.

My record is not perfect, and I will not claim that every decision I made was, in hindsight, the best one. But every decision was made to the best of my ability, with the interests of the people I serve at the forefront. Residents can examine my record, evaluate my results, and hold me accountable for both.

Will Smith

1. I support transparency and public access. I would want to understand the EDA’s current practices and any legal or practical considerations involved in livestreaming its meetings, before making a commitment. If there is a practical way to expand public access while respecting legal requirements and the board’s responsibilities, I would support expanding access.

2. I believe transparency is more than posting an agenda online. Residents should receive information in a timely way and have meaningful opportunities to stay informed before major decisions are made. I would make it a priority to engage residents directly and keep them updated through multiple channels, not just social media, especially on rezonings, large developments, data centers, and major spending.

I also plan to maintain an open line of communication with my colleagues on Council. I would listen closely to the member representing the borough most directly affected, while still receiving each issue on its own merits. On major or controversial decisions, especially when my vote differs from the affected borough’s representative, I would be willing to explain the reasoning behind my decision.

Suffolk Borough City Council Race

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 15:51:42 +0000

Care4Suffolk is a nonpartisan organization and does not endorse any candidate for any public office. We encourage voters to research the candidates for the upcoming local City Council Member elections. We have asked all candidates the same questions regarding land use and rezoning. These questions are based on the topics and issues from participating members. Below are the answers provided by the Suffolk Borough City Council candidates, along with their image and website contact, if they chose to provide it.

Early voting begins Friday, September 18th and election day is Tuesday, November 3rd. Please go to the Virginia Department of Elections for any questions.

Note: Questionnaires were sent to all candidates. Current School Board Member Tyron Riddick, running for City Council Suffolk Borough did not provide a response.

Suffolk Borough City Council Candidates

Dwight James

Website: SuffolkCityCouncil.com

John Rector

Website: JohnforSuffolk.com

PRIORITIES

What do you consider the top two issues/needs of the City? What do you think is the top issue/need for your borough? How do you plan to address these issues/needs?

Dwight James

My top two priorities are bringing infrastructure up to the needs of our residents and restoring accountability in how Suffolk grows and spends taxpayer money. Roads, schools, drainage, and public safety must be central to development decisions. Every approval should answer a basic question: Can we support this growth without lowering the quality of life for the people already here?

For the Suffolk Borough, my highest priority is reinvesting in existing neighborhoods. That includes school facilities, safer streets and sidewalks, drainage, and a downtown where local businesses can succeed.

I would use the budget and capital improvement process to push for projects ranked by condition, safety, and community need, with public timelines and progress reports. I would also support clearer permitting procedures and responsible investment that protects farm lands. Our residents deserve to see their needs reflected in where their money goes.

John Rector

The top issues facing Suffolk today is number one how to we preserve our agricultural heritage during this time that we are the place where everyone wants to live. The second issue, facing my borough at least, is how to maintain and stabilize the core downtown. To address issue number one above, I fully supported the creation of the Agricultural Committee and the hiring of an Agriculture Specialist to help promote the many opportunities to expand our agribusiness/agritourism. I will continue to oppose most solar farm applications as I have stated many times in the past that solar is a poor swap for good agricultural land. I will also continue to promote the growth in those areas that are within the comprehensive plan.

For priority number two. I will continue to support the newly formed Downtown Advisory Committee and the new Downtown Coordinator. This group has been busy updating the Downtown Master Plan to reflect current trends in downtown revitalization efforts. We have established an Arts & Cultural district downtown and are forming a nonprofit group to be able to take advantage of outside grant opportunities. I will continue to work with the City Manager to explore ways to make it easier for a business to locate in Suffolk by making the permitting process easier to follow and understand.

HOT TOPICS

Dwight James

1. I do not support data centers in Suffolk. My priority is protecting our neighborhoods, farm lands, water resources, and residents’ quality of life. Promised tax revenue does not outweigh my concerns about electricity and water demand, constant equipment noise, and infrastructure costs.

I would oppose UDO changes that allow data centers and work with the city attorney to pursue the strongest legally defensible restrictions, including a prohibition wherever permitted by law.

Suffolk should focus on development that meets community needs, supports local businesses, and creates lasting opportunities without placing additional burdens on residents. Data centers are not the direction I want for our city.

2. Widening a road without addressing its bridge bottlenecks does not solve the entire problem. I would push for a coordinated corridor plan that evaluates the bridges, intersections, evacuation needs, and traffic from developments already approved but not yet built.

I would work with regional transportation partners, VDOT, and our state and federal representatives to pursue funding. Residents should receive clear information about feasibility, costs, funding gaps, and realistic construction schedules. A project appearing in the CIP is not enough; we need to know how it will be delivered.

If the bridges cannot be widened and no credible alternative can accommodate additional traffic, I would oppose rezonings that add density beyond the corridor’s capacity. Lower density or phased development should be considered only when supported by reliable analysis and enforceable conditions.

I support pursuing a replacement for Kings Highway Bridge, subject to a transparent funding and environmental review. It should improve connections for existing residents, without becoming an excuse to approve more growth than surrounding roads can support.

John Rector

1. I made the motion to direct the Planning Commission to draft an ordinance putting a moratorium on all applications for data centers. I did this because there is not enough known about these centers and there is not any language in the U.D.O. that specifically addresses data centers. We learned from our experiences with solar farms that there were issues involved with them that were not contemplated or expected. After careful review, we will work on an ordinance that closely aligns with what will work best for the citizens of Suffolk. Unfortunately, in our modern world, data centers are needed but they should not come to Suffolk at the expense of our citizens in the form of higher utility cost.

2. Northern Suffolk has obviously seen most of our explosive growth. Along with our own growth, Isle of Wight has also seen significant growth on their end of Route 17. That is why I attend regular meetings with our neighboring cities as the expansion of the bridges is going to be a major undertaking which translates into major cost. We are part of the region, and we will need state and Federal money to assist us with these efforts.

As far as growth in those areas is concerned any rezoning in the Hobson/Eclipse peninsula area would have to be of such a nature and density that it would not contribute to what is already a problem. That area of Suffolk along the river and creeks is some of our most valuable areas and needs to be preserved for what it is.

I support the kings Highway bridge replacement plan but obviously money and how to get it done are significant hurdles to overcome. The last estimate that I saw put the cost at about $186 million, but the council needs to work hard to make it happen.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Dwight James

Taxpayers should know what a development will cost before Council approves it. I would push for a public infrastructure and fiscal impact report before major rezoning votes, with enough time for residents to review it.

That report should evaluate roads, bridges, water, sewer, drainage, schools, and emergency services. It must account for existing demands and projects already approved. A development cannot be evaluated as though it is the only project coming.

The fiscal tool should show construction costs, ongoing staffing and maintenance, eventual replacement costs, and projected revenues over time. It should also show what happens if costs rise or revenues fall short.

For major or complex applications, I would support independent technical review. Funding responsibilities and improvement schedules should be documented through lawful, enforceable arrangements.

If essential information is missing, I would seek a deferral. If the evidence shows unresolved impacts or unacceptable taxpayer exposure, I would vote no. A fiscal tool only helps if Council is willing to act on its findings.

John Rector

I would encourage the use of a unified city approved fiscal impact analysis tool for use by all of the developers. This would provide more transparency and consistency for the information provided. When projects get approved and they are multiyear projects in terms of implementation, costs are almost impossible to determine in the future and there are always issues that arise that were just not contemplated or expected. This happens with virtually all projects. The poster child for this is the cost escalations associated with the replacement of the JFK Middle School.

TRANSPARENCY

Dwight James

1. Yes. I would support and advocate for livestreaming and archiving the public portions of EDA meetings, along with timely access to agendas, supporting materials, minutes, and recorded votes.

An authority making decisions involving land and economic development should be easy for residents to follow. Working families should not have to attend an afternoon meeting in person to understand decisions affecting their city.

Some matters may qualify for legally permitted closed sessions, but those exceptions should remain narrow and properly explained. They should not prevent the public from seeing the open portions of meetings and understanding final actions.

As one Council member, I cannot promise a policy change by myself. I can commit to bringing the proposal forward, building support, and publicly reporting its progress.

2. Residents should have a meaningful opportunity to influence decisions before the vote. I would advocate for earlier public notice, plain language project summaries, accessible maps, and publication of traffic studies, fiscal analyses, and infrastructure findings before hearings.

For major proposals, I would support community meetings while changes are still possible. When significant new information arrives late, I would seek additional review time instead of expecting residents to respond immediately.

Yes, I will explain my reasoning when my vote differs from the Council member whose borough is directly affected. I would first listen carefully to that representative and the affected residents, then explain the evidence, costs, community impacts, and citywide responsibilities behind my decision.

I will explain my major votes whether Council agrees or disagrees. Residents should never have to guess whose interests I considered or why I made a decision.

John Rector

1. I do not have strong feelings one way or the other about televising EDA meetings. Having attended a number of EDA meetings since being elected to Council, there is rarely more than one or two folks that attend not that attendance should be the only gage. The nature of their discussions lend themselves more to the meeting space that is provided in the council conference room in that there are collaborative discussions among the members. The other boards and commissions that are televised often have citizens and other groups appearing before them that make the council chamber a very logical choice to hold those meetings and have them televised. If the EDA chose to move to the council chamber or other arrangements could be made to televise their meetings I would support those efforts.

2. Every land use decision that comes before the council is unique and my vote is not dictated by any vote that I may have taken on a similar item. As a council member we are sworn to act in a manner that we feel will be to the benefit and contribute to the future prosperity of the city as a whole. This sometimes means that I must part with the planning staff, the Planning Commission, and also the council person who’s borough the issue lies. If it were not like this, then the up or down vote of any issue would lie solely with the council person for that borough. I feel that I have done as a good a job as I can to explain why I may be voting a particular way. There are always some who oppose almost every issue for a variety of reasons, just as there are those who speak in support of any issue. Each council person though must vote unless compelled to recuse so I feel that we should explain to the best of ability why we are voting the way we do.

Public Kept Out, While Developer Welcomed

Eryn Siegel — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 15:05:42 +0000

Why did the public get kicked out of the EDA meeting while a developer and his staff went into the closed session? This is my question, but let me back this up a little to explain why this is such an important question…

The Economic Development Authority (EDA) is a state-required, Council-appointed Board in the City of Suffolk. The EDA Board meets once per month on the second Wednesday of the month at 4pm at City Hall. Aside from the City itself, and the School Board which runs under its own elected representation, the EDA Board is the only City Board that is permitted to buy, own, and sell land.

I try to attend as many meetings as my schedule permits, but sometimes it isn’t possible and despite the nature of this Board, with it being able to buy and sell land, and its ability to give out large grants, the EDA Board is NOT streamed, unlike many other city boards. If a member of the public can’t make it, they are left reading the meeting minutes after the fact. There are definitely things one learns being at the meeting that are NOT captured by the minutes.

I wasn’t able to attend this past August 12, 2026 EDA meeting, but I know someone that did. This person was even kind enough to take video during the meeting which I will share in this article. I also learned from this person that a well known developer named Bob Arnette and a former City Council member, Don Goldberg, attended this meeting as well.

Mr. Arnette is a residential developer who is the owner of Coastal Virginia Developers. Some of his projects include the Lake Kilby rezoning in 2023 and the Manning Road rezoning from earlier this year. Care4Suffolk opposed both of these projects based on overcrowded schools and insufficient roads. Both projects were approved despite significant citizen opposition.

You might think, as I did, that the Economic Development Authority wouldn’t have much to do with residential development. After all, below is its purpose based on Virginia State code:

It speaks of industry, manufacturing, government, nonprofit, commercial enterprises as well as conservation and protection of natural resources. That is a pretty thorough list with one glaring exception – it doesn’t mention residential.

For some reason, the Suffolk EDA under the direction of City Manager Kevin Hughes has been very involved in residential development, despite the purpose of the EDA clearly having nothing to do with residential development. Examples of the Suffolk EDA involvement include: Obici Place, the Pointe at Harbour View, and more recently the failed Riversbend Project.

EDA meetings are open to the public and sometimes business owners, especially if they have been or would like to be the recipient of a grant, will come to the meetings. The concerning part of this is not that a developer and his associates were at the meeting, but rather they were permitted into the closed meeting, while citizens were asked to leave.

In the state code it is clear that there are certain uses for a closed session, or closed meeting, and in this August 12, 2026 EDA meeting, the DRAFT minutes state that the reason given is:

“A discussion or consideration of acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of the disposition of publicly held real property where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the Authority.” It also states that this is all in reference to Project Flood at “Suffolk Industrial Park”.

The EDA thought that allowing the public into this closed session would hurt the EDA’s bargaining position or negotiating strategy. I could understand that IF they hadn’t just allowed the developer and his associates in there while kicking the public out. Who else is the EDA negotiating with in this Project Flood if it isn’t Bob Arnette’s company? How does this make any sense?

If the EDA wanted to have the developer there to present information, fine, but then why were members of the public requested to leave during this portion? In fact, Mr. Goldberg was overheard saying to Mr. Arnette while entering the room, “Do you have the thumb drive?”

The business of the EDA is SUPPOSED TO BE OPEN TO PUBLIC INSPECTION. The EDA is not a business that can keep its plans private. The EDA is a government body subject to the Freedom of Information Act of 1967. By law, their business HAS to be open to the public except in very limited circumstances. They quote one of these allowed reasons, but that reason absolutely does not hold in this case. You can’t argue that the public can’t know because it might hurt the EDA’s bargaining position at the same time that the EDA has invited to the table, the very people with whom they are bargaining.

If you don’t believe me that there is something wrong with this, listen to the words from an EDA Board member who has his own concerns. The video below is a video taken by a member of the public during the meeting, before the closed session.

The speaker is Will Webb, an EDA Board member, and he also happens to be a lawyer. He is speaking BEFORE the closed meeting even came up. He is talking about previous closed sessions, multiple previous closed sessions, in which he believes these exemptions were used improperly. He mentions that he has even brought this issue before the Board previously. Here is a quote from Will Webb:

“…I have a couple of concerns. At that meeting [in July] we invoked Virginia Code § 2.2-3711.A3 to go into closed discussion. However, looking back at that, that invocation, in my opinion, was likely improper and no closed session should have been called. That specific exemption is strictly intended for situations where ‘discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body.’ In our discussion, in my opinion there simply was no bargaining or negotiating strategy at play there.”

Mr. Webb goes on to say that, “Far too often, we go into closed sessions and receive briefings on items that are not closely enough related to the exemption we stated in the motion.”

He then cautions the EDA body to make sure that they are careful with their use of the exemptions. He went on to say that Suffolk has had three cases go to Virginia Supreme Court regarding FOIA and the result is that the city, or the board members, ended up coming out on the losing side of those rulings. He states, “The court has actually admonished [other city boards] in the past for their FOIA violations.” He then reiterated the need for the EDA to be cautious with the exemption to make sure it is following what the Virginia code allows.

Keep in mind, this statement by Mr. Webb happened BEFORE the EDA went into the closed session.

The Board hears Mr. Webb and then proceeds on to their next agenda item, which is the closed meeting for Project Flood. At this point, the public was asked to leave (to preserve the Board’s bargaining position,) but the EDA allowed a developer and his associate into this closed session (the very people with whom the Board will be negotiating.)

I was not there and can’t know what Board Members were thinking, but the record shows that Mr. Webb, who earlier in the meeting expressed concerns about misuse of exceptions, voted against certifying the Closed Meeting.

I have no real information about Project Flood, other than its being mentioned with “Suffolk Industrial Park”. Since it was a closed session, I also can’t get any information through a FOIA request, as the exemption prohibits public access. Below is what I found using google maps and the City’s property search website:

The purple rectangle is the approximate location of the Suffolk Industrial Park on Carolina Road. The yellow circle is land that is owned by the EDA. The red circle is land that is owned by Bob Arnette at Virginia Coastal Developers. This land owned by the developer was rezoned 2024 under the residential development named Parkwood to residential urban density, for a maximum of 235 townhome or multi-family units.

How does all this tie together? Honestly, I’m not sure. The item was referred to as Project Flood – is Mr. Arnette having storm water problems? At the Planning Commission Meeting on March 19, 2024, when there was a public hearing for the rezoning of Mr. Arnette’s property, neighbors expressed concerns for the rezoning, including flooding issues.

The EDA owns land across the street from the developer. How do these connect? I don’t know. I could be completely wrong about which parcels are even being discussed. I also don’t know if Project Flood is the EDA selling land to the developer, buying land from the developer, or some other type of deal like in the Riversbend Project, which failed to pass City Council, but which originally included the EDA allowing a developer (Ryan Homes) to use EDA land indefinitely – for free.

I don’t have any more information to share with you BECAUSE the EDA put this exchange behind in a closed meeting. The question is, was the EDA Board going into this closed meeting, specifically going into the closed meeting with the developers that it was negotiating with, consistent with FOIA law? That closed session was supposed to allow for free discussion among Board members, and maybe city staff, to discuss bargaining strategies. Instead, that closed session served to remove the public from the talks between the Board and the developers. That is NOT what these FOIA exemptions were designed for. From Mr. Webb’s speech to the Board, it doesn’t sound like this was the first time the closed session was used for this purpose (keeping the public unaware). I doubt it will be the last.

The State of the City is NOT for Citizens

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 18 May 2026 21:08:50 +0000

Suffolk’s annual “State of the City” event is happening tomorrow (May 19, 2026)

Have any of you ever attended this event?

No? That’s probably because it is NOT an event that is done for the citizens of Suffolk. It is a regional series that cities participate in at the behest of the Hampton Roads Chamber (HRC). Yes, city staff get paid with our tax dollars to prepare for it every May at the Hilton, creating special videos and slideshows for the mayor to present, but it seems that the event always sells out well before the city even makes any announcement about it. The seats go to elected officials from around Hampton Roads, regional organization members, some locally appointed folks (like EDA, planning commissioners, etc.), and business leaders.

Each city takes turns trying really hard to brag about its economic accomplishments and impress the HRC. This is a win for the HRC because initiating this event series is a big flex for them in perpetuating their own importance. So the point of the “State of the City” is not to inform local citizens of what is going on, it is really to promote the HRC, which itself is very much about promoting regionalism. As the HRC president, Bryan Stephens, said last year in Suffolk when acknowledging the mayors from the other cities: their presence was “ a nod to regionalism.”

Since Suffolk is paying staff to help organize this event, citizens should probably know a little about some of the agenda that HRC president, Bryan Stephens, has for the region (and megaregion!) –especially in light of our warehouse proliferation and all the data center talk lately.

The Port of Virginia is a “strategic partner” of the HRC, with its CEO getting special recognition from Mr. Stephens at last year’s Suffolk State of the City. The HRC’s key Legislative Priorities includes “continued investment in business and transportation networks that support the expansion of the Port of Virginia.” This may sound nice, but we now know that this means moving westward into Suffolk’s prime farmland with giant warehouses and extra traffic congestion. And neither these regional organizations nor the port care about the blight on our landscapes or the community tensions this causes – prioritizing the port over actual people.

Mr. Stephens is also on the executive committee for a “non-profit” called RVA757Connects, which advocates for data centers and for a Hampton Roads-to-Richmond megaregion and “Global Internet Hub” (GIH). In fact, Mr. Stephens is the co-chairman of RVA757’s “Megaregion Institutional Council (MIC)” and is on their GIH steering committee. There are many other UNELECTED representatives from Hampton Roads regional organizations involved with this as well.

RVA757 Connects Board Members link

GIH steering committee link

It is interesting that Mr. Stephens and these other UNELECTED regional organizations think that their influence has been so successful in Hampton Roads that they want to create a “megaregion.” These are some of the same people under whose “watch” we have seen an “outmigration” of people from Hampton Roads. A study was just commissioned a couple years ago to figure out why Hampton Roads this is happening (a real head-scratcher!)

We also have billions of dollars in “unfunded needs” for our roads and our regional planners have been pushing for a sales tax increase just for our region to fund this shortfall. Mr. Stephens endorsed this tax increase last year.

As if there aren’t already enough overlapping Hampton Roads regional organizations that can’t seem to keep people here or keep up with infrastructure, the “thought-leaders” that represent some of them believe that creating yet another group involving the same people is the way to truly make a difference; it’s called the Regional Organization Presidents Committee (ROPC).

Mr. Stephens wrote a passionate column in the Virginia Pilot last year about this brilliant new committee. He claimed that we need a smaller, more exclusive group of just these regional organizations’ presidents to focus on “collaboration, advocacy and strategic initiatives that move our region forward.”

But isn’t that already the purpose of each group? And how does excluding people increase collaboration?

Mr. Stephens assures us that the ROPC won’t be “yet another organization.” Shockingly, though, it sounds like the key difference with ROPC is that it’s specifically intended to operate behind closed doors!

According to a May 2024 WHRO article about the ROPC:

“The ROPC doesn’t have any funding or employees. The only people in the closed-door monthly meetings are the top executives from each member organization – only decisionmakers allowed, no second-in-commands. The group doesn’t answer to anyone.”

What a relief! We wouldn’t want influential people to waste their time answering to anyone!

The same article quotes Mr. Stephens as saying:

“What we said is ‘What goes on in this conference room stays in this conference room.’ And so we talked about issues, we talked about regional leaders that were or were not doing what we thought they should be doing. And we made an informal pact that it would stay in the room.”

Sounds like a real regionalism fight club!

In his column, Mr. Stephens confirmed ROPC’s involvement in RVA757Connects: “Through this unified front, the ROPC seeks to advocate for the region as a whole. Whether it’s influencing legislation, championing key initiatives, or ensuring alignment among stakeholders, its influence is felt across the region. Additionally, the ROPC serves as the Megaregion Institutional Council (MIC) working with RVA757 Connects and its mission to advance economic prosperity for everyone in the Richmond and Hampton Roads regions igniting the I-64 Innovation Corridor Megaregion.“

(Just so people know, the president of RVA757Connects did give a presentation to Suffolk City Council back in the summer of 2023. His exaggerated flattery of council members was notable while he gushed about turning the I-64 corridor into a “world-class digital interconnection point.”)

Of course, all of these things are put forward in the name of economic development and prosperity, but they ignore the tangible AND intangible costs to everyday citizens. It seems that they are willing to steamroll and sacrifice everything that residents hold dear just to say they grew the regional economy.

Has anything they’ve been hoisting upon us resulted in more affordability, less congestion, or actual preservation of things like natural and community heritage? Has our quality of life actually improved? Why should we trust their judgement? Better yet, why do so many of our city officials so eagerly follow their lead?

Do we really want OUR city to be influenced by people who think it’s okay to blatantly create their own agendas behind closed doors? How much is our city council letting itself be manipulated by these people?

We should not be blinded by the platitudes coming from this elitist, regionalist echo chamber. Their intentions may sound good, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

The History of a Bad Deal

Care4Suffolk — Wed, 06 May 2026 15:24:32 +0000

Let me tell you a story about a curious plan in the heart of Suffolk. The plan started with the City receiving a piece of property as a gift. It was a property with an old building on it that needed a LOT of work. Instead of improving this free property, the City sold it to a company for an amazingly low price. The company promised to renovate the building to modern office space standards and, as part of the deal, the City agreed to rent the building back again because they were in need of office space for the Suffolk Public Schools (SPS) administration.

Does any of this sound familiar? If you were following the recent Riversbend rezoning project, it probably rings a bell because part of that rezoning application included the developer giving the old VDOT administration building to the City of Suffolk for use as new SPS administrative offices. When trying to convince the school board to support this plan, City Manager Kevin Hughes explained that the building would then most likely be turned over to a different developer who would modernize it and then lease it back to Suffolk Public Schools for a period of 10 years.

Despite the similarities in these two scenarios, this story is not actually about the Riversbend project. It is about something that happened back in 2002: how the SPS offices ended up where they are now.

For some background, the SPS Administrative Offices are currently housed in a downtown building at 100 North Main Street, called the Professional Building (also known as the American Bank and Trust Company building.) They have been in this location since March 2003.

During the Riversbend rezoning, we heard multiple city leaders like City Manager Hughes, Council Member Rector, Council Member Ward, and Superintendent Gordon state that there are serious issues with the Professional Building.

Council Member Rector (Suffolk Borough) speaking about the Professional Building at the City Council Meeting on December 17, 2025.

Council Member Ward (Nansemond Borough) speaking about the Professional Building at the City Council Meeting on December 17, 2025.

According to the reports, the HVAC doesn’t always work, leaving staff to deal with high temperatures and elevators that frequently don’t work in a building with seven floors. Additionally, when it rains, water can be heard running down the walls. That definitely sounds far from an ideal work location.

During the February 9, 2026 Education Committee meeting, while discussing problems with this building, City Manager Kevin Hughes stated, “He’s not the greatest landlord,” as if that excuses the horrid office conditions for the employees that work there. It is understandable that the SPS would not want to continue in that location, but how did they end up there in the first place?

The Professional Building has an interesting history when looking at the change of possession.

Here is the property card from the City’s website:

Here is the history of transfers:

The Sale #5 states 01/01/1900, but the city has that date for each record entered into the system when they began to process these records electronically.

You can see that the building was gifted a total of three separate times. In Sale #4, the building was gifted to the Western Tidewater Community Service Board in 1994 from Holland and Jackson Incorporated. I wasn’t able to find any information about the corporation that gifted the building, except by word of mouth that the Jackson party was Mr. G. Phil Jackson Sr. The property was previously conveyed to Holland and Jackson Incorporated back on February 1,1963 from The American Bank and Trust Company.

Less than a year after it was given to the Western Tidewater Community Service Board, the building was again gifted, this time to the City of Suffolk in 1995. That’s right – the City used to own the Professional Building at 100 North Main St. The City held onto the building until March 28, 2002 and then gifted it, along with the two adjacent buildings: 120 and 122 East Washington Street. (pictured below from Google Maps)

These three buildings were gifted to the City’s own Economic Development Authority Board (EDA), which was called the Industrial Development Authority at the time.

Just a year later, on February 27, 2003 the EDA sold these three prime downtown commercial buildings to 100 North Main LLC for the bargain price of $100,000.

Interestingly, 100 North Main LLC was created on September 6, 2002, just five months before it purchased these three buildings from the EDA and just six months after the EDA received the land from the City. This company was set up specifically to purchase and maintain these properties.

There are two names that have been found connected with the 100 North Main LLC. The first is Frank T. Gadams, also known as Buddy Gadams, who signed the first lease listed as Managing Member of 100 North Main LLC. The other name is Michael P. Zarpas, who signed the second lease as a “Member” of 100 North Main LLC.

The purchase agreement is dated September 16, 2002, just 10 days after the formation of 100 North Main LLC. Along with the purchase agreement between the EDA and 100 North Main LLC, there was a lease agreement.

This lease agreement, dated March 7, 2003, was between the 100 North Main LLC (Landlord) and the City of Suffolk (Tenant). The Lease stated the reason for selling the building was to revitalize the Downtown Historic District and provide office space for the administrative offices for the Suffolk School Board.

It was “determined that the Project would not be economically feasible without the commitment of Tenant.”

The lease agreement included an eleven-page “Schedule D” entitled “Landlord Work” that detailed all the work that needed to be done to bring the building up to modern office standards. These items included landscaping, electrical work, roofing, insulation, doors, framing, acoustic ceiling, interior demolitions, asbestos and lead paint abatement, just to name a few. In all, there was about $3 million in renovations listed.

At this point, you might be thinking that this was a good deal for the City, because $3 million is a LOT to spend on renovations. However, take a look at this excerpt from the contract:

According to this, the Landlord (100 North Main LLC) only had to pay up to $233,600 of renovation costs, and then the Tenant (City of Suffolk) had to pick up the rest!

How was this a good deal for the City of Suffolk? After the Landlord put up the $100,000 (which was for three buildings, remember!) and $233,600 in renovations, he was only in for $333,600 and the City had to pay for the majority of the work!

Remember: It was “determined that the Project would not be economically feasible without the commitment of Tenant.” What a lucky Landlord to get a Tenant to pay both rent and the extraordinary renovation costs!

So how much did the Landlord make in rent? It averaged just under $30,000/year for the first 10 years (length of first lease) for a total of $298,416.25. Then in the 11th – 20th years it averaged about $434,000/year for a lease total of $4,338,488.80. The years 2024-2026 include rent in the average amount of $470,000/year for a total of $1,410,280.

By the end of this year, the City of Suffolk will have paid in total $6,047,185.05 in rent for this building that it previously owned. This does not include any renovation costs the City paid for, which we are still investigating.

This was a horribly conceived plan. It’s a good thing the Riversbend rezoning application failed, because thanks to our City Manager Kevin Hughes, we were about to repeat this horrible mistake. That was a close one!

Documentation:

Riversbend Rezoning Denied by City Council

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:50:51 +0000

Last night at the City Council meeting, the Riversbend rezoning was denied. This was a Ryan Homes’ project to build about 500 new homes on the old VDOT location at 1700 N Main Street.

Just two days ago, the developer submitted a request to defer the item until May. During the portion of the City Council meeting, when items can be removed from the agenda, a motion was made by Council Member Rector to amend the agenda to continue consideration of the Riversbend project until the May 20, 2026 meeting. This motion was seconded by Council Member Ward.

Council Member Bennett then made a substitute motion to accept the agenda as presented, keeping the Riversbend project on the agenda. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion.

Mayor Duman, who has a financial conflict of interest with Ryan Homes, was unable to to be part of a discussion or vote on the Riversbend project, but was allowed to preside over the procedural activities. He asked for clarification from the City Council’s lawyer, Mr. Hutchinson, who then clarified that two motions have been presented. The substitute motion gets voted on first. He clarified that if the substitution to accept the agenda with item 13 (Riversbend project) is approved, then that item will be heard and discussed by City Council. He further explained that Council will have the option then to vote to approve, vote to deny, or table the item.

Mayor Duman then recused himself from the rest of the process due to his conflict of interest, passing the gavel to Vice Mayor Ward. Council then voted to 4 to 3 to accept the agenda as presented, keeping the Riversbend project on the agenda.

Council Members Bennett, Johnson, Butler Barlow and Wright all voted “YES” while Council Members Rector, Ward and Williams voted “NO”.

Just before the Riversbend project was heard before Council, roughly two hours into the meeting, Mayor Duman declared a 5 minute recess. The recess lasted closer to 12 minutes, but when Council continued the session, Mayor Duman recused himself from the deliberation and vote, passing the gavel back Vice Mayor Ward.

Planning Director Kevin Wyne then gave the staff presentation, stating that there weren’t really many changes from the previous presentation.

Council Member Butler Barlow spoke first stating she thought there were both positive and negative aspects to the project. However, she felt that due to this parcel’s unique nature, Council needed to put this parcel to “its very best use.” She then made a motion to deny the Riversbend rezoning.

Council Member Johnson stated he has been against this project from day one. He then went on to second the motion. Council Member Wright commended the developer for being engaged and thanked Ryan Homes for listening and considering the voices of the people, however, she still had concerns about the infrastructure and felt the mitigations to the impact on infrastructure were not sufficient.

Vice Mayor Ward talked about how the developer has bent over backwards. He stated the developer did everything he was asked to do. He also expressed concern that the developer wasn’t even there and may be unaware of the decision made tonight. Vice Mayor Ward went on to say that he felt the developer wasn’t treated fairly. He then stated,

“I understand how you feel. But when you sit up here, you’re here to govern. That’s what you’re supposed to do. I know most of you might be against me, that’s fine. That is fine with me. But my heart says different. I listen to the developers and I listen to my council people. Yes I do.”

Vice Mayor Ward then asked for Council to be prepared to vote. Before Ward cast his own vote, he asked for clarification from the attorney who very clearly stated, “‘YES’ is for denial, so ‘YES’ is a no.” Ward asked for him to repeat it, and the attorney stated again, “‘YES’ is for denial,” at which point the Vice Mayor interrupted and said, “Okay, I gotcha.”

The final vote was a unanimous ‘YES’ to deny the rezoning. The clerk announced the motion was approved 7-0, clarifying that it was a motion to deny. At this point, members of the public can be heard cheering while at the same time, Vice Mayor Ward seemed confused.

Vice Mayor Ward could be heard, as he turned to City Manager Kevin Hughes, “I don’t want to, I’m not denying it,” then he continued, “So what happens now?” as he continued to ask Mr. Hughes, “What happens now? What happens now?”

At this point, staff and a fellow Council Member indicate to Mr. Ward that his microphone is still on. He then turns to Council Member Johnson who explains that they just voted to deny the project.

Where we are now: the rezoning has been denied and the rezoning can not be brought back up for rezoning again for a year. Ryan Homes still has a contract with VDOT to purchase the parcel, so it is unknown at this time if they will try to build a project that fits within the current zoning of B-2 (Commercial) or back out of the deal.

Can Ryan Homes Be Trusted with Toxic Cleanup?

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 20:09:28 +0000

We recently wrote an article about environmental concerns on the old VDOT parcel on Main Street that is about to go before City Council for rezoning approval. Ryan Homes wants to build about 500 homes on this site.

Previously completed environmental studies of the property found toxic chemicals called Diesel Range Organics (DROs) and other toxins like arsenic, toluene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene by taking samples throughout the site.

These toxins have known health impacts, but they CAN be cleaned up to allow reuse of the site for other purposes. However, that process has to be done correctly, and it takes time and money.

Here’s the problem, though. It is Ryan Homes (owned by NVR Inc.) that wants to purchase the property. It would fall to them to clean up these environmental toxins. Does City Council think Ryan Homes will do its due diligence to ensure it is cleaned up and safe for the residential use that they are planning?

Here’s a 2019 news article from Delmarva Now, about an Ocean City condo community called Sunset Island. It details the problems of 11 condo buildings, built by Ryan Homes, faced with “extensive water damage” due to improper waterproofing with an estimated cost to fix around $8 million. Then Board President Roger Williams stated that Ryan Homes conditioned “any repairs that were done, to be done under the terms of what they call their settlement or release agreement which allows for the repairs to be done, but then they are released from all future obligations for the buildings.” According to the article, when there are problems, before Ryan Homes will do the repairs, they force the homeowners into arbitration and non-disclosure agreements.

Here’s another news article from Cincinnati Enquirer called Dream Home Nightmares: Ryan Homes buyers face delays, hassles as repairs lag. In this article, one Ryan Homes buyer had “toilets left unconnected to the sewer, flushing waste” under their new home for nearly a year. Another homeowner reported “improper repairs to an uneven floor that caused the possible loss of structural integrity” of the house. It’s not just the shoddy workmanship and cutting corners that are listed in the article, it goes into detail about the difficulty these homeowners and other buyers face when dealing with Ryan Homes to get repairs. The article states:

“Ryan, part of a publicly-traded conglomerate that builds more than 18,000 homes a year and churns out $800 million a year in profits, also demanded customers enter into restrictive arbitration agreements and agree never to publicly discuss their cases or repairs, homeowners say.

The secrecy means even more customers may have been affected and settled for less than they were possibly entitled to, but they are not allowed to talk about it.”

The concerns about Ryan Homes are not limited to a few homeowners. In November 2019, four U.S. Senators wrote to NVR, Inc.’s president to share their concerns:

“We write to express our concern about NVR, Inc.’s (NVR) use of mandatory arbitration provisions in its new home construction warranties, as well as its use of non-disclosure agreements. These anti-consumer tactics attempt to shield NVR, your subsidiary Ryan Homes, and affiliated entities from accountability and scrutiny over homebuyers’ complaints about negligent, faulty, or deficient home construction. We ask that you immediately remove the arbitration provisions from your agreements and stop requiring homebuyers to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to resolve disputes.”

Also in 2019, Maryland’s Governor’s Office, a Maryland State Delegate, and Maryland State Senator all wrote letters to Maryland’s Attorney General’s Office asking them to investigate the complaints from citizens into NVR, Inc.’s business practices.

A lawsuit filed in 2011 by the Cowie Law Group on behalf of Anne Arundel County (Maryland) condominium owners successfully sued Ryan Homes for $5.6 million on the basis of:

“…the complaint alleged, the company did not comply with building codes, deviated from plans, used inferior materials and did not meet minimum industry standards.

These defects led to leaking windows, flooding in the units, premature deterioration, structural instability, wood damage, peeling paint, wall and roof structural damage and mold growth…”

The point of all this is to ask: Is Ryan Homes the company City Council wants to entrust with the environmental cleanup needed to make the area safe for the 500 new homes they are planning?

We will all find out when Council votes this Wednesday, April 15, 2026 at 6pm at City Hall. Mayor Duman has had to recuse himself from voting on Riversbend because he has financial dealings with NVR, Inc., Ryan Homes’ parent company.

Below are pdfs of documents mentioned in this article:

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Letters from U.S. State Senators to NVR, Inc.
Letters from Maryland State Senator Mary Beth Carozza, Delegate Julie Palakovich Carr, Chief Legal Council of Maryland Governor Hogan to Attorney General of Maryland

Eagles’ Nest Identified on Development Site

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 21:38:08 +0000

A citizen of Suffolk recently spoke at City Council about bald eagles nesting on the old VDOT campus at 1700 N Main Street. This property is the site of a rezoning application (Riversbend) that City Council will vote on next month (after multiple delays). The developer, Ryan Homes, wants to build 500 homes on that property.

After hearing Erin Clemow speak, I decided to reach out to her to learn more about the eagles and how this development may impact them.

When asked how she first learned about the eagles, Erin responded, “I saw a Facebook post about the eagles in the vicinity of the site. I reached out to a neighbor from the Nansemond Gardens neighborhood on River Road to find out more about the eagles and where their nest is.” (This is the neighborhood across the river from the VDOT property.)

She said she also put up two posts on local Facebook groups, Suffolk 411 and Care4Suffolk, to see if anyone knew anything about these eagles.

“I started researching who I should contact statewide and looking for what I can do if I am able to find their nest, “ Erin stated. She added, “I was specifically looking for the proper protocol to handle that.”

The first person she spoke to was Troy Andersen with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS.gov). He provided her with the link to the nest mapper on the Center for Conservation Biology’s website, part of the College of William and Mary.

The above image shows the eagles’ nest as the yellow dot in the middle of two concentric circles. Those yellow circles are the buffers.

According to the Center for Conservation Biology, there are two buffers:

The smaller 330′ “primary buffer” is where human activities are considered to be detrimental to breeding pairs (e.g. residential/commercial development). The larger 660′ “secondary buffer” is where human activities are considered to impact the integrity of the “primary buffer” (e.g. construction, multi-story buildings, new roadways).

Below is an image of the parcel, for comparison.

You can see that the eagles’ nest with its buffers are within the northern half of the VDOT property.

Erin also spoke with Shaughn Galloway, another representative with U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Region 5. He shared a lot more information with Erin and provided her with the Northeast Bald Eagle Project Screening Form. She asked him what would happen if someone took down the eagles’ tree and he told her that authorities would be sent and someone would be going to jail.

During this time, Erin said that the nearby community pulled together and found the nest. She received photos and videos of the eagles and their nest. One neighbor pinned (or geotagged) the location to provide her with the exact tree.

Erin then got in touch with Bryan Watts with the Center for Conservation Biology at William & Mary. He told her that the geotag is key (meaning the longitude and the latitude of the tree). He also explained that they do flyovers to pinpoint nests.

“This was not an easy journey,” Erin recalls, “I was just a concerned citizen and I was dealing with professionals in the field. They were asking me questions that I didn’t really know the answers to, but they were very patient and worked with me to help me understand, and they clarified the process with me.”

Erin shared with me the type of information and documentation that these agencies were requesting. She said they wanted pictures of the eagles’ nest, although that alone wasn’t enough to show that it was an active nest. They wanted pictures or video of the eagles actually in the nest. One tell-tale sign of an active nest is if the eagle is bobbing its head, which means there could be young in the nest. Erin added that they were looking for other signs too, like whitewash on the tree, which she explained is eagle excrement accumulating on the trunk of the tree. Other indicators could be scattered fish carcasses and turtle shells which indicate the eagles are eating above that area. The most important part was getting the tree pinned.

“It was a crash course in eagles,” Erin said as she gently laughed. She added that she didn’t know much about eagles before all this began, but now she wants to share this with others. It is clear in speaking with Erin that she is very passionate about this and truly cares about the eagles nesting in Suffolk.

Erin continued, “I was just relieved that the nest is mapped and now I know the proper authorities will be involved in this in order to get permits.”

To clarify further, Erin stated:

“This is not about targeting Ryan Homes or any particular developer. It’s about making sure the public understands that these animals are legally protected. If they are living near the river on farmland that is later slated for development, that protection does not disappear. Any future property owner or developer will be required to address and comply with those protections.”

Erin shared that it is up to the developer to reach out to Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) to get the correct permits in place. “Now that the nest has been formally mapped,” she explained, “there is no question that the nest is there. As I understand it, the nest is naturally protected, and the tree that the nest is in, is protected.”

Erin said that one of the reasons she spoke at City Council, and why she agreed to sit down and talk with me, is because she wants everyone to be aware. She wants to draw attention to the eagles, that they are protected, and to let everyone know (Council Members, Ryan Homes, and the public) that the eagles are nesting on that property and that nothing can happen to them without steep consequences.

Here’s a link to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Bald and Golden Eagle Protect Act. It states:

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs.

The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle … [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part (including feathers), nest, or egg thereof.”

The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Regulations further define “disturb” as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior” (50 CFR 22.6).

In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers effects that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.

A violation of the Act can result in a fine of $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for one year, or both, for a first offense. Penalties increase substantially for additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.

Erin also shared the email that she sent to City Council. She said it was very important to her that they knew about the nest.

What touched me the most about Erin’s speech to Council is at the end, when she says the following:

“What a profound blessing it is to witness these majestic creatures nesting, hunting, and raising their young among us. They are more than wildlife; they are a reminder of resilience, unity, and the promise of renewal.

Suffolk deserves hope. Our citizens deserve it. And the presence of these eagles feels like a quiet but powerful sign that hope still lives here.”

Attachment:

Erin’s speech to City Council

Environmental Concerns at Riversbend

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 02:26:10 +0000

According to the environmental studies (attached below) conducted on the old VDOT site at 1700 N Main Street, there were numerous soil and water samples that contained high amounts of Diesel Range Organics (DROs) as well as other toxic chemicals like arsenic, toluene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene that were found in the samples from the site.

Slide 1 created by Care4Suffolk with sources: Environmental Studies Phase 1 and 2, Duke University, and DC Department of Energy and Environment.

On Slide 1, the sample S-19 shows a large amount of DROs (Diesel Range Organics) present in the soil. This sample was taken from soil near the old VDOT administration building (the building is labeled 03 on the map and is circled in yellow).

According to Duke University and the DC Department of Energy and Environment, any DRO amount greater than 100 mg/Kg (or ppm) needs remediation, a form of environmental clean up. Soil sample S-19 measured DROs at 16,000 mg/Kg– 160 times higher than that level.

Known health impacts of DROs include: lung inflammation, difficulty breathing, decreased liver and kidney function, neurological system effects, eye damage, skin irritation, and some DROs are suspected of causing cancer.

If the Riversbend rezoning is approved as things currently stand, the City will be receiving this particular building and roughly 2 acres surrounding it to use for the new Suffolk Public Schools administration building. Then it will fall to the City to clean up this hazardous DRO waste.

Slide 2, created by Care4Suffolk with sources: Environmental Studies Phase 1 and 2

On Slide 2, additional areas were found to have DROs above the 100 mg/kg remediation level. This area is on the southeast portion of the parcel adjacent to the Nansemond River. The rezoning application shows this portion of the site remaining B-2 (commercial) and as the possible location for a marina (which has since been downgraded to a kayak launch.)

Other toxic chemicals like arsenic, toluene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene were found in samples from around the VDOT site:

From PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, page 21

From PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, page 24

None of this is terribly surprising considering the Virginia Department of Transportation owned and used the land for roughly 80 years. I don’t think anyone is surprised that this type of site, used the way it was for so long, contains numerous hazardous materials that have leaked, leeched, or spilled into the ground and water.

These chemicals CAN be cleaned up to allow the site to be reused for other purposes However, that process takes time and money.

The City is about to assume the cost to clean up the hazardous waste located on the portion of the site containing the old VDOT administration building. Why has none of this been part of any of the presentations to the Planning Commission or City Council? The Interim City Manager has been very involved in this project, so surely he is aware of these studies. Did he notify the EDA (Economic Development Authority) Board, which is a party to this application?

The high levels of DROs, the associated health risks, and the remediation were not included in Mr. Hughe’s presentations (there were two!) to Suffolk’s School Board about the VDOT administration building. Is the School Board even aware of this? They already would have to contend with the mold, asbestos, and lead paint in the building itself. Do they want to add this remediation cost and time to their limited window to complete a new school administration building?

Environmental Studies:

Other sources:

Diesel Range Organics by Duke University
DC Department of Energy and Environment