City Council – Care4Suffolk

More Comp Plan Confusion: Master Transportation Plan Recap

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:55:00 +0000

The Master Transportation Plan (MTP) as it is associated with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan became a topic of discussion at the May 2024 City Council/Planning Commission joint meeting. There was concern that there wasn’t one included as part of the 2045 Plan draft.

At the August 21st City Council public hearing on the 2045 Plan, the Master Transportation Plan became a main topic of discussion and clearly was the main reason why council decided to delay voting on the comp plan until November 20th. Mayor Duman emphasized the need for it a couple times and City Manager Al Moore assured him that staff had been working on it.

After this August meeting, Care4Suffolk submitted a FOIA request for Master Transportation Plan documentation that had been done thus far. The response was a memo from VHB, a consultant used by the City, that included a cover letter, which you can see below, dated May 23, 2024, along with nine other pages of conceptual/visionary road alignment images and descriptions.

We submitted a second FOIA request in early September to learn what additional work had been completed on the MTP, but instead we received the exact same memo again. Was there really no additional work done since this May memo, even though it was intended to be part of a MTP and after it became a big issue at a City Council public hearing?

Considering that there appeared to be no new progress on the MTP in early September, we were very surprised to see it show up as a topic on the agenda for the September 24th joint City Council/School Board meeting. It actually ended up not being discussed. A few weeks later, we acquired an email that seemed to explain why they decided not to bring up the Master Transportation Plan at this meeting.

The email was from Public Works Director, Robert Lewis, to the city manager’s office stating that he was “at a loss as to what is desired.” How could this be if staff had been working on it and it was supposed to be “pretty solid” by November 20th according to City Manager Al Moore’s comments back in August?

Also around early September, we discovered that VDOT is supposed to review comprehensive plans, which should be submitted to them 90 days prior to adoption. A reminder had actually been put out at a September regional transportation meeting.

It turns out, Suffolk planners did not submit the 2045 Comp Plan to VDOT for review until October 2nd. Why wasn’t the comp plan submitted to VDOT before it went to Planning Commission in July? There were three public hearings on the comp plan before it went to VDOT! And why did they submit it before a Master Transportation Plan was done?

To top that off, City Council got a confusing presentation about the MTP during their October 16th Work Session that seemed to contradict the direction they gave in August. To summarize this meeting:

– No Master Transportation Plan was presented; the consultant (VHB) just provided a briefing with a basic outline of a plan

– Coucilmember Butler Barlow asked who VHB was; they were not part of the original comp plan consulting team; it turns out they are a firm that Suffolk has had an ongoing contract with for many years

– When Councilmember Johnson pressed staff on why the plan wasn’t ready, Public Works Director, Robert Lewis said that their vision was for the MTP to be a stand-alone document, that it still needed work and would need to be approved at a later time

– Mayor Duman also expressed concern that the MTP was not further along already

Despite having their guidance pretty much ignored, no one on City Council pushed back very much.

We actually already wrote about this work session and included a few video clips here:

https://care4suffolk.org/2024/10/26/city-councils-comp-plan-confusion/

Just two weeks after this work session, it appears that city Staff decided to take it upon themselves to change the goal posts on the Master Transportation Plan yet again. The suffolk2045.org webpage was updated, and an email to the public sent out, stating that new changes to the comp plan reflect Council’s directions from August to “provide additional project-specific detail and direction for the transportation policy” and that this additional work had been completed.

This is not an accurate reflection of City Council’s guidance and contradicts the comments about a stand-alone document from just two weeks earlier. It is also concerning that they were making yet more changes to the comp plan’s transportation chapter after it was already submitted to VDOT.

Deputy City Manager, Kevin Hughes, sent an email to city council members over a week after these changes were posted informing them that the MTP is now included in Chapter 4 of the 2045 Plan.

To top off all this confusion, we now see that City Council is supposed to be getting an update on the 2045 Plan during their work session on November 20th–the very same day that they are supposed to be voting on it!

Whether a Master Transportation Plan is a separate document or included as part of the comprehensive plan is not the main concern. It is the way this matter has been handled that is very concerning. It appears that City Staff are not following procedure and are also either very disorganized or not being forthright with City Council and the public. Perhaps it’s both.

Timeline of Master Transportation Plan Events:

May 2024

Parts of MTP worked on by consultant and shared as such with the Planning Department

MTP is a concern at joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting

June & July 2024

No discussion of MTP

August 2024

MTP is a main concern for City Council (Aug 21); they want one ready before they vote

Al Moore says it’s underway and will be solid enough by Nov; the vote is tabled until Nov 20th

FOIA request (Aug 22) – received memo/concept diagrams done by consultant in May

September 2024

FOIA request (Sept 9) – received the same memo/concept diagrams done by consultant in May, nothing new

MTP is on joint meeting agenda (Sept 24)

– Mr. Lewis unsure of vision for this agenda item

– MTP not discussed at the meeting

October 2024

2045 Plan initial submission to VDOT (Oct 2)

City Council work session: staff says there is no MTP yet

It will be stand-alone, living document and be approved at a later date

MTP page and visionary project diagrams are added to Ch. 4 of comp plan (Oct 29)

November 2024

Kevin Hughes sends an email to City Council telling them that the MTP is now in Ch. 4 (Nov 8)

November 20th City Council agendas are posted online (Nov14) and a 2045 Comp Plan Update is scheduled for their work session that same day

2024 Comprehensive Plan Timeline

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:54:26 +0000

Nov 2020

Request for Proposal sent out by Suffolk’s Purchasing Division for “Review and Update of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan”

Jan 2021

Proposal received from Planning Next

July 2021

Contract executed between City of Suffolk and Planning Next (ACP/Greene & Associates, LLC)

Dec 2021

Vision and Goals to be completed; first payment executed

Plan contains no vision statement nor any goals

April 2022

Scope of Work Refinement: change of land use approach to “focus on trends or expectations about future development” verses “incorporating an entirely new, detailed scenario analysis.”

Added additional 25% above the cost of the original scope of work

Workshop and focus group attendees & meeting “minutes”

May 2022

Staff Land Use Workshop, including attendance by the Vice President of Tischler-Bise to discuss the Fiscal Impact Analysis

Several one-time, 1.5 hour focus groups held about different topics; focus group attendance ranged from 4-11 people.

Summer 2022

Fiscal Impact Analysis mentioned in emails between Planning NEXT and city staff

Planning staff attend various city events with a booth about comprehensive plan

Nov 2022

First public engagement gathering organized by Care4Suffolk

This was the original completion timeframe according to proposal

Feb/Mar 2023

City-organized public engagement sessions (one per borough with 2 in the Suffolk borough)

June 2023

City-organized three open-houses and included a “dot” board activity

August 2023

Fiscal Impact Analysis removed from Scope of Work to be completed after comp plan approval

Nov 2023 – Jan 2024

City Council Work Session presentations by Planning Department

All Growth Area expansion options presented to City Council in January

Feb 2024

Release of 2045 Plan draft; start of online survey

Mar 2024

City-organized three open-houses (summary of public input)

May 2024

Joint Planning Commission/City Council work session to discuss the 2045 draft

Reduction in Growth Area recommendations

Need expressed for transportation plan

Planner Keith Cannady stated that no Fiscal Impact Analysis needed because current growth strategy is being continued and because it is done at the site level rezonings

Public hearings delayed (TBD)

Rountree Property advertised on VEDP website and Yes Suffolk as being in the 2045 Comp Plan Growth Area although the plan had not been approved yet

June 2024

Planning Commission Work Session presentation

Reduction in Growth Areas

Other changes made, only 3 briefed

Lengthy Economic Development briefing on warehouse development

Land use pie chart added

All departments present slides

New “smart growth” label appears on some slides, but with no actual discussion of smart growth

Addition of Utility Scale Solar as a use for Rural Agriculture land; this was not briefed during the work session

July 2024

Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the 2045 Comp Plan

City Council received a work session update after Planning Commission had already voted

August 2024

Changes made to plan AFTER Planning Commission vote

Map changed due to “a number of landowners”

Planning Commission has to have a “do over” vote because the city failed to provide the legally required public notice

Planning Commission Johnnie Edwards gives a speech stating that Suffolk is strategically important to the Port of Virginia and that the 2045 Comp Plan is the start of Suffolk serving the regional goals of the port.

Planning Commission again votes to recommend approval of the 2045 Comp Plan

City Council votes to table the vote on the 2045 Comp Plan until Nov 2024

Mayor Duman stipulates that Council needs to have the Master Transportation Plan in their hands to be able to vote on the comp plan

More new slides from Economic Development

Pie chart

Removal of “smart growth” from slides, changed to “focused growth”

Al Moore states that staff are already working on Master Transportation Plan it will be a “solid” by Nov 20

FOIA request for already completed parts of Master Transportation Plan

Sept 2024

Second FOIA request for any additional completed parts of Master Transportation Plan

One memo from May 2024 provided

Ground-breaking for Port 460

2025 Legislative Agenda presentation to City Council

Rt. 460 Project construction phase increased from $47 million to $65 million

Master Transportation Plan on Sept 24th joint City Council/School Board meeting agenda

Email from Lewis to Moore expressing confusion as to what is expected

Despite being on the agenda, the Master Transportation Plan was not discussed at meeting

Oct 2024

Comp Plan submitted to VDOT for review (Oct 2)

City Council Work Session (Oct 16)

No Master Transportation Plan, just VHB briefing and outline

No real changes to accommodate citizen concerns

Mayor Duman states that the comp plan should reflect what the recent State of the Region report says about needing more housing in Hampton Roads and Keith Cannady assures him that the 2045 Plan “provides a strategy for that.”

Update email sent out with misrepresentation of what City Council wanted in August for Master Transportation Plan (Oct 31)

Addition of an Master Transportation Plan page and project diagrams into Ch. 4—AFTER work session & AFTER submission to VDOT

Nov 2024

Kevin Hughes sends an email to City Council informing them that the Master Transportation Plan is now in Chapter 4 of the comp plan a week after it was already updated as such on the 2045 website

City Council Nov 20th Work Session agenda posted and includes a 2045 Plan update presentation even though council is supposed to be voting on it that same evening

Fiscal Troubles Ahead?

Care4Suffolk — Sat, 16 Nov 2024 19:52:48 +0000

We are just a few days away from the City Council Meeting where the 2045 Comprehensive Plan is on the agenda. Care4Suffolk has pointed out many problems with this comprehensive plan, among the most important issues is the lack of a fiscal impact analysis.

A fiscal impact analysis allows a municipality to understand how specific development will impact a city financially over time. It looks at both the revenue that will be generated from the development and also the costs of services (roads, schools, utilities, emergency services, libraries, parks, etc.) and then compares them to determine if the development will bring a net positive fiscal contribution to the city, or if it will be a net negative and cost the city money.

Most municipalities also do a fiscal analysis during the comprehensive planning process. It allows a city to look at the type of growth they want to see and whether it will financially benefit the city or be a drain on the taxpayers. The City of Suffolk has decided to forgo the essential fiscal analysis. Why?

City Staff assured City Council that a fiscal analysis isn’t necessary for the comprehensive plan, despite the fact that it is about to increase the growth area by the largest amount of any previous comp plan. Staff’s reasoning was because the fiscal analyses are done at the site level. It is true that by law, they are required to be done for all rezoning applications.

Suffolk’s UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) reads:

B-14. – FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.

All applications for a rezoning shall include a Fiscal Impact Study containing a comparison of the public revenues anticipated to be generated by the development and the anticipated capital, operations, maintenance and replacement costs for public facilities needed to service the project at the adopted level of service standards (see Section 31-601 of this Ordinance).

Furthermore, the UDO states that no rezoning application is complete without a fiscal analysis.

However, in a previous article, we demonstrated that the fiscal analysis for the Port 460 project, which was two years ago and was arguably the LARGEST rezoning application in years, failed to provide an adequate fiscal analysis. The developer did provide fiscal data, but it only showed all the money the city might make on the development. It left out all the costs of services.

Based on the UDO, that rezoning proposal never should have made it through the Planning Department because it lacked a proper fiscal analysis. Yet, it not only made it through the Planning Department, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval, and City Council voted to approve the rezoning.

Suffolk has been rezoning with no idea if all this development in the long-term will bring money into the city coffers or cost taxpayers money to maintain it. The whole point of a fiscal analysis is to protect the citizens from poor planning and development that drains our resources.

Currently, City Staff fail to provide oversight to make sure a complete and accurate fiscal analysis is done at a rezoning. They also refuse to do a fiscal analysis for the comprehensive plan. How can City Council be so irresponsible with our taxpayer money? If the developer and the city can’t prove that these developments are fiscally beneficial for the city, they should not be approved. The same is true with the comprehensive plan. If City Staff want to increase Sufflolk’s growth area by the largest amount of any comp plan, they should have to prove that it is fiscally sound.

Join us at the City Council Meeting on Wednesday, November 20th at 6pm (City Hall, 442 W. Washington St.) and let City Council know that you do not want the 2045 Comprehensive Plan approved until they have completed the fiscal analysis.

Letter to the Suffolk News-Herald

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 11 Nov 2024 23:41:28 +0000

Below is a Letter to the Editor of the Suffolk News-Herald, written by Care4Suffolk’s Ann Harris. She wrote this back in July of 2024, just before the 2045 Comprehensive Plan went before City Council and was tabled until after the election. You can read this on the Suffolk News-Herald.

The Master Transportation plan has been a major part of the discussion since the August City Council meeting, but it is important to remember that the 2045 Comprehensive Plan was also supposed to include the Fiscal Impact Analysis, which the City chose not to do. This omission is irresponsible and it is not getting enough notice.

Dear Editor:

A recent Suffolk News-Herald article about the 2045 Comprehensive Plan update presented to City Council on July 17th mentioned that there was a petition against this plan. I’d like to highlight a main reason why many residents think the 2045 Plan should not be approved. Page six of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft states that “Different kinds of development have different impacts on the fiscal health of the City. Development that is not supported by existing infrastructure (roadways, water, sewer) and that is more consumptive of land can be a greater drain on the City’s finances.” This is a pretty intuitive concept! When the initial draft came out in February with recommendations to expand Growth Areas by a shocking 23%, many people assumed it would be backed up by some solid data. (For context, our current 2035 Comprehensive Plan only increased the growth area by 5% back in 2015.) Planners did reduce the recommendation to a 17% increase and have since reduced it again, but it is still roughly a 12% expansion.

While looking for the justifications for this kind of growth (that flies in the face of the public feedback the City received), we realized that it is a norm to have a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) done during the comp plan update process. Originally, there were plans to do one: it was a requirement in the City’s Request for Proposal seeking a consultant to review and update the 2035 Comp Plan; it was part of the Scope of Work and timeline in the selected consultant’s proposal; Tischler Bise was the consulting firm scheduled to do the FIA and in 2022 their representative attended a workshop here with city staff. However, in August 2023, city staff decided to postpone the FIA until after plan approval. At a joint Planning Commission/City Council work session on May 1 of this year, Planning explained that an FIA is not really needed now because the City will continue using the same growth strategy it’s already been using. This assumes that the current strategy is a good one! The FIA can help determine probable long-term fiscal effects of different growth scenarios. Why would we want to move forward without this information?

Citizens of Suffolk deserve data-driven reasons as to why our Planners want to double down on a strategy that is negatively impacting our ability to move around the City and increasingly straining our infrastructure.

Please sign Care4Suffolk’s petition asking City Council to oppose the 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

City Council’s Comp Plan Confusion

Care4Suffolk — Sat, 26 Oct 2024 15:54:13 +0000

The Suffolk 2045 Comprehensive Plan went before City Council on August 21, 2024. During the public hearing, there were many comments from various concerned individuals and community organization representatives about the many reasons this plan is NOT good for the City or its citizens.

Reasons for opposing the plan included:

It isn’t representative of public input
It invites more development that will contribute to storm water issues
Lack of fiscal responsibility due to staff cancellation of the Fiscal Impact Analysis
Growth is outpacing infrastructure and destroying quality of life
It destroys the rural/small town feel of Suffolk
It encourages more warehouse development – against citizen feedback
It doesn’t seriously address traffic issues
It favors developers at the expense of citizens
It sidelines the agricultural industry

Council Member Fawcett agreed with a developer’s lawyer who suggested the vote be postponed and made the motion to delay action on the comprehensive plan until November 20th. Conveniently, that put the vote just past election day, but before a new City Council will be seated in 2025. This motion was seconded by Council Member LeOtis Williams.

During the August meeting, Mayor Duman stated that transportation has been the most prevalent complaint. He stated that we need a Master Transportation Plan.

“I believe that the Master Transportation Plan is something that really does need to be, not only be looked at, but we need to have something in our hands before we pass the comprehensive plan. And I’ve been told that that’s, I think, this 90 day extension will give us something to actually look at.” (Mayor Duman, City Council Meeting August 21, 2024, mark: 3:00:30)

Mayor Duman asked City Manager Al Moore if it is possible to put together a Master Transportation Plan in that 60-75 day time period to present at a work session before the November 20th meeting. Mr. Moore responded that staff has already been working on the Master Transportation Plan for some period and that ”The Transportation Plan, probably, it will be solid enough to be in shape to talk about.”

Mayor Duman responded, “I think that’s the key. If we get a Transportation Plan in place and, like I said, we just work on a few other adjustments, that being the main thing, because it is the main concern.”

Fast forward to the October 16, 2024 City Council Work Session: a presentation was given by a new contractor, VHB, that was not connected with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. This was only made clear when Council Member Butler Barlow asked about VHB. The VHB representative stated that she is not involved in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, but is working on the Master Transportation Plan and the only things she presented were a basic overview of the plan and samples of what some maps may look like.

There was clearly confusion about the lack of an actual Master Transportation Plan. Council member Johnson asked if they will have a copy of the new plan before they vote on the 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

Director of Public Works, Robert Lewis stated that their ‘vision’ is that this Master Transportation Plan will not be part of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. He states that the Comp Plan already has Chapter 4 that addresses all the things required.

“Our vision of this, this is going to become a stand alone document. So essentially, we’ve pulled Chapter 4 out, we added to it, eventually we will bring that back to Council, you all can adopt it. But the idea is to keep it a living document, so each year as you update your CIP, we’ll go back and add those projects back in. They’ll go from visionary to funded, to planned. And again, this becomes a living document. So yes sir, I believe the intent is for you to see this, prior to November, but I’m not sure at this point, we really intend for this to be a document that’s adopted by Council that night because again there’ still some work to be done.” (Robert Lewis, City Council Work Session October 16, 2024, mark 21:48)

Keith Cannady, Comprehensive Planning Manager, jumped in to state that the Comprehensive Plan is a broad document to address land use and doesn’t go into detail for any municipal department.

Mayor Duman stated that he also expected to see more specifics as to what we plan on doing. He stated that the Comp Plan is about where we expect to see growth and what kind of growth. With that, the Transportation Plan should address how they will deal with that growth. Mr. Lewis responded that pages 98 and 99 of the 2045 Plan address this.

Mr. Moore then stated that, “This afternoon, what we want to do is bring you the opening, initial show of what we’re attempting to do. Um, it wasn’t envisioned that we’d have a complete document today, and I think I relayed that to all of you.”

Are you confused yet? We were confused watching all this unfold.

In the beginning (2021), the 2045 Comprehensive Plan was supposed to take about a year and a half, cost less than $1 million and contain: a FIA (Fiscal Impact Analysis), Master Transportation Plan, Village Plans, and reflect the input from the citizens of Suffolk.

To date, the 2045 Comp Plan is overdue, over budget, lacks the FIA, does not conform to citizen feedback, and both the Village Plans and Master Transportation Plan will be delivered at some unspecified date in the future. There is now a new contractor to handle the transportation, even though it was already in the 2045 Comp Plan contract.

We all know that there is an expectation that the 2045 Comp Plan will pass when it comes back before City Council in November. City Council Members focused on the lack of a Master Transportation Plan to table their vote until after the election, but then did not push back when staff made it clear they can’t deliver it before the vote. Will Council still press forward on this flawed 2045 Comp Plan and vote to approve?

Our City Council seems easily led by a Staff that gives excuses and rationalizes away any citizen criticisms. Despite the fact that the 2045 Comp Plan still does not reflect public input, still lacks a FIA, and still won’t have the Master Transportation Plan or Village Plans completed, I think Council will probably fall in line and send this to vote on November 20th.

Please sign our petition to let City Council know that you want them to vote ‘NO’ on this failed 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

Whaleyville Candidate Questionnaire

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:24:20 +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 Mayoral and 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 Whaleyville Borough City Council candidates, along with their image and website contact, if they chose to provide it.

Early voting is currently underway in Virginia and election day is Tuesday, November 5th. Please go to the Virginia Department of Elections for any questions.

Note: Questionnaires were emailed to all candidates. Current Whaleyville Council Member, LeOtis Williams, did not provide a response.

Whaleyville Borough City Council Candidates

Jason Wooldridge

Website: https://jw4va.com

ROADS

Many narrow country roads have design challenges and water issues, yet are seeing increased traffic due to new development. Should rezoning approval be contingent on either the City or the rezoning applicant being able to improve these roads to meet VDOT and City standards for their classifications?

I will start by saying that this sounds like an appropriate question to be asked using a formal referendum verse just having city council write up an ordinance to combat this issue. That said, I would be in favor of exploring developing an ordinance that would place contingencies upon the rezoning applicant to require the improvement of our roads such that before approval of the rezoning request the existing roads are brought up to meet VDOT standards for their classification. NOTE: This is a complex problem and cannot be solved properly using a sole source requirement.

Using a sole source requirement would create more problems. We cannot expect a single development to be solely responsible for ensuring the entire right of way (ROW) along the property frontage is brought to VDOT standard as there are two sides to a road. If we created a situation where the first development on a given length of road was required to extend the width of the ROW to meet VDOT standard we would unfairly burden this first development. Meaning, if the first development was required to widen the ROW to VDOT standards any property on the opposite side of that ROW would not be held accountable later for ensuring the road was to VDOT standards because it would already meet the VDOT standard as proffered by the first development. This is unfair and thus not an equitable solution. Also, a sole source solution to improve the ROW to VDOT standards would potentially create another concern. Let’s examine a length of road which has multiple parcels on each side of the ROW. Considering a sole source solution to widen the ROW to meet VDOT standards would shift the centerline of the ROW towards the first parcel developed. Now consider the next parcel to be developed along the ROW is on the opposite side of the ROW from the first parcel but, also is on the next section of roadway which doesn’t meet VDOT standards. This would mean the next development would have to provide proffers to widen the ROW to meet the VDOT standards thus, shifting the centerline of the ROW toward that developing parcel and away from the previous development. This now takes a straight road and places an S-curve into it, or potentially exaggerates an existing S-curve in the roadway. This is not an ideal solution to the problem of bringing our rural roads up the VDOT standards as our city grows either.

All of this said, any equitable solution would need to be limited to improving the ROW from the centerline and over to a newly developing parcel and this is not an ideal solution to ensuring our roadways are brought up to VDOT standards as there is no way to know when a parcel will be developed and thus bringing both sides of the ROW up to VDOT standards. Understanding this as a legitimate issue a fair and equitable solution would potentially be one in which the rezoning applicant is responsible for improving the ROW from the centerline over to the developing property and the city would need to potentially consider the use of eminent domain to improve the ROW on the opposite side of the roadway from the development. I would not be in favor of the city council arriving at this as a decision on their own.I would personally not be in favor of this as a solution and I would assume that such a solution would be unpopular with the citizens of Suffolk as well. Thus, I believe this is a question best answered by public polling and a referendum placed on an official ballot.

ZONING

1. Residents often buy homes based on existing zoning. Rezoning land can impact residents and their quality of life. What criteria will you use when considering rezoning applications?

2. Currently, NO residential or student pipeline data is included in rezoning Staff Report packets to show already approved developments in the surrounding area. If you are re-elected or elected, what would you do to ensure that Planning Commission and City Council have all pertinent information needed to make fully informed decisions?

1. Rezoning is a huge concern. If we are rezoning the use of land, it means we are changing the design from what it currently is used for, and this is not something to take lightly. I’m an engineer and changes to a plan or design are always something that are and should be overly scrutinized. Questions need to be asked like; Why is this change necessary? What are the risks and benefits of applying the change? What are the intended consequences of the change? What are the potential unintended consequences of the change? I believe that if we remember that just because you can do something doesn’t always mean you should do it then we would approach changes more skeptically and avoid potential negative outcomes.

A prime example of an unintended negative outcome occurred last year in the city of Chesapeake. The issue was created when the city council incorrectly granted the rezoning of a parcel of land to industrial use. The parcel of land happened to be adjacent to a residential area with approximately 200 homes and only a single road for ingress and egress. Normally you would not zone residential land immediately adjacent to industrial use because of nuisance issues to nearby residents , such as the operation of heavy machinery and large trucks, etc. This city of Chesapeake allowed this rezoning because the site had a history of being used for commercial container repair the site was to be developed into a manufacturing facility. However, after the rezoning site was later bought by Dominion Energy and is now set to be the first battery storage facility in the city, housing 114 lithium-ion battery Megapacks. This presents a completely new and far more risky problem, lithium- ion batteries can catch fire but cannot be put out once on fire. They also emit a very toxic smoke when burning. So, this means that should this facility catch fire there are now 200 homes trapped with a single ingress and egress path to escape which happens to run immediately adjacent to this facility. Now, I don’t believe this was maliciously done by the Chesapeake City council but, once rezoned there was nothing, they could do to stop it from happening.

This is perfect example of why we should always consider the worst-case scenario when considering rezoning approvals. Being risk averse might slow things down from a growth standpoint but, it will keep the impact to our citizens as the most important factor in making the decisions. Thus, rezoning should be looked at using a complete impact assessment and it should follow the vision of the city’s growth plan, that is the comprehensive plan. Also noting that just because the comprehensive plan shows it is within the growth vision of the city doesn’t mean it is always the correct answer.

2. This is simple, request the data be provided. As an engineer I know that all data can be relevant, even the data that sometimes seems to not have an impact. If our leadership is currently making decisions about the growth and development of our city without looking at all the potential impacts, they are not doing citizens any service. I know that if there are variables that are changing, deciding about additional changes without considering the impacts of the previous changes will result in disaster. This is exactly how our city has gotten into the situation we are in now. Our schools are overcrowded, our roads are overcrowded, our taxes are rising, our infrastructure is strained at best (we have among the highest water bills in tidewater), our community is witnessing a rise in crime, and our businesses (manufacturing and technology) are leaving.

All data that potentially can show impact to a decision needs to be at least considered and thus, should be a standard part of the reports provided to inform our council about the decision. Also, making this data a part of the Staff Report packets would show our schoolboard that city council is concerned about our students as a part of the future of the city which would be a step toward breaking down the barriers of animosity and distrust which currently exist between the schoolboard and city council. This would help to make, “Suffolk Better Not Bigger.”

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

The City has decided against conducting a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. Instead, it will rely on fiscal impact studies that are paid for by developers as part of rezoning applications and are not required to include the key component of Cost of Services (such as long-term road maintenance, repair, and replacement). If elected or re-elected, how would you ensure that the City is getting a complete financial picture of what development projects will both bring in revenue and cost the taxpayers in services?

You cannot answer this question without requiring an independent fiscal impact analysis. Relying on the applicant to tell you about the potential pitfalls of approving their project is like asking the blackjack dealer when to double down. If no independent fiscal impact analysis is performed, I would have to rely on my own understanding and research of the matter. Carefully comparing the performance claims of the applicant’s project to as many similar projects as possible to identify where the claims are inflated and then asking the applicant difficult questions about what happens when those claims are not met. The answers should be very revealing.

TRANSPARENCY

1. Do you think council members should recuse themselves from rezoning requests if the developer requesting the rezoning has contributed to their election campaign?

2. Would you be willing to disclose all property and land that you own in the city of Suffolk, whether it is owned in your own name, a partnership, or an LLC?

1. This question presents a double-edged sword. On the one hand I would like to say that I will not take money from individuals who will likely have business before the city. On the other hand, if we remove the possibility of receiving political donations from citizens, we create a scenario where only the independently wealthy can afford to run for public office, thus establishing an elite ruling class. I do not believe that our government should be made up of an elite class. I believe “We the People” are just that, the average people. I am not independently wealthy and therefore, I am accepting donations from all citizens who want to support me as a candidate. Now, the question becomes do political donations compromise a candidate’s integrity? I can honestly tell you that if I am elected my commitment to you as a public servant is to dutifully represent you in good faith to improve the quality of our community. I will not trade freedom for favor, nor my dignity for benefit, and I refuse to lose my integrity to persuasion.

Furthermore, as a personal note, if I am elected and I feel that my vote would be appear compromised because someone with business before the city has previously donated to my campaign, I would recuse myself and abstain my vote on that matter.

2. This is already a requirement when you file for candidacy as I understand the law. So, I have no problem. State and local officers and employees required to file pursuant to §§ 2.2-3114, 2.2-3115, or 2.2- 3116 or as designated by their local governing body are REQUIRED to complete and file the Statement of Economic Interests as a condition to assuming office, and then annually while serving as an officer or employee. This statement includes all real estate you or your immediate family, separated or together, hold an interest valued at >$5000 in which is not your principal residence. It also includes any real estate you or your immediate family, separated or together, hold an interest >$5000 that is the subject of a contract, pending or which has been completed within the prior calendar year, with a government agency.

Mayoral Candidate Questionnaire

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 14 Oct 2024 02:03:44 +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 Mayoral and 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 mayoral candidates, along with their image and website contact, if they chose to provide it.

Early voting is currently underway in Virginia and election day is Tuesday, November 5th. Please go to the Virginia Department of Elections for any questions.

Note: Questionnaires were emailed to all candidates. We did not receive a response from mayoral candidate Clinton Jenkins.

Mayoral Candidates

David Bosselman

Website: https://davidbosselmanformayor.com

Mike Duman

Website: https://mikedumanformayor.com

ROADS

David Bosselman

Yes. These roads should be fixed before any new development of scale is even started. If the road is not on the City’s list to improve, then the developer should have to make the improvements.

Mike Duman

Most rezonings are conditional and therefore will come with a staff recommendation unique to that application. Included in that recommendation will be a traffic impact analysis. The applicant will be required to make improvements to address the effects of the proposed project. Other proffers could be accepted if they were related to the project. A non-conditional rezoning should not be considered without a comprehensive analysis of existing roads and the effects of any use within the new zoning designation. Consideration must be given to the comprehensive plan and the traffic master plan.

ZONING

1. Residents often buy homes based on existing zoning. Rezoning land can impact residents and their quality of life. What criteria will you use when considering rezoning applications?

David Bosselman

1. When looking at rezoning we should be aware of the current comprehensive plan and its intended long-term use. Then we need to look at what benefit the rezoning will be to the area around it. That MUST include the citizens already living there and the infrastructure in that area. We need to ask if rezoning makes life better or worse for the residents. Does it cause stress on schools, first responders or roadways? We must have a clear and concise vision within the comprehensive plan.

2. Staff should include all pertinent information available for every rezoning request. Council must ask questions about all aspects of rezoning and direct the City Manager to make sure staff provides this information so that a well-informed decision can be made.

Mike Duman

1. All rezonings must consider compatibility with the comprehensive plan, U.D.O. considerations, adequate public facilities; to include, public water and sanitary sewerage, stormwater management, transportation and schools. In addition, a fiscal impact statement and proffered conditions must be considered.

2. I would recommend that an updated “pipe line” report be provided quarterly to all Planning Commission and City Council members. This report will provide all approved development. Active development would include total approved and current status of each project.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

David Bosselman

The first thing we need to do is an Impact Analysis of the previous 2035 Comprehensive Plan. We have no idea of its success or failure yet the City is pushing forward with a new comprehensive plan based off of the previous plan. The best I can tell, the 2035 Comp Plan has caused a lot of overdevelopment and congestion in most of Suffolk. This has created a strain on infrastructure and the amenities that the citizens need including schools. In following this path of constant development, the city has felt the need for more commercial development and higher taxes to accommodate its needs. The City has to look at where it has been in order to see where it is going.

Mike Duman

A fiscal impact statement is included with each CUP or rezoning. The fiscal impact statement should be reviewed thoroughly by staff before providing any recommendations. If a fiscal impact study is not incorporated into the comprehensive plan, I would support a requirement for a more extensive study on all applications considered “significant” as determined by current guidelines. Regardless, at a minimum, I will promote a change in policy that will require applications to complete a fiscal impact analysis to include content as requested and in a format provided by the city, not the applicant.

TRANSPARENCY

1. Do you think council members should recuse themselves from rezoning requests if the developer requesting the rezoning has contributed to their election campaign?

2. Would you be willing to disclose all property and land that you own in the city of Suffolk, whether it is owned in your own name, a partnership, or an LLC?

David Bosselman

1.Absolutely. Our Council Members should be doing what is right for the citizens of Suffolk. There must be honor and integrity on our Council.

2. Absolutely. My wife Audrey Page and I own the farm we live on which is 140 acres. We also own a second farm that has 234 acres where our son Brian and his family live. My son Hunter and his family live on a 160-acre farm owned by my wife, my two sons, and myself. My sons and I have recently purchased a 48-acre farm that is split between Suffolk and Isle of Wight County.

Mike Duman

1. Council members are required to recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest. Virginia’s State and Local Conflict of Interests Act (COIA) regulates the conduct of state and local government employees and officials to prevent conflict of interest. I believe if a council member is adhering to COIA guide lines there should be no requirement to abstain from voting. However, if there is an appearance of an impropriety it may be prudent to do so.

2. There would be no need to disclose all properties owned individually or by any other vested entity if it did not create a conflict of interest or an appearance of an impropriety. In addition, all elected officials are required to file a Statement of Economic Interests (SOEI) which is public record.

Sleepy Hole Candidate Questionnaire

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 14 Oct 2024 01:44:09 +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 Mayoral and 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 Sleepy Hole Borough City Council candidates, along with their image and website contact, if they chose to provide it.

Early voting is currently underway in Virginia and election day is Tuesday, November 5th. Please go to the Virginia Department of Elections for any questions.

Sleepy Hole Borough City Council Candidates

Ebony Wright

Website: https://wrightforsuffolk.com/

Roger Fawcett

Website: https://rogerfawcett.com

ROADS

Ebony Wright

Yes, rezoning approvals should be contingent on the improvement of local roads by either the city or the applicant/developer. This will ensure the roads meet VDOT and City standards and that new developments and existing communities are supported by adequate infrastructure and services.

Roger Fawcett

In many cases, the answer to this questions is yes. Suffolk’s staff puts the onus on developers to bring private investment for these improvements during the rezoning process and again during the plan approval process. Without this investment many improvements might not happen.

ZONING

1.Residents often buy homes based on existing zoning. Rezoning land can impact residents and their quality of life. What criteria will you use when considering rezoning applications?

2.Currently, NO residential or student pipeline data is included in rezoning Staff Report packets to show already approved developments in the surrounding area. If you are re-elected or elected, what would you do to ensure that Planning Commission and City Council have all pertinent information needed to make fully informed decisions?

Ebony Wright

1. Changes in zoning can significantly impact community dynamics and quality of life. The criteria I would use in evaluating rezoning applications will include an analysis of the potential impact on local infrastructure, environmental considerations, and community feedback. I believe these factors play a crucial role in ensuring that any changes align with the needs and values of the community.

2. I would advocate for research to provide comprehensive data to the Planning Commission and City Council. I believe that accurate information about community needs, and potential impacts is essential for making informed decisions.

Roger Fawcett

1. There is a long list of criteria I have when considering rezoning applications. Certainly, consideration of how a rezoning would affect current residents is at the top of the list…I am very concerned about the welfare and views of city residents.

2. Total student head count for our public schools has remained relatively flat for years. For things like subdivisions, impacts to public schools are included for proffers. I care a great deal about how new construction of residential housing will affect the school system. This is always a priority of mine.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Ebony Wright

I would advocate to make impact analysis a requirement in our decision-making process to ensure the city is getting a complete financial picture through financial analysis of development projects. The data is necessary for understanding the long-term impact on the community. It provides the relevant information needed to evaluate both potential revenue and the costs to taxpayers for services. The City cannot make informed decisions that benefit everyone without one.

Roger Fawcett

A fiscal impact analysis of possible or potential developmental impacts projected for the next 20 years is simply not possible or feasible. It would be based on so many unknowable assumptions that the document would not be worth anything. A responsible city council and planning commission will look at each project and determine the impacts, what role the developer has to play to address those impacts and whether the project is in the best interest of the city. That is how I have conducted myself during my service on Council, and how I will continue to address projects brought before Council.

TRANSPARENCY

1. Do you think council members should recuse themselves from rezoning requests if the developer requesting the rezoning has contributed to their election campaign?

2. Would you be willing to disclose all property and land that you own in the city of Suffolk, whether it is owned in your own name, a partnership, or an LLC?

Ebony Wright

1. Absolutely! Campaign contributions from developers to council members gives the appearance of impropriety and can create conflicts of interest, leading to questions about the integrity of rezoning decisions. Transparency in local governance is essential for maintaining public trust.

2. Yes, my husband and I own my primary residence in Suffolk.

Roger Fawcett

1. No. The Courts have ruled that campaign contributions in and of themselves do not bring about conflicts of interest. If a Council member works for a developer, then yes, that person should recuse themselves from voting on those projects. But a campaign contribution is not a payment to an elected official, it is a campaign contribution. No locality in Virginia has a rule in place like the one proposed here for this very reason.

2. I would and I do. Disclosure of such information is part of a candidate’s and elected officials annual personal financial disclosure statement already required by the Commonwealth. These documents are held by the City Clerk’s office and can be reviewed by anyone.

City Council Voting Record

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 03 Oct 2024 08:17:00 +0000

As election day approaches and early voting is well on its way, it is important to have information on which to base your decision.

Finding out how any particular City Council Member voted on any particular rezoning or land use decision is a difficult task that requires hours of combing through the agenda center on the city’s website. Sometimes that agenda isn’t clear on the rezoning location or the nature of the rezoning, in which case you have to watch the video to learn more.

We know people are busy and so Care4Suffolk has done a lot of the leg work for you. Below you can look at key rezonings and land use decisions over the last couple of years. We tried to find any rezoning that was large, or had a lot of public interest, or was similar to other rezonings that got a lot of public interest. If you are interested in learning more about a particular rezoning listed, or if we forgot a rezoning that you want to know about, just email us at care4suffolk@gmail.com.

Click on the chart to enlarge.

2024 City Council Votes

Note: The 2024 chart was edited to reflect a rezoning for Pitchkettle Landing on July 2. Thank you to the community member who brought it to our attention!

2023 City Council Votes

2022 City Council Votes

Note: CUP2021-003 – Motion way made to Deny, so Aye votes were to deny. It was unanimously was denied.

Legislative Agenda

Care4Suffolk — Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:36:17 +0000

Next week at the October 4, 2023 City Council meeting, there will be a public hearing on a resolution for the City to adopt a 2024 Legislative Agenda. According to the resolution, adoption of the legislative agenda is “necessary as we prepare to meet with our state legislators prior to the start of the General Assembly Session, to discuss matters of importance to the City of Suffolk.” (The General Assembly convenes on January 10, 2024).

If you’re like me and are new to attending council meetings and engaging in the civic process, you may find this interesting. These slides are the draft agenda that was presented at the September 20, 2023 City Council meeting by Suffolk’s Legislative Liaisons from Access Point Public Affairs. The topics are: Public Safety, Community Development/Planning, Human Services, Transportation, Environmental/Utilities, Education and Workforce Development, and Finance/Regulation.

There was nothing included pertaining to Agriculture, but Council Member Butler Barlow made three recommendations. Her first two recommendations are supported by Suffolk’s Agricultural Advisory Committee and pertain to agriculture preservation programs and Purchase of Development Rights as well as limiting use of Prime Farmlands for utility-scale solar. The third recommendation comes from Virginia Farm Bureau and is in support of Virginia’s Forest Sustainability Fund for Local Governments.

Looking at the upcoming City Council meeting packet, it appears that the first and third of Council Member Butler Barlow’s requests are included in the “Utilities/Environmental” section. Hopefully, in the future, agriculture will not be an afterthought! Whether you agree or disagree with this agenda, it is apparent that there is a lot going on and many things to consider when prioritizing the city’s “legislative requests, policy positions, and funding requests.”