City Council – 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.

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

Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up!

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 05 Feb 2026 16:46:16 +0000

The FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) violations by the City of Suffolk are starting to pile up! The latest is from a FOIA request asking for emails between Mayor Duman and Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes:

There were three responsive documents – three emails that fit the criteria. One email was just a notice to all City Council Members stating the developer wanted to delay until December (their favorite month to put controversial votes!) The Riversbend rezoning was then delayed again to be voted on at the February 18th city council meeting.

The second document was an email dated October 14, 2025, that contained the slide show presentation that Kevin Hughes presented in front of the October 9, 2025 meeting of the Suffolk Public School Board. This was the meeting where Kevin Hughes, on behalf of the Mayor and City Council, asked the SPS Board to weigh in on the Riversbend rezoning and the potential administrative building proffer that the school board could receive as part of the project.

The third document was actually withheld completely. It was an email that was not included at all, with just the reason given that it is a “working paper” for the City Manager.

I wrote to the head of the FOIA department back on December 19, the day after receiving this and followed up recently, having not yet received a response. I included in my email part of the state code that discusses the duty to redact. State code is very clear: it can only be excluded entirely if the entire content of the email has to be excluded. Otherwise, the City is required to release those portions that don’t qualify under the exclusion.

By fully withholding the email, there is no way to ascertain WHEN it was sent, WHO is on the email, or any other information that may be gleaned from a redacted email, like how long it is, whether there were any attachments, etc..

We have had previous articles on FOIA violations by the City of Suffolk. You can read about another instance experienced by a member of Care4Suffolk here and here. In that case, the City redacted under the guise of Attorney-Client privilege, only for the member to later learn, after paying $80 to schedule a court date, that the email did not even have an attorney on the email, so withholding it on the basis of attorney-client privilege was definitely a violation.

We can follow that process again, by writing another petition for mandamus and spend the roughly $80 to have the City served and be required to appear in court – and we may yet choose that option, again – but we shouldn’t have to.

The City of Suffolk should not be hiding information from citizens. They used the attorney-client privilege when there was no attorney on that other email. Now they are using “working papers” as an excuse. Why are there even “working papers” for Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes in his communication with Mayor Duman, when Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest with the Riversbend rezoning and has had to recuse himself from the proceedings?

I just want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that this whole Ryan Homes project for Riversbend has had a top-down push through the whole process. Examples include:

Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest in this project because of a financial relationship with Ryan Homes. (See videos below.)
Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, who reports directly to the Mayor and City Council has been very hands-on with this particular rezoning, even prior to the application being submitted to the City.
March 19, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable, of Land Planning Solutions, to Kevin Hughes to set up a meeting to “move forward with the VDOT property zoning”
March 26, 2025 – Email sent ahead of meeting with site map. Map had an original date of November 26, 2024 and then updated Mar 21, 2025, already showing EDA land as part of the site plan. (The EDA is the City’s Economic Development Authority board, so the land is owned by the City of Suffolk.)

April 22, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable to Kevin Hughes stating: “I wanted to verify that the Econ. Dev. Parcel shall remain as a MUD parcel on the attached? We are finalizing the application to get to you for signature” Note that this email was from 3 weeks before the EDA Board even knew about the project. Kevin Hughes was arranging for the EDA land to be included in the application. The EDA approval was just a formality.
April 23, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable to Kevin Hughes and Adam Edbauer (Ryan Homes) with subject heading: VDOT Application & Signatures. Venable mentions proffer language that Edbauer and Hughes have discussed.
May 14, 2025 – EDA Meeting: During a closed-door session for 2 properties unrelated to Riversbend, Kevin Hughes gives a presentation on the Riversbend project and makes a push for the EDA to approve the EDA’s joint venture with the Riversbend Project. Approved by EDA. Note: the EDA land was essential for the Riversbend project to move forward because it need the the land for the primary entrance/exit. (Purple land on map is EDA owned land.)
September 11, 2025 – Hughes, in an unprecedented move, makes presentation to School Board and asks for formal response from the School Board
October 9, 2025 – Hughes, stating he is representing the Mayor and City Council, answers questions and again requests a formal response from the School Board. School Board votes 8-0 to deny support of the Riversbend Project. Again, with the Mayor’s conflict of interest, why is Mr. Hughes claiming to be speaking on behalf of the mayor?

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman on his Facebook Live (December 1, 2025) discusses his conflict of interest with Ryan Homes and the Riversbend project.

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman during City Council Meeting (November 19, 2025) wanting to ask a question regarding the Riversbend project and asking the City Attorney if he can with his conflict of interest. Meeting link

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman during joint City Council & School Board Meeting (December 3, 2025): In this video clip, Mayor Duman is told multiple times, by City Council’s lawyer no less, that he is not allowed to speak on the Riversbend project, yet here is, trying to share his opinion on it. Meeting link

The above video clip is from the September 11, 2025 School Board Meeting. In this clip, Interim City Manager states that they don’t present to the school board ever on rezonings, because it is City Council’s purview. So we know that this unprecedented move makes this rezoning special, specifically regarding the proffers that Kevin Hughes helped write.

The above video clip is from the October 9, 2025 School Board Meeting. In this clip, Interim City Manager states he is there “representing the Mayor and City Council” which is particularly interesting since Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest with this project.

And now we know that sometime between January 1 to December 3, 2025, there was an email that included BOTH Mayor Duman and Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, and we know it was regarding the Riversbend project.

Yet, we are to believe that the city can’t release this email – not even the date or the subject or who was included on the email – because it is “working papers” for Kevin Hughes.

What does “working papers” even mean? The Code of Virginia defines it in the following way:

“’Working papers’ means those records prepared by or for a public official identified in this subdivision for his personal or deliberative use.”

§ 2.2-3705.3. (Effective July 1, 2026) Exclusions to application of chapter; records relating to administrative investigations

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) explains it a little more fully:

“Most probably, the purpose of the provision is to provide certain high-ranking executives some privacy over their decision-making prior to that decision being made. The idea being that if the public can see the decision-making process at every step along the way officials might not be able to be as candid and the quality of the decisions they reach might be affected.”

Both of these identify the deliberative use, or decision-making process, as a necessary part of the “working papers”. So if this email is truly “working papers” for Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, then why does it involve Mayor Duman, who indisputably has a conflict of interest with this specific rezoning? What decision was being considered by Mr. Hughes regarding the Riversbend rezoning, especially considering that the decision actually lies with City Council, not him? What Riversbend-related decision would Mr. Hughes need to involve the Mayor in, considering he is not only prohibited from voting on the issue, he is not allowed to discuss it?

The Riversbend project itself is rife with transparency issues. Suffolk’s Mayor has a financial conflict of interest with the project, and yet the Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes has been very hands-on from the very beginning. If this isn’t concerning enough for citizens, the city government is refusing to fulfill their legal duty to provide this email communication and instead is hiding behind “working papers.”

Here are some FOIA Violations to date, that we are aware of:

December 2024 – City Council voted to adopt the 2045 Comprehensive Plan without giving the required public notice.
August 2025 – FOIA request resulted in a response of a fully redacted email while FALSELY claiming attorney-client privilege. It was later discovered no attorney was involved in the communication.
May 2025 – City of Suffolk’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) entered into a closed meeting to discuss two projects (Polka and Goober). The Riversbend project was also discussed during this closed-door session without being on the agenda, even though it did not meet the qualifications for closed-door session because the Suffolk EDA was not contemplating the sale of a parcel or any other “publicly held real property”. Therefore, using the exemption at 2.2-3711-(A)(3) was improper. (See email and information below)
August 2025 – FOIA request for the slide show presentation given by Kevin Hughes to the EDA Board May 2025 meeting. The FOIA request was denied for the reason: closed door meeting. However, “no record that is otherwise open to inspection under FOIA shall be deemed exempt by virtue of the fact that it has been reviewed or discussed in a closed meeting.” (See email and information below)

The email below is from the FOIA Council, after the EDA Vice Chair reached out to them concerned about the EDA May 14th Meeting and whether proper procedure was adhered to. The FOIA Council response explains the following:

FOIA should be narrowly construed, meaning the city shouldn’t be using it to get around disclosure requirements.
Closed sessions are for the purchase, sale, or lease of real property and not for rezonings. Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes should not have used the closed meeting for his presentation to the EDA Board, as it was for a rezoning, not a sale, lease or purchase ofland.
The EDA Board’s vote on a rezoning application should have been part of the open session and part of the official record.
The city failing to provide the presentation that Mr. Hughes used to convince the EDA Board was also violation of FOIA. It should NOT have been withheld because it should have all happened during open session AND a closed session can not be used to prevent disclosure of information that would otherwise be open to inspection.

Council Reduces Fire Safety Standard

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 29 May 2025 15:31:30 +0000

At the May 7, 2025 City Council meeting, Council approved an ordinance to amend Chapter 38 Fire Prevention and Protection of the Code of the City of Suffolk. The main purpose of amending this chapter was to make Chapter 38 “coincide with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Act.” Only Council Member Wright voted in opposition to this ordinance.

The way that this was phrased made the change sound like Suffolk is changing its code to meet the State’s minimum requirements, which would not seem controversial. However, there was a VERY interesting exchange regarding this city code amendment during the City Council Work Session prior to the regular council meeting, at which Suffolk’s Fire Marshal, Christopher Cornwall, made it very clear that he is against a key part of the amendment that was being proposed: striking Section 507.3 regarding fire flow requirements.

While Suffolk cannot create less restrictive policies than the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Act calls for, it can put higher standards in place. The existing code was a higher standard, and by voting to make the change on May 7th, City Council LOWERED the standard regarding fire flows. Below is a screenshot of the ordinance amendments as presented in the City Council meeting packet. Take note that the existing code (that is lined out) says that “fire flows required shall be the cumulative amount” of internal and external demand (emphasis added).

By eliminating this section (which was based on the International Fire Code (IFC), Appendix B), Suffolk’s code defaults to the standards set by the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Act, which has a lesser requirement of just the greater of internal or external demand.

Council Member Wright astutely asked “can that formula ever produce a low, but potentially inadequate, fire flow?”

The Fire Marshal’s answer was:

“My stance hasn’t changed as it pertains to municipal fire code Section 507.3. That’s simply that I’m not in favor of repealing it at all for that very reason.”

Suffolk’s Fire Marshal clearly stated opposition to removing this section of the fire code and most of City Council chose to ignore him?!

He did make it clear that the proposed change is compliant with code, but “reverting back to that State code section, becoming less restrictive by standard, it is a reduction in the amount of flow that is available, therefore a reduction in the amount of water that would be available for the suppression personnel to fight fire with.”

So why did City Council vote to approve a fire code change that may reduce the amount of water that will be available to fight fires, and against the Fire Marshal’s strong opposition?

This change to the code regarding fire flow requirements came from the City Manager’s Office. Fire Chief Barakey stated he spoke to City Manager Al Moor regarding this change. Why did the City Manager’s office request this change? And why did City staff frame this change to make it look like it was bringing Suffolk up to Virginia’s State standards, when the Suffolk code was already more stringent than the State?

Interestingly, Fire Marshal Cornwell brought up large warehouses a couple times when explaining his concern about reverting Suffolk’s code to the State’s lesser fire flow requirements. He gave the example that in a 200,000 square foot warehouse, the same number of sprinklers as in the council chambers would use up all the water available for suppression if we just follow the State standards.

He also acknowledged that people ask how everyone else can do it (meaning follow the State code for fire flow requirements), but pointed out that they also have other types of safeguards. He gave the example of Virginia Beach having: “other provisions in place to ensure that their safeguards are met as far as building construction that ensure they don’t have million square foot warehouse complexes completely unprotected by any other provision.”

This caught our attention! Is he saying that Suffolk’s fire code will now have no other protective provisions outside of the reduced fire flow requirements in the State code? Did City Council just reduce fire safety standards to the benefit of warehouse developers without adding any alternative safeguards?

The Fire Marshal’s stance regarding this fire code change was very clear when he said:

“I feel like by reverting back completely to the state standard would leave us completely wide open to problems down the road.”

We should all take notice when a top safety official says something like this.

How much risk is City Council exposing the citizens of Suffolk to by lowering the fire flow requirements?

Suffolk City Council has recently approved some things that allow for warehouses and residential development in close proximity to each other, along with expanding the areas in which they feel warehouses are appropriate. If reduced fire flow requirements are a cause for concern regarding suppression capabilities at large warehouse sites, how could this potentially impact the people living in and around these areas?

In November 2023, City Council unanimously approved Ordinance Text Amendment (OTA) 2023-007, which added a section to the Unified Development Ordinance about warehouses. It established a mere 30-foot front, side, and rear setback from all abutting properties – including residential! This minimal setback was approved despite citizens voicing concerns.

In December 2024, City Council approved the City of Suffolk 2045 Comprehensive Plan, which vastly expanded the City’s growth areas and established large swathes that they desire for “Employment Centers.” (This is the new phrase they are using for warehouse/industrial areas.) These areas are colored in purple, as you can see on the below Land Use Map. These “purple” areas originally did not include allowances for residential use, but during the last few weeks of the comp plan development, “Residential” was added as an acceptable secondary use of “Employment Centers.” (Only Councilmember Bennett voted ‘nay’ on the 2045 Comp Plan and Councilmember Wright was not yet on council.)

In September 2022, City Council approved the rezoning of 540 acres to allow 5 million square feet of warehouse space in ten buildings along Pruden Blvd./Rt. 460 bounded by Kings Fork, Pitchkettle, and Murphy’s Mill Roads, close to existing homes, businesses, and a school. (Councilmembers Johnson, Butler Barlow, and Bennet voted ‘nay.’)

There are still many unanswered questions regarding the City’s decision to lower fire safety standards in Suffolk. Care4Suffolk will continue to follow this issue. As we investigate further, we will provide the public with more information.

Rector’s Development Disconnect

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 12 May 2025 17:37:32 +0000

“As you ride around the city, we’re 430 square miles of nothing but needs. And, um, we’re doing our best to try to keep the bandaids on the wounds that are open and prevent other wounds from occurring.”

This was the comment made by Councilmember Rector during the FY26 Budget public hearing on April 16, 2025. It’s definitely not a ringing endorsement of the management of Suffolk!

There seems to be a disconnect from some of our City Council Members. Who does Councilmember Rector think is responsible for all these “needs” and “wounds”? And how does he think we can “prevent other wounds” if we just keep forging ahead with the unchecked growth?

The City has been pushing for rapid development over the last decade or more. “Economic Development” is now almost a sacrosanct phrase. We are supposed to accept any and all development without concern for the long-term impacts, fiscal or otherwise. They don’t even provide supporting data that supports that these “Economic Development” opportunities will provide positive fiscal impacts. We are expected to take them at their word and not question the rationale.

Some City Council Members have consistently justified rezoning prime farmland (a limited natural resource), approving large projects on insufficient roadways and in overcrowded school zones – all in the name of “economic development.” There is a certain fear of missing opportunities and disappointing developers that overrides citizens’ concerns and wishes.

Mr. Rector’s choice of words about the budget seem especially obtuse in light of some comments he made at the March 5, 2025 City Council meeting, expressing concern about “competition” from other counties and keeping “our foot on the gas” with regards “economic development opportunities.” As a matter of course, these “opportunities” are not specified.

“… there are a lot of areas that are part of the Hampton Road Alliance that are very, very eager to accept economic development and one of the newer members is New Kent County. And I can promise you that once the 64 corridor, between Williamsburg and Richmond, gets completed, New Kent County is going to be in a strong position to compete with Suffolk, and some of the areas for some of these economic development opportunities. So we need to keep our foot on the gas.” [Emphasis is ours.]

Oh no! You mean somewhere else might try to compete with Suffolk for the label “Warehouse Capital of Virginia”? Let them. We have enough warehouses and do NOT need any more.

We have warehouses being built without committed tenants. Speculative housing developments are being sold to (and by) the City as necessary “extra rooftops” to attract economic development. The new 2045 Comprehensive Plan is designed around this whole speculative concept!

The real disconnect comes when some City Council members talk about the problems around Suffolk. They will acknowledge there are problems, but act like the cause is out of their hands and say there is just not enough money for everything. This is pretty much what Mr. Rector expressed in that first quote.

Traffic, road improvements, over-crowded schools, drainage and storm water management issues are some of the most common concerns. Many of these go unfixed until they’re at a point of critical mass, often getting that way because of new development that exacerbates existing problems. Who does City Council think is allowing this to happen?

Our own Public Works Department has declared our inability to pay for road improvements, stating that we need state or federal funds, for which we only qualify if the situation becomes severe. Attempting to shift this paradigm doesn’t seem to occur to anyone. Instead, they follow the old formula of more unchecked growth to increase tax revenue, which is NEVER enough.

So why are some so determined to stay in this stale, tired old cycle?

Is it possible that some on City Council just can’t connect that the former (extensive rezoning) is the reason for the problems we are experiencing with the latter? Their decades of rezoning for “economic development” and more rooftops has made the situation worse, not better. The citizens recognized this during the 2045 Comp Plan public engagements. The main thing citizens wanted was for the City to slow down its growth so that the infrastructure can catch up.

What we need is a responsible local government that will actually use the brakes sometimes when it comes to development in order to allow time to fix our roads, schools, and storm water problems, and establish higher standards for what we want for our City.

We need City Staff and Council Members who are brave enough to break the cycle of dependency on new development. Just because regional entities and developers keep telling Suffolk how lucky we are to have them, doesn’t mean we have to accept everything they send our way. This strategy has not worked and Suffolk needs to use its leverage to focus on higher-quality growth. Most importantly, we need growth that does not worsen any “wounds.”

Rector Dismisses Claim of Port-Centric Plan

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 03 Dec 2024 19:47:38 +0000

Care4Suffolk has been watching the 2045 Comprehensive Plan process closely over the past couple years along with other city happenings and land use related issues. By observing and gathering information from various council meetings, work sessions, staff presentations, and the comp plan draft itself, we formed the opinion that much of the 2045 Plan is geared towards prioritizing the needs of the Port of Virginia.

During the November 20th City Council Public Hearing on the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, Councilman John Rector (Suffolk Borough) read a very lengthy, prepared lecture focused on dismissing citizen comments and concerns as emotional and hyperbole. One of the main things that seemed to bother him was that “one of the citizens groups” sent an email to council members asking them to vote “no” on the 2045 Plan because it focuses on the Port’s needs more than it reflects citizens’ input.

Mr. Rector attempted to shoot down this claim about the Port by telling everyone how many times the words “Port of Virginia” or “warehouse” appear in the 2045 Plan draft as compared to words like “rural” and “agriculture.” It’s interesting that he thinks a simple word count would be what a citizens group would base its claim on.

Speaking up to City Council and sharing ideas publicly are not easy things to do, so as a group, Care4Suffolk makes every attempt to look at the bigger picture and tie various pieces of information together. This is how we came to our conclusion about the Port’s influence in the comp plan.

During the January 17, 2024 City Council Work Session council received a comp plan update presentation from Keith Cannady as a precursor to the first draft coming out in February. We noticed that four of his slides were the same ones we had seen presented at the April 2023 City Council retreat. They pertained either directly to the Port of Virginia or to warehouse space comparisons. It really caught our attention when Mr. Cannady said this:

“Another major driver, and this is somewhat unique for this particular plan update, is really an historic investment in the Port of Virginia and growth in container traffic at that facility and really changing the dynamic for the state and for the region in terms of economic development and opportunities.”

He goes on to remind council members that they had this conversation at the retreat “trying to set the stage for what this plan, and what we, would ultimately recommend.”

The rest of Mr. Cannady’s briefing covered the new growth area boundary options they had considered and then what they were actually recommending. At this point he stated:

“Investments at the Port were creating opportunities for Suffolk; consider that as we looked at the growth area boundaries.”

Care4Suffolk actually wrote an article about this work session back in February: Port or People: What is the City’s Focus?

Since the 2045 Plan draft was shared in February, Mr. Cannady has included the slide below in multiple presentations. Clearly, they are looking at the Port as a key opportunity for Suffolk, despite the public’s negative view of warehouses. (Highlighting residential and utility scale solar as development opportunities are topics for another day.)

We also saw that city staff are labeling Suffolk as a “Port Centric Partner” during the March 20, 2024 City Council work session presentation about the Route 460 road improvement project funding.

Councilman Rector may not have liked or agreed with what we had to say, but we based our recommendation on two years of listening and observing along with the 2045 Plan draft itself, definitely not emotion.

He chose to ridicule two out of the thousands of public engagement comments as a means to dismiss our claims that the 2045 Plan is not prioritizing citizen feedback. Cherry picking a couple of comments is intellectually dishonest. The bottom line is that those thousands of comments show that people do not like warehouses or the loss of rural character. City staff’s own public engagement summaries say as much.

Key Takeaways from the first set of public engagements from May – Oct 2022, p. 18, 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft

Key Takeaways from the second round of public engagements from January – March 2023, p. 19, 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft. Importantly, these were the series of public engagement sessions that were held throughout the city and were well attended.

Care4Suffolk has been reiterating the public desires that the city itself collected and summarized. These are not themes that we projected on the public – the public has already shared these with the city. The city is choosing to ignore these to push forward the goal of supporting the Port of Virginia with more warehouses and accelerating growth – expressly against the wishes of the citizens.

Maybe sometime soon, instead of chiding concerned residents, Mr. Rector will use his speaking time to explain why he thinks this new plan is actually needed and what is so good about it.

Hot Mic Mike

Care4Suffolk — Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:23:39 +0000

The whole point of a public hearing is so that the citizens can weigh in with their opinions and concerns on an issue before a decision is made and the votes are cast. The November 20th City Council Meeting was a mockery of that process.

Suffolk’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan is the controversial document that was on the agenda that night. The comp plan had previously gone before the City Council three months earlier on August 21st. At that meeting, Council Member Roger Fawcett (Sleepy Hole Borough), read his pre-written motion asking to table the comp plan vote, conveniently delaying it until after election day.

This past Wednesday, the farce played out in a much more obvious way. After the public hearing, at which roughly a hundred citizens were in attendance, City Council Member Shelley Butler Barlow (Chuckatuck Borough) expressed her concerns and then made a motion to table the vote until January 15, 2025. Several of the 14 public speakers that night had made this same request to delay the vote until January in order to allow the newly-elected City Council Member, Ebony Wright, a chance to take her seat (and replace Roger Fawcett). Allowing Ms. Wright the opportunity to vote on this plan would give her the opportunity to represent the citizens who elected her.

After Ms. Butler Barlow made her motion and just as Council Member Leroy Bennett (Cypress Borough) was seconding the motion, you can hear Mayor Mike Duman on hot mic whisper the words “substitute motion”. About eighteen seconds later as the potential January date was being clarified, you can again hear Mayor Duman on hot mic whisper “Psst, Roger” while leaning back and looking in Council Member Fawcett’s direction.

Hear Mayor Mike Duman whisper on a hot mic, “Substitute motion.” (Time stamp: 2:12:54)

Hear Mayor Mike Duman whisper on a hot mic, “Pssst, Roger.” (Time stamp: 2:13:12)

The importance of the “substitute motion” is that it will get voted on BEFORE the first motion. And this is exactly what played out. After being reminded by Mayor Duman, Council Member Roger Fawcett did indeed make a substitute motion that the vote be delayed until December 18th, instead of the January date. The significance of this is that December 18th is the last meeting at which Roger Fawcett will sit up on that dais as part of council.

Council Member Lou Ward (Nansemond Borough) seconded Fawcett’s motion and then the December 18th motion passed 5-3. (Council Members Butler Barlow, Bennett, and Tim Johnson (Holy Neck Borough) voted in opposition.) Because Fawcett’s motion passed, Ms. Butler Barlow’s motion was moot and didn’t get voted on.

This was clearly orchestrated. Mayor Mike Duman needs to make sure that this comp plan passes and if Council were to vote in January instead of December, he risks losing the guaranteed ‘Yes’ vote of Roger Fawcett, the man who served as the Steering Committee Chair for this comp plan.

This is why we say that this Public Hearing was a farce. The Mayor of Suffolk and at least one Council Member (maybe more) had this planned in advance of the meeting. Members of our elected City Council had already determined how this would play out before the Public Hearing even began. Listening to all the citizen’s comments was just checking a box that is required by the State of Virginia.

When votes are decided in backroom conversations, democracy is not being served. When public officials manipulate the process to obtain the outcome they desire, democracy is not being served. When the city is no longer listening to its citizens, democracy is not being served.

We need our elected leaders to be better – and do better – than this.