developer – Care4Suffolk

Mayor Duman Claims Developers are Listening

Care4Suffolk — Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:25:47 +0000

During the November 2025 City Council meeting, after the Manning Road Rezoning Public Hearing, Mayor Duman stated:

“It’s quite evident that the developers are listening. We are listening.” Then he goes on to talk about how “we have done exactly what we need to do” and how the developer is doing what he can do “to the extent that he is capable of doing what he can do and still be able to move his project forward.”

Is Mayor Duman seriously saying that this is the best we can expect from developers in Suffolk? Let’s review the Manning Road issues to see what we can expect from the city and the developer:

In 2022 the developer, Bob Arnette, provided a traffic study for Manning Bridge Rd instead of Manning Rd. The analysis stated:

And this:

If you are familiar with the site location on Manning Road, you know how ludicrous this statement is. This would mean all cars head south from the site on Manning Road and go the long way (about 4 miles!) to catch Holland Road 3 miles WEST of the Manning Rd/Holland Rd intersection.

This was approved by city staff!!

By 2024, he provided a new traffic study, but this one is also NOT for Manning Road. Instead, the developer used existing city data for the Grove Ave/Holland Rd intersection.

The developer has NEVER done a traffic study on Manning Road. Yet this traffic study was also accepted by the city.

He did have an engineer go out there and measure the road and it shows the same thing we have been saying for 3 years – the road is narrow! The lanes are well below the state standard and the developer’s plan is to slap some asphalt on the narrow shoulder, adding inches and in some cases a couple feet of asphalt. The road will still below the state standard. This will not expand the road space itself. It will just pave from ditch to ditch and guardrail to guardrail. There is no engineering report that actually states if that will make the road safer or if it is even feasible. Why is City Council even considering allowing a developer to make substandard improvements in exchange for a large development.

I guess this is the ‘listening’ that the mayor is talking about?

The school proffers have decreased by $1.2 million. In 2022, the developer was offering $1.9 million for Kilby Shores Elementary and $1.2 million for Forest Glen Middle Schools.

Now he is only offering $1.9 million for Kilby Shores and nothing for Forest Glen.

The City has recently come up with a ‘new method’ of determining school proffers – developers no longer need to count ‘uncommitted’ developments, which is any development that doesn’t have a submitted site plan.

Uncommitted houses have gone through the rezoning process, so they can be built by-right at any time just by submitting a site plan. These houses will be built at some point AND will impact our schools and roads, but by NOT counting them, the developer gets to save a lot of money. He is off the hook for the extra proffers, but that money will have to come from somewhere. It will be passed on to taxpayers.

Maybe THAT is the listening the Mayor is referring to?

This developer does NOT have a right to rezone this property. He took a risk and engaged in speculative development, which has the potential to make him a lot of money. If this doesn’t get passed, he can just sell his land like everyone else does when they no longer want the property they own. Sometimes when you speculate, you lose.

If this passes, everyone that lives on or off of Manning Road will be subjected to the tripling of traffic which will greatly increase the chance of a serious accident. It is already a dangerous road that has seen fatalities. Adding more traffic means there will be more accidents and more risk to the safety and lives for our family, friends, and neighbors, not to mention the 300 new families that will be added.

City Council can say NO to this project. It is perfectly reasonable for them to say that they value the rights of the current property owners to safely enjoy and live in their homes, and that the desire, not right, of the developer to make a profit is not a good trade-off for the city and its citizens. They represent us, not him.

If the developer, the city and City Council are actually listening then they will know that what we are opposing is a development that will predictably DECREASE the SAFETY of the current residents. If City Council truly represent the people, they will put our safety above the profits of the developer.

The Fear Factor

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 23 Oct 2025 10:56:10 +0000

A common quote that developers use when faced with public opposition is: “If not this, then something worse.” I have seen this time and time again.

These are threats. They are stated for the intended purpose to get people to respond emotionally. When people are faced with two choices, they will pick what they perceive to be as the lesser of two evils. The developer is using this tactic to elicit support by threatening something worse.

This is what is happening right now with the proposed Riversbend rezoning. The Riversbend project is a development of 497 homes on 73 acres. The almost 500 houses is a big sticking point with citizens, School Board members, and some Planning Commissioners. The 500 houses is a huge project that will negatively impact already over-crowded schools and Main Street, which already suffers from heavy traffic.

How is a developer to deal with all the pushback? He could reduce the number of houses, and that might help. This option is very seldom taken.

Alternatively, he could induce fear and create a scenario that makes the 500 houses look like the better deal. For example, he could say:

“If they don’t allow these 500 houses, then 800 could be built there, ‘by right’ and it wouldn’t even have to go through rezoning!”

This is EXACTLY the scenario that is happening right now in our city. Decision-makers, like the Planning Commission and School Board were told that if they don’t agree to the 500 houses, that instead, the developer could come back with a MUD (Mixed Use Development) plan of 800 houses. City staff are actually confirming this for them.

The problem is that this threat of a development with 800 houses is a lie at worst or a deliberate misrepresentation at best.

The developer AND City staff, are saying this because this land is already zoned B-2, which is commercial zoning that allows MUD. Examples of this type of development include The Gallery at Godwin and Bridgeport. These are developments that offer both commercial and residential in the same development, like commercial space at the ground level and then apartments above.

There is a ratio set up in the UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) for MUD where there has to be one employee (one job created) for each housing unit built. They calculate the number of employees by taking the total square footage of the commercial space and dividing it by either 400 if it is retail space or 250 if it is office space. In order to put 800 homes at the VDOT site, they would need to build 320,000 square feet of commercial space. To put that in perspective, Bridgeport, which is quite large, is only 60,000 square feet of retail space.

They don’t have the ability to put that in this location. You don’t have to take my word for it– they already TRIED the MUD overlay district before applying to rezone.

In the above MUD conceptual plan, dated March 2025, look at what they were able to squeeze onto this space. They came up with 525 housing units and only 467 jobs, so the jobs number was too low! I don’t know how many iterations they worked with to try to maximize the housing, but they probably never even got to the 497 of the current application.

Also note, doing a MUD overlay does not absolve them from needing cash proffers for schools and roads, even if it does not need to be rezoned. At some point the developer looked at this, along with Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, who was on the email that contained this plan (which I received via a FOIA request) and decided the best move was to rezone to RU-18.

All of this doesn’t even include the fact that no project of ANY density could be built there without the assistance of Mr. Hughes in gifting EDA (city-owned) land to the developer for use as the main entrance and exit. You can read more about this here.

So for everyone out there concerned that if the Riversbend rezoning doesn’t pass, we will be faced with 800 homes instead: don’t worry; this is a scare tactic. Shame on any and all city staff and city leadership that perpetuate this lie.

What’s Behind the Riversbend?

Care4Suffolk — Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:47:52 +0000

A new development called Riversbend is being proposed for the old VDOT location at 1700 N Main St in Suffolk (Suffolk Borough). The developer, NVR, Inc. (Ryan Homes), proposes to build a maximum of 497 units on 73 acres. These will include 168 age-restricted units and 329 single-family townhouses. You can read the application and all the accompanying documents here.

In this article, I’m not going to go into the specifics of the actual project or discuss whether or not it’s a good one. Instead, I want to take a closer look at some questionable aspects of the application and at some behind-the-scenes communications between our Interim City Manager, Kevin Hughes, and Melissa Venable from Land Planning Solutions (representing the developer) that helped move this project forward.

Let’s start with the situation regarding the need for city-owned land for road access to the development site. It is important to understand that the traffic study for this Riversbend project found it HAD to have an access point from Memorial Ave. The current VDOT site has no direct access to Memorial Ave itself, which means the developer needed to obtain a piece of city-owned land to even make this a possibility.

Suffolk’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) is the entity that would need to approve the use of this city-owned property, as it is in the EDA’s ownership. Instead of keeping the EDA members involved in the application process, it appears that the topic was sprung on them unexpectedly by Kevin Hughes at their May meeting, despite months of communication between Hughes and the developer’s representatives.

On May 14, 2025 the EDA – which was created by the city to promote economic growth – met for its monthly meeting. The meeting agenda did not include the Riversbend project, but instead, during the closed door session (held specifically to discuss “Project Polka” and “Project Goober”), Mr. Hughes unexpectedly gave a presentation for a different project: Riversbend. (An attempt was made to obtain the presentation that Mr. Hughes gave during that meeting, but that request was denied because it was presented during a closed-door session)

Excerpt from EDA Meeting Minutes, May 14 2025. The purpose of the closed meeting was to discuss two projects unrelated to the Riversbend project. Additionally, it is difficult to argue that it would adversely impact the EDA’s negotiating position, when the EDA was not involved in any negotiations.

We do know that as a result of this meeting, the EDA approved the use of EDA owned land, located at 1802 N Main Street, as part of the rezoning for the Riversbend development. Coincidentally, this is the one piece of land that connects the Riversbend project to Memorial Ave.

The above is an excerpt from a site map. The orange portion (that has been cropped) is the section the developer is looking to rezone to RU-18 (Residential Urban). The light red is the portion that will remain with its B-2 zoning. The purple is the land that is owned by the EDA. The green road is Memorial Ave. Note that only the EDA land borders Memorial Ave. This is the portion that the developer needs to connect to Memorial Ave.

It seems odd that the Interim City Manager, the head of all Suffolk city government (except for the Suffolk Public Schools) would be so involved with this one rezoning application. Yet there are emails back and forth between Kevin Hughes and the developer that discuss the EDA land and include copies of the site plan dating back to March.

This email from March 3rd is asking if the City Manager or Director of Planning and Development has verified the EDA boundary line. This is 6 weeks BEFORE the EDA even learns that its land will be part of this development.

In this email from Apr 22, still 3 weeks before the EDA meeting, the developer’s representative is talking about “finalizing the application” to get the required signature. It is clear from the language that Ms. Venable is confident that the EDA will allow the developer to use EDA land in this Riversbend development. They have had it included in the site map since at least March, but possibly as far back as November of last year.

This site plan is originally dated Nov 26, 2024 and then revised Mar 21, 2025. The EDA land is circled in red and has been a part of the development site since at least mid-March, almost two months before the EDA meeting.

An email from April 23rd references discussion about proffers between Kevin Hughes and Adam Edbauer (Ryan Homes) that makes it clear that the City Manager was helping with the proffer language for this application. Let’s look at what the city is being offered.

To start with, this application offers NO money for school proffers. Traditionally, when a development will be adding students to an overcrowded facility, the developer offers a proffer to help “advance school capacity.” In other words, a developer helps pay for the costs that the development will put on the school system.

It also offers no money for the EDA land. That parcel was assessed by the city as being worth $168,000. Not much in the whole scheme of the project, but since the developer HAS to have it, you would expect the developer to offer something for it. Is the land being gifted to the developer? Will the EDA retain ownership? If the EDA does retain ownership, does that mean Riversbend never has to pay taxes on that land? That is an ongoing loss of revenue for the city – indefinitely.

Above is a screenshot of the City of Suffolk’s property record for the EDA’s land (1802 N Main St). The value of the EDA land is highlighted in yellow. The value is listed at $168,000.

At the open house, while speaking with the developer’s representative, Melissa Venable, I asked if the proposed park (that is partially composed of the EDA land) would be a city park and she replied no. She said it would be maintained by the Riversbend HOA. So instead of a city park, it will be a private, HOA-run park for Riversbend use. That certainly is a great deal for the developer – free land for an exclusive park; or even better – free land and no taxes for the EDA land.

Above is part of the site map cut to show the park location. The circled red area indicates the EDA owned land that makes up half of the park.

Instead of proffering money for schools, the developer is offering a trade: the city will receive the dilapidated old VDOT District Office building and an accompanying 2 acres in lieu of money. The idea is that this old building can be rehabbed and used for the Suffolk Public Schools (SPS) which is looking for an administration building.

There is no discussion in the fiscal analysis that addresses how much money will need to be put into this old building. That doesn’t mean I am against the idea of the city obtaining the building via a trade, but it would be good to know at least an estimated cost to renovate and update it.

In the Proffer Statement, the value for the District Office building and site is suggested to be $6.3 million while the school proffers were estimated to be $4.7 million. If this were true, it might be a smart deal for the city, even if the EDA land is thrown in for free.

However, according to the City of Suffolk assessment (see below), the building is estimated to be worth only about $3.8 million, but it is unclear if this one building is the only “improvement” being referenced on that site. Usually improvement values include things like a home, detached garage, out-buildings, etc., and there are about 30 other buildings on this property. At MOST this building is worth $3.8 million. The idea that just one old buildings on this site is worth $6 million is sketchy when you consider that the entire property as a whole (including all buildings) is valued at $16 million. This is an 87 acre lot with 4,000 feet of waterfront, in the heart of Suffolk. That building alone is not worth 40% of the whole value of that land.

Another shortfall of the developer’s fiscal analysis is that it mentions a “new way” to calculate school proffers, but it does not show how they arrived at their estimated number of $4.7 million.

I did some calculations myself (which you can read about here) of the actual school proffers calculation for the Riversbend Development. It should be at least $6 million and maybe up to almost $9 million. (Unlike the developer, I will show you how I came to these numbers and support it with documentation.) This deal to exchange the building in lieu of the school proffers, will actually be a loss for the city in the amount of at least $2-3 million, but could be up to $6 million. Add to that the loss of the land that is being gifted from EDA and all around it looks like a really, really bad deal for the City.

The EDA wasn’t part of the initial discussions for this project, nor was it part of the negotiations. At the most recent EDA meeting on August 13th, the Interim City Manager gave an update about the Riversbend Project, basically just explaining the timeline and giving the EDA members some background on other projects the EDA has previously been a part of and how well that worked out for the city.

The Interim City Manager also spoke about how the EDA is a co-applicant of the Riversbend project. That was once true, as you can see from an earlier draft of the application (obtained through a FOIA). However, the current application excludes the EDA completely. It was on the application – now it isn’t. The EDA is not currently listed as a co-applicant, nor is its land mentioned other than being included in the site map.

This application was an attachment to an email from June 12, the day after this application was signed on behalf of the EDA. Note that there is no signature for NVR, Inc.

This image is from the current application on the city’s website. (Page 12) Note that the EDA has been removed as a co-applicant under the Commonwealth of Virginia. This application DOES have the NVR, Inc signature and is dated 4-30-25, still 2 weeks before the EDA learns about this. 

The older copy has a June 11th date and the more recent copy has an April 30th date. So is this a mistake on the part of the city or the applicant?

It seems that perhaps the EDA wasn’t aware of all of these details, because also at the recent EDA meeting, one member announced his intention to bring this matter back up at the next meeting in September. He stated that there was more information coming to light and that he was planning to make a motion to rescind the EDA’s approval to use their land.

If the EDA rescinds the use of its land for the Riversbend development, based on the Riversbend traffic study, it looks like it might put the developer in a tough spot. An older version of the traffic report, received through a FOIA request, shows that there were issues placing the entrance and exit on various locations on the road front at Main Street. Will Riversbend even be able to pass the design process without this road access?

As a citizen of Suffolk, I have to ask: is this how the city and City Manager usually conduct city business? Are there always these backroom efforts going on between the City Manager and developers? Are the divisions in our local government, like the EDA, just there to rubber-stamp ideas from the City Manager?

The City Manager had months to approach the EDA about this project. There was plenty of time to share the information, give the EDA members a chance to review the application and verify details. There didn’t have to be a push to add it to the EDA meeting without notice and then obtain the EDA’s consent in just an hour’s time. How could any of the EDA members be expected to make a well-informed decision so quickly? Again, I ask, is this how the city always operates: half in confidential communications and then rushed decisions to circumvent proper evaluation?

Why wasn’t the Planning Department itself more involved? The only member of that department on any of these emails is Kevin Wyne, the Director of Planning & Community Development. Aren’t there planning staff who are specifically employed to be the main contacts for individuals or companies looking to rezone? Why has this one been handled from the top? What makes this development or developer so special?

If this is par for the course, are we, as citizens, ok with our government working this way? Why does our City Manager have this much control? If this is such a great use of EDA land, why wasn’t the EDA brought into the process sooner? This was months in the making. And if the City Manager is working for the good of the citizens, why didn’t he negotiate a better deal for us? Why do the citizens of Suffolk lose out millions of dollars on this deal? How is that in our best interest?

If you are concerned about this, I suggest you email City Council and share your thoughts. City Council is the only body that supervises the City Manager. He answers to them, and they answer to us. It is time to get some answers.

Contact information available from City of Suffolk’s website- https://www.suffolkva.us/881/City-Council-Mayor):

This email goes to all City Council Members, including the Mayor:

council@suffolkva.us

Michael D. Duman, Mayor

mayor@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 514-4009

Lue R. Ward, Jr., Vice Mayor

(Nansemond Borough)

nansemond@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 377-6929

Shelley Butler Barlow, Council Member

(Chuckatuck Borough)

chuckatuck@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 346-8355

Leroy Bennett, Council Member

(Cypress Borough)

cypress@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-3750

Timothy J. Johnson, Council Member

(Holy Neck Borough)

holyneck@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-0556

Ebony Wright, Council Member

(Sleepy Hole Borough)

sleepyhole@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-9873

John Rector, Council Member

(Suffolk Borough)

suffolk@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-1953

LeOtis Williams, Council Member

(Whaleyville Borough)

whaleyville@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 402-7100

Port 460 Engineer Giddy Over City Fire Code Amendment

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 04 Aug 2025 06:30:00 +0000

Back in May, Care4Suffolk published an article that described how Council reduced fire safety standards during the City Council Meeting on May 7, 2025. Against the objections voiced by Suffolk’s Fire Marshall, the fire code expert, Council voted 7-1 to approve amending Suffolk’s Fire Prevention and Protection Code (Chapter 38 of the Unified Development Ordinance) in such a way that it reduced some existing fire flow standards and added “flexibility” on approving hydrant system water connections.

This is a follow-up article to share further information that was obtained though FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. These emails show that city staff had concerns about the fire solution plan for Port 460* and that there were communications with the Port 460 developer and its engineers regarding this fire code change. There was a sequence of events and communications through March and April, and by early May of this year, someone in the City, under the direction of the City Manager’s office, found a solution for the water configuration issues for Port 460. The work-around was to change Section 38-73, paragraph 6 of the City’s fire code in a way that made it seem like it was just simply “necessary” to match the state’s code. However, the paragraph 6 change, while meeting state code, actually also removed an extra safeguard that Suffolk had in place and added the option to let the fire official override the fire hydrant system water supply requirement.

The engineer for the developer expressed excitement when the code change passed and had even asked the involved city staff to give a pre-emptive “buyoff on the fire solution” before the Council Meeting with the assumption that the change in code would be approved. (To their credit, city staff did not do this.)

It is clear that there were concerns from city staff regarding water supply for fire suppression at Port 460 . Through efforts by the City Manager’s office, City Council changed Suffolk’s fire code such that it benefits the developers of the Port 460 warehouse project.

It all began with an email from the Building Fire Protection Plans Examiner on March 27, when he reached out to other staff in an email with the subject heading: Port 460 Building 1 (and 2?) Fire Pump House. This email chain reflects staff agreeing to set up a meeting to discuss the water configuration for this Port 460 project.

On April 1, there was a meeting with various staff from the Fire Marshall’s Office and Public Utilities for the purpose: “Clarification of water supply for building fire suppression systems at Port 460.” During the time of this email chain, the construction of Port 460 Building 1 was already well under way and Building 2 was just beginning.

On April 29, almost a month later, there was another meeting. This meeting included some City staff and at least two Kimley-Horn representatives. There was a discussion regarding “fire solutions for Port 460 Building 1 and 2”.

By May 7, the morning that this fire code change was set to go before City Council, there was an email from the City Manager’s office with an update for the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal on the presentation that they were scheduled to give to City Council during the Work Session at 4pm that afternoon. These additions were regarding the fire safety code change. We learned from the Fire Chief during the Work Session presentation that this change was directed by Mr. Moor, City Manager, and his staff.

Also on May 7, Kimley-Horn was aware that City Council was about to vote to amend the fire safety code. They had already made site plan adjustments and wanted to have City staff department ‘buyoff” on the fire solution ‘assuming the code does change’.

Bright and early the next morning, Kimley-Horn sent an email, excited about the fire code change approval.

As the city staff reviewed the site plans with regards fire safety, more issues arose. The water tank requirement had already been removed and there were new problems related to the public hydrants versus private.

This delay in action seems to have prompted a different Kimley-Horn rep to get involved and he emailed city staff requesting to schedule a virtual call, telling them that “this design item has become a critical path for approvals and to keep construction timelines.”

In response to this meeting request, the fire marshal’s plans reviewer states the need to see the final approved copy of the code change, which was then provided by then- Deputy City Manager Kevin Hughes. You can see from his email that he points out that paragraph 6 is what they are looking for.

They were able to schedule a May 12th meeting, after which a Senior Fire Protection Technician from fire protection firm, HGI (Harrington Group Inc.), joined an email thread stating that the engineers from Kimley-Horn are concerned, but that “HGI understands that the recently adopted amendments to the City of Suffolk Fire Prevention and Protection Code provide an exception for the fire official to approve alternate fire hydrant arrangements when the municipal water system cannot meet the fire flow demand.”

For reference, below is a screenshot of the code changes directly from Suffolk’s Unified Development Ordinance “municode” webpage. There is a “compare versions” icon that allows you to see additions and strike-through changes. (https://library.municode.com/va/suffolk/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH38FIPRPR_ARTIIIFICO)

To add to this story, the delays in publishing these emails are in part because the initial response to the FOIA request included redacted portions of emails. It is not uncommon for municipalities to redact information for the following state and federal allowed reasons:

Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.

Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.

Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.

Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:

Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)

Attorney-Work Product Privilege

Attorney-Client Privilege

Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.

Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:

7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings

7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication

7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source

7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law

7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual

Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.

Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

However, the City redacted portions for the reason: Irrelevant to Request.

That is not a legitimate reason to withhold information from the public. In fact, the requester is not required to provide any reason for the request of documents.

Further discussions with the City prompted an additional response to the FOIA request that was delayed, but contained unredacted copies of the emails. Both sets of these FOIA responses have been included on the Care4Suffolk FOIA page for public review. Included in the redacted portions was an email from Kimley-Horn.

Another FOIA request for more emails relating to the fire code change resulted in a response of 17 pages of completely redacted emails. They were literally 17 pages blacked out completely, with just the reason given as: City Attorney/Client. Look for the next article on this topic to learn more about the fully redacted FOIA responses to the FOIA request regarding fire code safety and what it means for the citizens of Suffolk.

*Port 460 is a controversial 540-acre, 5 million square foot warehouse complex approved by City Council in 2022.

Road Safety in Suffolk

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 02 Nov 2023 15:12:59 +0000

Most people in Suffolk have probably heard about the school bus that overturned on Cypress Chapel Road on October 16th with twelve children on board. According to news sources, the bus driver and 12 children were taken to an area hospital and at least one child underwent emergency surgery. While the cause of the accident is still unknown right now, we do know that this is a narrow, rural road. School bus drivers brave these kinds of roads everyday in our city and this situation highlights the risk involved.

When the rezoning application, Lake Kilby Road rezoning request (RZN2021-018), came before the city earlier this year, Care4Suffolk opposed this rezoning on the basis of over-crowded schools and unsafe roads. During this rezoning, the topic of school bus safety on rural roads came up. We wrote about this in a March post.

The developer offered to widen the road in front of this proposed development, but only to 20 feet (from 16 feet) by extending pavement right to the edge of the existing ditches. The lawyer for the developer, Grady Palmer, stated at the Planning Commission, “We understand, that’s not standard. We wish we could do standard, but we can’t do standard. But 20 feet, and the way I think about this as a lawyer, can two school buses pass each other safely on 20 feet of pavement. I think the answer to that question is yes.” (Source: Planning Commission Meeting video mark 2:39:34-2:39:55)

This Suffolk school bus was measured from its widest points: side mirror to side mirror. The bus measures almost 9 feet 7 inches.

During the City Council Meeting on August 16, Council Member Fawcett called a city employee to the podium to ask him questions in an effort to discredit our research. The city employee stated that school buses are about 8 ½ feet wide and that he did not know of any incidents involving school buses on our roads during the school year. In actuality, Suffolk school buses measure 9 feet 7 inches from mirror to mirror, the widest points. The city employee may not have known of any accidents involving buses, but that doesn’t mean there haven’t been any, it just means the city didn’t bother to investigate these issues.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the city and found that there were, in fact, over 56 incidents involving school buses throughout Suffolk last school year. There were sixteen incidents of buses being struck by other vehicles and eight incidents of a bus in a ditch. Accidents can happen anywhere for a variety of reasons. Collisions with other vehicles and buses flipping into a ditch are far more likely to lead to injuries. Narrow roads, with no shoulders, and steep ditches along the sides leave no room for error when something unexpected happens.

The information sheet below was provided to the city in opposition to the Lake Kilby rezoning application. It states the basic standard requirements from the City of Suffolk’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the legal codes set forth by the city. The sheet below demonstrates the standards that the city is ignoring regarding road width and design standards for the amount of current and future traffic.

The diagram below demonstrates the road updates the developer was proffering. Developers improving roads below standards does not fix the problem of having lanes that are too narrow and ditches directly adjacent to the road.

The city may not have the funds to widen all of Suffolk’s many narrow, country roads, but it is well within their power to prevent large developments on these types of roads. That new development on Lake Kilby that just passed will be adding 200 homes and 2,000 more vehicle trips per day. Many tractor trailers already use this road as a cut-through, and many more are coming to our vicinity with new warehouses recently built and in works.

More vehicles equals more chances for accidents. If the City can’t fix the roads, for the safety of its citizens, it has two other options: require proffers from developers that will actually bring the roads up to standards or do NOT approve rezonings on these roads. The City of Suffolk needs to think of safety first; the safety of its citizens and the safety of our children.