Development – Care4Suffolk

2024 Comprehensive Plan Timeline

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

Nov 2020

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

Jan 2021

Proposal received from Planning Next

July 2021

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

Dec 2021

Vision and Goals to be completed; first payment executed

Plan contains no vision statement nor any goals

April 2022

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

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

Workshop and focus group attendees & meeting “minutes”

May 2022

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

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

Summer 2022

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

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

Nov 2022

First public engagement gathering organized by Care4Suffolk

This was the original completion timeframe according to proposal

Feb/Mar 2023

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

June 2023

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

August 2023

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

Nov 2023 – Jan 2024

City Council Work Session presentations by Planning Department

All Growth Area expansion options presented to City Council in January

Feb 2024

Release of 2045 Plan draft; start of online survey

Mar 2024

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

May 2024

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

Reduction in Growth Area recommendations

Need expressed for transportation plan

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

Public hearings delayed (TBD)

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

June 2024

Planning Commission Work Session presentation

Reduction in Growth Areas

Other changes made, only 3 briefed

Lengthy Economic Development briefing on warehouse development

Land use pie chart added

All departments present slides

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

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

July 2024

Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the 2045 Comp Plan

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

August 2024

Changes made to plan AFTER Planning Commission vote

Map changed due to “a number of landowners”

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

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

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

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

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

More new slides from Economic Development

Pie chart

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

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

FOIA request for already completed parts of Master Transportation Plan

Sept 2024

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

One memo from May 2024 provided

Ground-breaking for Port 460

2025 Legislative Agenda presentation to City Council

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

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

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

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

Oct 2024

Comp Plan submitted to VDOT for review (Oct 2)

City Council Work Session (Oct 16)

No Master Transportation Plan, just VHB briefing and outline

No real changes to accommodate citizen concerns

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

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

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

Nov 2024

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

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

Fiscal Troubles Ahead?

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

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

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

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

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

Suffolk’s UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) reads:

B-14. – FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to the Suffolk News-Herald

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

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

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

Dear Editor:

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

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

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

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

Port 460 Project – Tip of the Iceberg?

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:31:17 +0000

It has been two years since the controversial Port 460 development project was rezoned at City Council, but the frustration from the public with a city that isn’t listening still lingers.

But is the Port 460 project just the tip of the iceberg? I was recently listening to a podcast of a mayoral forum hosted by the CE&H Heritage Civic League in collaboration with the Suffolk Peninsula Community Partnership and moderated by WHRO. Mayor Duman, Mr. Jenkins, and Mr. Bosselman had an opportunity to weigh in on a variety of topics.

At one point, near the end, Mr. Bosselman, while discussing development in the City, made an interesting revelation:

“I think the city is actually being run by the developers more than the city is running the city. In my opinion. So I think we need to have some more vision and foresight here. I do know that there are outside forces bearing down on the city so far as development here. I‘ve actually been in a meeting with this Matan group that’s in charge of Port 460 development. I had to go in there to get…, I still farm some land there. I needed the key to get in through the gate. As I was looking around the room, I see a big map. And there’s a map of fields and areas that I know, including my neighbor’s land, my land, and some more land that I farm. So their plan is going to go beyond what they’re trying to do here in the City of Suffolk. It’s all about development. It’s some kind of long-term plan here that nobody knows, nobody is telling us, but it’s in the works.” (around mark 1:14:45)

Back in May, Care4Suffolk posted an article about the City advertising 562 acres of agricultural land off Rt. 460 that is NOT currently in the growth area. The advertisement stated:

“This site is currently identified in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan as a designated growth area for Industrial Development encompassing a variety of uses including logistics, manufacturing, warehousing distribution, and research development.”

This was particularly concerning because back in May, City Council was still giving City staff feedback about new growth areas in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, while the City was selling it like it was a done deal. Rt. 460 was part of that discussion. Below is the original map proposed by City staff for the expansion of the growth areas:

There is an extended growth area of yellow to the north of Rt 460 and purple to the south of Rt. 460, and these extend all the way to the Suffolk city line. The yellow represents residential land use and purple is where warehouses can be built.

The growth areas have since been reduced and that advertisement has been removed from the city’s website, but the question is still hanging there: what is being planned down Rt. 460?

Mayor Duman spoke after Mr. Bosselman, and denied knowing anything about Matan’s future plans. I will take Mayor Duman at his word, but I find it hard to believe that there is no one in the city aware of Matan’s future plans down Rt. 460. Considering that the City’s own website was advertising the land for sale, there MUST be someone aware of these future plans. So where is the transparency? Why is our government working towards a future plan with no oversight from the public? The citizens spoke out against the Port 460 Project and the extensive growth area additions to the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. The City of Suffolk knows this is not what the citizens want. Maybe Mr Bosselman is right – maybe “the city is actually being run by the developers more than the city is running the city.”

Developer Influence on Comp Plan

Care4Suffolk — Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:04:11 +0000

A few months ago, we wrote an article that questioned the amount of influence developers have had in the creation of Suffolk’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan. We now know that they have extensive influence.

A recent update from the City regarding the 2045 Comprehensive Plan was published August 7, 2024, three weeks after the Planning Commission had already voted on it.

The new draft contained a change that the City explained in their email dated August 7, 2024:

Here is the a comparison of how the draft read when it went to Planning Commission on July 16th, and how it reads now:

A ‘number of property owners’ thought that this was so important that it had to be changed. This change relates to land development. These ‘property owners’ (developers), have so much sway that they were able to convince the Planning Department to change this AFTER the Planning Commission had already voted on it. Let that sink in.

Care4Suffolk, representing hundreds of citizens, expressed our shared concern about the missing Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA), months before it went in front of the Planning Commission. The FIA was supposed to be completed before the draft was even written, and it would have helped us understand how this growth will impact our future tax burden. We had no influence; the Planning Department felt it wasn’t important to do, and the plan continued on. If we had been developers instead of teachers, social workers, farmers, etc., maybe we would have held more sway.

Pause the Plan – Help Spread the Word

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:46:41 +0000

Care4Suffolk has been following the City’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan since November 2022. After a two-year process, the draft has been completed and the next step will be for this 2045 Comprehensive Plan to make its way through the Planning Commission and to City Council where, if approved, it will be implemented immediately.

Unfortunately, this 2045 Comprehensive Plan does NOT represent the needs or wants of the majority of citizens of Suffolk. This plan is going to expand the growth area by almost 25%. The previous plan, adopted in 2015 only expanded the growth area by 5% and look at how that has impacted the traffic on our roads, our over-crowded school, and over-stretched public services.

Additionally, the City is increasing the growth area without having done due diligence. The City chose NOT to do the fiscal analysis. The fiscal analysis was part of the original proposal requirements and was supposed to be completed prior to writing the draft. This fiscal impact analysis is a set of tools that the Planning Department could have – and should have – used to see what various development options cost in infrastructure and public service and compare it to the revenue they generate. It shows planners whether specific types of development in specific locations are a net positive for the city or a net negative, which will cost the taxpayers money in the future. This is THE key tool that should have guided decisions: should we expand the growth area and by how much, where should that expansion be, and what type of development is best? Instead of looking at data to answer these questions, the planners just decided not to do the fiscal analysis!

We can NOT allow our City to proceed with this plan until AFTER the fiscal analysis is completed AND used to guide the decision about the growth area and land use types.

Below is a flier that we are circulating. Please help us in our efforts to ‘Pause the Plan’ by sharing this with family, friends, and neighbors in Suffolk. We need as many people as possible to let City Council know that this is NOT acceptable.

A Comprehensive Plan is the document that guides growth and development in a city. Suffolk’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan (suffolk2045.org) will soon be voted on by Planning Commission and City Council. If approved, it will have a major impact on future land use decisions.

Problems with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan

No Fiscal Impact Analysis Was Done:
- The City failed to use this essential tool as prescribed in the original contract and against the recommendations of the consulting firm.
- The fiscal analysis was supposed to have been done BEFORE the draft was written.
- Without the fiscal analysis, the City doesn’t know how much its desired development will cost taxpayers.

Huge Growth Area Expansion:
- A Growth Area is where a city encourages development.
- The 2045 Comprehensive Plan will increase the Growth Area by almost 25% (adding 17 square miles).
- Previous comprehensive plans, from 1998 to 2015, added only 12 square miles total.
- New Growth Area will destroy farmland and open space adjacent to our reservoirs.
- Suffolk’s farms are an economic powerhouse that should NOT be sacrificed in favor of warehouses and suburban sprawl.
- Suffolk already struggles with traffic congestion, unsafe roads, over-crowded schools, and over-extended emergency services.

Let City Council know that you want them to ‘Pause the Plan’ and have the fiscal analysis completed BEFORE adopting the 2045 Comprehensive Plan: council@suffolkva.us

Michael D. Duman, Mayor

mayor@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-514-4009

Lue R. Ward, Jr., Vice Mayor

(Nansemond Borough)

nansemond@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-377-6929

Shelley Butler Barlow,

Council Member

(Chuckatuck Borough)

chuckatuck@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-346-8355

Leroy Bennett, Council Member
(Cypress Borough)
cypress@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-3750

Timothy J. Johnson, Council Member
(Holy Neck Borough)
holyneck@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-0556

Roger W. Fawcett, Council Member
(Sleepy Hole Borough)
sleepyhole@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-377-8641

John Rector, Council Member
(Suffolk Borough)
suffolk@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-1953

LeOtis Williams, Council Member

(Whaleyville Borough)

whaleyville@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-402-7100

Pause the Plan

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 11 Apr 2024 18:04:39 +0000

You wouldn’t build an addition on your house and ask afterwards how much it cost, would you? Of course not – that would be ridiculous! If you waited to find out the price until after you built, you would have already incurred the cost and be responsible for the money you owe for the addition whether you could afford it or not. Nobody makes big, expensive decisions that way. First, you estimate the costs, you determine if you can afford it, and then you do a cost-benefit analysis to see if it is worth it.

This is how most people make decisions and we expect the same cost-benefit analysis from our government. After all, we have to pay for the decisions they make. This is why it is so concerning to see what is in the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft AND what is NOT in it – there is no fiscal analysis. The City was supposed to have a fiscal analysis done prior to writing the comprehensive plan draft. The City chose not to have it done. What will the new development in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan cost? We don’t know, but it could potentially saddle us, the taxpayers, with huge infrastructure costs for decades to come. The lack of due diligence on the City’s part in making these recommendations without the fiscal analysis is concerning.

This image shows a map of Suffolk from the 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft (p. 41) with the new and current Growth Areas. The red arrows have been added by Care4Suffolk to help show where the new growth areas will be.

Suffolk city managers and planners want to expand the city’s Growth Areas by almost 25%, prioritizing “land use type” changes to allow for a lot more industrial and suburban growth. Almost all the proposed new growth area is currently agricultural or low-density rural residential, adjacent to our water supply reservoirs. Turning rural areas into suburban residential and industrial areas is sprawl. Sprawl comes with a high price tag for infrastructure costs – roads, water, sewers, schools, and emergency response services.

This image is from the Fiscal Impact Analysis Report from the City of Eagle, Idaho (p.24). This is an example of the type of information from a fiscal analysis that provides valuable insight for a city to use in planning future development. The City of Eagle is looking at long-term Net Fiscal Impact for development in a specific area.

This image is from the Cost of Land Use Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Town of Davidson, North Carolina (p. 17). The Town of Davidson is comparing the fiscal impact (surplus vs deficit) of various non-residential land use types from 2014 compared to 2020. Notice that the warehouses are net negative, from 2014 to 2020.

During the planning process, the City sought public feedback and heard many concerns and frustrations regarding the rapid expansion in the last decade. Citizens are suffering from traffic congestion, unsafe roads, insufficient schools, increasing taxes, and lack of adequate public services. Considering the public pushback on development of warehouses and high-density housing in recent years, one would expect city managers and planners to go out of their way to justify why they recommend 17 square miles of additional suburban and industrial development in the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft. You would think that in order to alleviate our concerns they would be eager to demonstrate how all this benefits the city as a whole and improves our quality of life. The City has not done this. Instead, we are left with additional concerns about the lack of due diligence in the process.

The City of Suffolk has paid over a million dollars to create this plan. We expected that the City would analyze costs and impacts of growth and development as part of this new plan. We expected a thorough analysis of a variety of growth scenarios, weighing the costs versus benefits. We expected the City to provide specific strategies, goals, standards and methods of accountability. Yet, this has not been done.

The Fiscal Impact Analysis should have–and could have– been completed already according to the initial requirements of the contract with the consultant, but the City specifically asked to delay it. Below are all the records that show that contrary to the original agreement, the City of Suffolk asked to have the Fiscal Impact Analysis delayed and only done AFTER the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan is approved.

In November 2020, the Suffolk Purchasing Division put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for “Review and Update of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.” It contains a “Scope of Services,” (p.6-11) which lists what the City feels are the desired components “essential for reviewing, evaluating, and updating” the 2035 Plan by a potential contractor/consultant. One of these desired components was “Development of an appropriate fiscal analysis format and model; and review, update, and prepare fiscal impact analysis of future and preferred development scenarios” (p.6).

In January 2021, the consulting firm, Planning NEXT, presented its proposal to review and update the 2035 Plan. Their Scope of Work talks about fiscal analysis and “alternative land uses and build out scenarios” that they will prepare to “be compared with a set of metrics developed in collaboration with Staff” (p10-11). It states that they “will conduct an analysis to help determine the most advantageous types of economic development” (p12) and a Fiscal Impact Analysis is clearly listed as a specific task within the Technical Analysis component of the document (p12). The Plan Development component of the proposal lists a task to “Develop fiscal impact model tool and reports,” to include a “Growth Impact Report” as a “stand-alone document, that is easily understood by all interested parties” (p15).

The image above is an excerpt from the Proposal: Review and Update of the Comprehensive Plan Suffolk, VA (p. 18) which is from Planning NEXT (January 20,2021). The highlighted section shows that the plan originally included a fiscal analysis that was to be completed prior to writing the comprehensive plan draft.

The images above are excerpts from the Scope of Work Amendment from Planning NEXT dated August 29, 2023 (page 3 on left and page 4 on right). These excerpts show that there was a change from the original plan where the City has made the decision to postpone the fiscal analysis until after the 2045 Comprehensive Plan is approved.

Suffolk’s city managers and planners decided they wanted to wait until AFTER the 2045 Plan was approved by City Council to have a thorough Fiscal Impact Analysis done. They want to approve this new growth plan without knowing the short-term or long-term costs. A Fiscal Impact Analysis is a standard recommended part of the comprehensive plan process. The consultants hired to help develop this plan both recommend, and routinely complete, these studies for the other cities that hire them.

This is an excerpt from Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today’s Decisions Affect Tomorrow’s Budget by L. Carson Bise II of TischlerBise. This excerpt explains what an important tool the fiscal analysis can be for planners while making decisions like the ones made in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. TischlerBise is the consultant that was going to conduct the fiscal analysis. Full document available at the end of the article and on their website.

This is an excerpt from Fiscal Impact Analysis: Reader Beware: Some Caveats by Paul Tischler of TischlerBise. This excerpt states that a fiscal analysis should be completed prior to developing the plan (before writing the 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft). TischlerBise is the consultant that was going to conduct the fiscal analysis. Full document available at the end of the article and on their website.

It is clear from the city’s original queries and the consultant’s proposal that a Fiscal Impact Analysis is an integral part of the comprehensive plan review and update process. Plain old common sense tells the average person that these recommendations for drastic growth should be data-driven. To use the previous analogy, here we are with the City poised to build an addition and they have failed to do the basic cost-benefit analysis we all expect and require from our City officials and city planners. They want to build and then find out how much it will cost us.

The comprehensive plan impacts almost every land use decision the city makes and citizens of Suffolk need to know WHY our city managers and planners think moving forward with almost 25% increase in Growth Areas is warranted. We need the fiscal analysis completed so we can see the long-term impacts of the development proposed in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. We deserve more than expansion without substantiation. Until we get some clear answers, the city needs to put a pause on the plan.

Let City Council know that you want them to ‘Pause the Plan’ and have the fiscal analysis completed BEFORE adopting the 2045 Comprehensive Plan: council@suffolkva.us

Michael D. Duman, Mayor

mayor@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-514-4009

Lue R. Ward, Jr., Vice Mayor

(Nansemond Borough)

nansemond@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-377-6929

Shelley Butler Barlow,

Council Member

(Chuckatuck Borough)

chuckatuck@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-346-8355

Leroy Bennett, Council Member
(Cypress Borough)
cypress@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-3750

Timothy J. Johnson, Council Member
(Holy Neck Borough)
holyneck@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-0556

Roger W. Fawcett, Council Member
(Sleepy Hole Borough)
sleepyhole@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-377-8641

John Rector, Council Member
(Suffolk Borough)
suffolk@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-1953

LeOtis Williams, Council Member

(Whaleyville Borough)

whaleyville@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-402-7100

Supporting Documentation and Additional Reading:

Comprehensive Plan Survey

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 01 Apr 2024 18:11:47 +0000

If you haven’t done it yet, complete the survey for the 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft before the April 8th deadline. It is available online, or if you prefer a paper survey, email care4suffolk@gmail.com and we will get you a copy.

If you aren’t familiar with Comprehensive Plans, they are used by cities to guide development. Virginia requires them and cities have to review theirs every 5 years. This 2045 Comp Plan will go before Suffolk’s City Council sometime this summer and, if approved, take effect immediately. The city has been soliciting feedback from citizens at various points in the process of developing the new plan.

The Comp Plan states where and what type of development will happen in Suffolk by creating “Growth Areas.” There are some huge changes in this plan, including a growth area expansion of almost 25%. The City also wants to increase industrial development (like warehouses and distribution centers) by about four times the area currently zoned for them. If you thought the roads were packed with tractor trailers now, just wait!

This survey provides your last opportunity to suggest changes to the comp plan, before it goes through the process to City Council. The survey is long, consisting of three parts. The first is the interactive map. It provides what will be the Future Land Use and Growth Area map. You can click anywhere on the map and a window will pop up with a list for you to select what type of land use you think it should be. There is also space to write a comment.

The second part has a series of Actions. These are the main objectives and actions that the city wants to implement. You have to select “View Actions” under each one in order to read the details and see where you can write a comment on them and select whether you support the action or are concerned. There is no option to object, but you can write that in the comments.

The third part is demographic information and is pretty straightforward.

There are two major issues that stand out in the Action section. The first is under the Land Use and Growth Management section. There are a lot of statements that are designed to align zoning to the Future Land Use map, which is very different from what we have now. Currently, most of the land they want to add in the expanded Growth Area is zoned for agriculture. Including this agricultural land in the Growth Area, combined with many of these new Actions, will make it easier for the developers to get this land rezoned. That is concerning considering the huge expansion of the growth area and how much of it is designated for the Future Land Uses of ‘Suburban Neighborhood’ and ‘Employment Centers,’ which is the city’s new term for industrial. That’s where warehouses and distribution centers will be built.

The other thing that stood out was the contradictions present in the ‘Objectives’ and ‘Actions’. The City states in a variety of ways that it wants to preserve farmland, protect open spaces, increase access to natural spaces, and protect the watershed, waterways, reservoirs, and environmentally sensitive areas. These all sound great, except they want to expand the Growth Area into these exact areas. The best, cheapest, and easiest way to do all of this preserving and protecting is to NOT expand the growth area and NOT label them for future suburban residential and industrial land uses.

Expanding growth area by almost 25% and the need to protect these natural resources are at odds. If the city truly cares about our farmers and wants to protect our water and environment, the city just needs to remove the new additions to the growth area. It is really simple. It won’t cost us anything. Remove the growth areas for the benefit of Suffolk.

Sprawl for Suffolk in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 21 Mar 2024 05:39:00 +0000

The City of Suffolk has been working on the new Comprehensive Plan for two years and it is expected to be voted on this year. It will be implemented immediately if approved by City Council. During the two-year process, the public advertising for the new plan prominently mentioned Smart Growth. It was on the website, the handouts, and was incorporated into the tagline: Sharing the Vision – Smart Growth to Build a Diverse City.

When the new draft was publicized in February of this year, I was excited to check it out and raced to see how they incorporated Smart Growth into the new Comprehensive Plan draft. Spoiler alert: they didn’t. Despite the advertising, ‘Smart Growth’ doesn’t appear in the new draft even once.

Smart Growth is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program started roughly 30 years ago. You can read more about it here and here. Essentially, it is a set of guiding principles for development and conservation intended to enhance people’s health and natural environment while making cities more diverse and economically strong. It strives to create communities where people want to live, work and spend time. It is an approach that cities and towns around the country are using to promote a better community for their citizens.

Below are the Principles of Smart Growth:

• Mix land uses

• Take advantage of compact building design

• Create a range of housing opportunities and choices

• Create walkable neighborhoods

• Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place

• Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas

• Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities

• Provide a variety of transportation choices

• Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective

• Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions

There are so many ways this new Comprehensive Plan is contrary to Smart Growth, but let’s begin with the huge expansion to the Growth Areas. City managers are looking to expand the Growth Area in Suffolk by nearly 25%, which is unprecedented in previous Comprehensive Plans. This will create more sprawl, which is detrimental to strong, inward growth – a key facet of Smart Growth.

This Smart Growth principle is simple: limiting growth to areas with existing infrastructure will save money long-term with less infrastructure upkeep. Additionally, focusing growth inward helps bring more businesses and housing options to the downtown area. Infill development is building on unused and underutilized land. It is aimed at areas with existing transportation and utility infrastructure. It repurposes or replaces existing buildings, parking lots, or other impervious areas to add homes and businesses near the center of cities.

When the City of Suffolk began expansion in the North Suffolk area, new growth and development ended up there instead of focusing in the downtown area. It is cheaper and easier for developers to build on farmland. It is flat, clear, and cheap, allowing them to maximize their profits. But the city manager’s job is not to maximize profits for developers. The city needs to partner with developers willing to invest in downtown. It isn’t as easy, but it will lead to a more vibrant and healthier Suffolk in the long run. Instead, city management is pushing for development to the west side of Suffolk. Will we end up with a West Suffolk as well as a North Suffolk? What does this mean for Downtown?

Other ways the new Comprehensive Plan doesn’t follow Smart Growth:

Create walkable neighborhoods: When you look at the new developments that have been springing up throughout Suffolk, walkable is not a descriptive word you would associate with most of them. Many do have sidewalks (more infrastructure for the city to maintain) but they don’t provide any place to go. Some do connect with a couple of commercial businesses, but by no means does it make the community walkable. A walkable community is when you can walk to schools, work, churches, shopping, parks, restaurants, etc. and there are very few new developments in Suffolk that meet this principle.

Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. Walkable communities tend to have this by the very nature of the mixed use areas in close proximity. Communities are not just houses in one area, they are a variety of homes, surrounded by the activities (mentioned in the walkable neighborhood) that the people use every day.

Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas. Suburban and industrial sprawl destroy natural open spaces, farmland and critical environmental areas. Below you can see the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA). The City of Suffolk already has its current Growth Area entirely within the CBPA and this new Comprehensive Plan will extend the Growth Area to cover even more of it. Development in this area pollutes our waterways, which impacts the sea life (an important source of food) in the Chesapeake Bay as well as the surrounding rivers. It also negatively impacts the reservoirs in Suffolk that provide drinking water to the citizens of Suffolk, Norfolk, and Portsmouth. The plan’s Appendices list 37 waterways in Suffolk that have impaired water quality. Previous versions of the Comprehensive Plan acknowledge the importance of minimizing development near these critical waterways, but the new draft has done an about-face and is encouraging development on these natural resources instead.

Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions.

City planners say that this plan represents a combination of what the community and the “stakeholders” (i.e. developers) want for the future of Suffolk. They say everyone isn’t going to get everything they want! However, this new plan is contrary to the public feedback the city received while working on this new draft. If this isn’t what the public wants, then that means the city managers are listening more to the stakeholders than they are to the public. Developers are getting what they want at the expense of the citizens.

This new plan will exacerbate suburban sprawl and encourage huge swaths of land to be rezoned for warehouses. This sprawl will negatively impact Downtown Suffolk by creating vast new growth to the West of downtown. This expanded Growth Area and these new developments do not align with Smart Growth. So why did city managers include Smart Growth in all the publications? Did they start down the Smart Growth path, but then make a 180° when it didn’t match with what developers wanted?

It seems that our city management doesn’t respect what the citizens want. If we do nothing, then nothing changes. However, if you don’t like this new plan – if you don’t want to see more warehouses and the continued sprawl in Suffolk – you need to act. We all need to act. This process will soon move through the Planning Commission and on to City Council by this summer. City Council will then vote to approve or not approve the new comprehensive plan. If you don’t want this for the future of Suffolk, let City Council and the Mayor know where you stand.

Let City Council know what you think about this new growth area: council@suffolkva.us

Michael D. Duman, Mayor

mayor@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-514-4009

Lue R. Ward, Jr., Vice Mayor

(Nansemond Borough)

nansemond@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-377-6929

Shelley Butler Barlow,

Council Member

(Chuckatuck Borough)

chuckatuck@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-346-8355

Leroy Bennett, Council Member
(Cypress Borough)
cypress@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-3750

Timothy J. Johnson, Council Member
(Holy Neck Borough)
holyneck@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-0556

Roger W. Fawcett, Council Member
(Sleepy Hole Borough)
sleepyhole@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-377-8641

John Rector, Council Member
(Suffolk Borough)
suffolk@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-1953

LeOtis Williams, Council Member

(Whaleyville Borough)

whaleyville@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-402-7100

Get Ready, More Warehouses are Coming to Suffolk

Care4Suffolk — Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:43:07 +0000

The new 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft drastically increases the Growth Area in Suffolk, by enlarging the existing one by almost 25%, which is unprecedented in the history of Suffolk’s comprehensive plans. The Growth Area is important because it lets developers know in which areas the city (not necessarily the citizens) wants to see more development.

In addition to expanding the Growth Area, our city managers have created a Future Land Use Map. This map shows what type of development (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) the city would like to see in different areas, which is often very different from the actual, current zoning. If you haven’t looked at your home’s location, you should check it out and see what will be changing near you.

If this plan is approved as it is, Chuckatuck and Sleepy Hole will be seeing an increase in suburban residential development. Whaleyville is about to see an increase in warehouses. Cypress and Nansemond will see increases in both suburban residential and warehouses, while Holy Neck is about to take the brunt of the expansion with enormous increases in both warehouses and suburban residential developments. Holy Neck residents: the city can’t commit to building a rec center in your borough in the next 5 years, but they can guarantee you will get more warehouses!

The term ‘Employment Center’ is now the Land Use Type name they want to use for areas where city managers want to allow warehouses and manufacturing. If you are wondering how much these ‘Employment Center’ areas are set to expand, you will be disappointed to know that the city hasn’t measured it. When specifically asked, what is the area of all land currently zoned industrial as well as the area of the proposed ‘Employment Center’ land use category, the city planner responded that the area in the plan ‘has not been calculated in this way’ and that this isn’t ‘an engineering project’.

The Planning Department stated during a comprehensive plan briefing at the February 7th City Council meeting (mark 19:47) that, “You want to make decisions based on good data.” So why have they not used basic metrics like area? Land is a limited resource. How can you plan without measuring how much we currently have zoned for industrial and how much we want in the future?

Maybe they don’t want to measure because they don’t want to tell us how much area they are expanding for warehouses. (It is about four times the current industrial-zoned areas, by an eye-ball measurement, and sadly, that is the best info we were able to get off the provided maps.)

Interestingly, listed as THE TOP, #1, Objective and Action in the ECONOMIC section of the new comprehensive plan, is this plan to build a publicly owned commerce/industrial park:

E.1 Attract and retain employment-generating industries. (p. 80, 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft)

E.1.1 Develop a publicly owned commerce/industrial park to promote diverse industry growth in support of higher-paying jobs. The site should be aligned with the Virginia Business Ready program (VBRSP) to leverage the visibility and funding opportunities available at the state level. VBRSP grants are awarded to assist with the costs of site assessment and work (rezoning, surveying, infrastructure improvements, etc.) necessary to increase a site’s development readiness.

City planners won’t measure the area they want to expand for warehouses and logistic centers, but they know they want to develop a publicly owned commerce/industrial park? Where is this park going to be? How big will it be? It is hard to imagine they spent two years on this draft, list this as the #1 economic priority and don’t know what they are planning. Where is the transparency?

They will also tell you that zoning and land use type are not the same. However, the wording in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan says differently. Check out the sections below that clearly talk about changing the zoning to match the Future Land Use map.

OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS (p. 64, 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft)

L.1 Focus development in designated Growth Areas and promote development that is consistent with the Future Land Use and Growth Areas Map.

L.1.1 Review development proposals for consistency with the Future Land Use and Growth Areas Map, the Future Land Use Types described and mapped in this chapter, and the Guiding Values, Land Use Principals, Objectives and Actions adopted in this plan.

2.1.2 Review and revise current development regulations, including the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the zoning map, to improve compatibility with the comprehensive plan.

Priority areas for consideration include:

• Downtown Mixed Use Core & Adjacent Neighborhoods

• North Suffolk Mixed Use Core

• Opportunities to Promote Affordable Housing

• Opportunities to Promote Master-Planned Traditional Neighborhood Developments

• Rural Villages/VC Zoning District

• Consistency with Use District and Place Type Definitions and the Future Land Use Plan

Integration into City Operations and Processes

Regulatory Updates (p. 153, 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft)

Revisions to the City’s zoning code and other regulations should be made in accordance with the plan. The process for updating the zoning code will be led by City Staff in collaboration with the Planning Commission and will be determined following the adoption of the plan. This will provide the City with the regulatory authority to enforce recommendations in the Future Land Use Map and promote other desired outcomes expressed through the plan’s actions.

Private Development Decisions (p. 152, 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft)

Property owners and developers should consider the principles, objectives, and actions in the plan in their land planning and investment decisions. Public decision-makers will be using the plan as a guide in their development deliberations such as zoning matters and infrastructure requests. Property owners and developers should be cognizant of and complement the plan’s recommendations.

If you don’t like what you see in the Land Use map, don’t count on the process of rezoning with a public hearing to help you fight it. The city is being perfectly clear that they want to streamline this process. They want to make it easier for developers to look at the map and, regardless of the zoning, allow them to develop based on the Land Use Map. The city is helping developers rezone the land with this document. This is yet more evidence that this new plan is written with the developers in mind and not the citizens.

This can not be stressed enough. This new comprehensive plan is designed to make it easier for developers to build even when it doesn’t match the zoning. If you do not want what is proposed in the Land Use Map, NOW is the time to act and let City Council know. If you don’t want to see four times the amount of warehouses we already have, you need to tell them now. If you are waiting to give your input during a future rezoning application, it will be too late!

Let City Council know what you think about this new growth area: council@suffolkva.us

Michael D. Duman, Mayor

mayor@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-514-4009

Lue R. Ward, Jr., Vice Mayor

(Nansemond Borough)

nansemond@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-377-6929

Shelley Butler Barlow,

Council Member

(Chuckatuck Borough)

chuckatuck@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-346-8355

Leroy Bennett, Council Member
(Cypress Borough)
cypress@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-3750

Timothy J. Johnson, Council Member
(Holy Neck Borough)
holyneck@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-0556

Roger W. Fawcett, Council Member
(Sleepy Hole Borough)
sleepyhole@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-377-8641

John Rector, Council Member
(Suffolk Borough)
suffolk@suffolkva.us
Phone: 757-407-1953

LeOtis Williams, Council Member

(Whaleyville Borough)

whaleyville@suffolkva.us

Phone: 757-402-7100