Development – Care4Suffolk

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

Fawcett Says Developers Built Suffolk. Did They Write Our New Comp Plan as Well?

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:21:18 +0000

The State of Virginia requires cities to have a comprehensive plan, and according to state law: “The comprehensive plan shall be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.”

The question is, how much of this plan, which is supposed to protect our best interests as citizens, was instead influenced by developers? City Council Member Roger Fawcett says developers built our city and that they did a great job. (See video at the end)

Did developers help write the draft of Suffolk’s new 2045 Comprehensive Plan, too? It reads like they did. It certainly reflects a change from a focus on Suffolk, its people, heritage, and communities from the previous plan, to a focus on development. Just look at the Introduction and the “Guiding Values”.

Below is a side-by-side comparison of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan passed in 2015 and currently in effect with the new draft set to be voted on this year. When passed it will take effect immediately (despite the 2045 year plastered on there. The 2026 plan passed in 2006 and then was replaced in 2015, so the plan years don’t really mean very much.)

2035 Comprehensive Plan

2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT

Maintain an efficient transportation network with effective choices for mobility. This plan emphasizes two major issues relating to transportation: connectivity and transportation options. The current development pattern is largely automobile-oriented with congestion occurring in many areas of the City due to limited paths between population centers and heavily-used freight rail lines. Efforts have been made to improve the walkability of existing and new developments; however, pedestrian and bicycle connections are still needed throughout the City.

Maintain an efficient transportation network with effective choices for mobility. In any growing community that is focused on expanding economic development opportunity, new development can be expected to contribute to increased traffic. The current development pattern in Suffolk is largely automobile-oriented with congestion between population centers and freight rail lines. However, this plan provides an opportunity to look at land use and transportation together and develop strategies that will both support economic prosperity and quality of life. Efforts have been made to improve the walkability of existing and new developments. Transit will continue to be emphasized to help with citywide connectivity.

The title of the section stays the same, but the overall tone and the emphasis is different. In the 2035 plan, they acknowledged there are traffic issues with regard to roads and railroad lines. They have had 10 years to fix this situation (that is the point of these comprehensive plans, right?) and it has only gotten worse. In the 2045 plan draft, they just come out and say what we already see as our reality: if you continue to grow, you will continue to get traffic.

They use the term ‘economic’ twice in the paragraph that the title says is about ‘efficient transportation’, and now they are basically telling citizens they just have to deal with the traffic. Here I am a little confused, because I keep being told by city managers, the planning department, and many of the city council members that the ONLY way to improve our roads is to develop. Yet with all the development in the last decade, we have more congestion, our roads are less safe, and in the document that is all about future planning, their guiding value for traffic is just deal with it!?

And in case you thought the solution would include alternative forms of transportation, they removed the part about “pedestrian and bicycle connections are still needed throughout the City” and replaced it with improved walkability in new development. See, all these new developments they are building off of these narrow country roads will have sidewalks. Perfect! People can walk to their neighbor’s house safely, but no further, because most of these developments do not connect significantly with the day-to-day needs of the people, so they will still be driving everywhere. They are planning on improving the transit system, so I will give them kudos for that, but won’t hold my breath.

2035 Comprehensive Plan

Define and enhance the various unique character types and development patterns within the City. Suffolk features areas of unique character throughout the City – from its rural agricultural areas and villages, to its dense and bustling downtown. Maintaining this variation and enhancing valued place types ensures that existing residents can continue to enjoy the areas they love, while future residents can enjoy the community choices and beautiful landscapes that exist today.

2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT

Support and enhance variety in character and types of places in the City. Community members have emphasized that the diversity of place types in Suffolk and the many lifestyles they help support are great strengths for the community. This includes rural and agricultural areas and villages, a mixed-use downtown, and newer neighborhoods in the north. Maintaining this variety and enhancing valued place types will ensure both that community members can continue to enjoy the areas they love and that new development further improves upon these places.

In the 2035 plan and the previous 2026 plan, they only increased the growth area by small, incremental amounts. Their focus was still maintaining the distinct character throughout the city. I think since the passage of the 2035 plan, the city managers have fallen short of that by allowing huge warehouses in residential neighborhoods and by increasing the suburban sprawl into agricultural areas. In the 2045 plan, they talk about preserving them as a value, but the growth area is set to expand by about 25%. A drastic increase in development is the opposite of preserving. It is set up to bring in warehouses and logistic centers as well as continue to build large densely packed suburban neighborhoods in rural areas.

At the end they threw in the statement, “Maintaining this variety and enhancing valued place types will ensure both that community members can continue to enjoy the areas they love and that new development further improves upon these places.” In the last sentence, they actually took out the part about enjoying “beautiful landscapes that exist today” and added “new development further improves upon these places.” I really want the city managers to explain how more warehouses and logistic centers will further improve upon any area in Suffolk. These changes may seem small at first glance, but there is a dramatic shift from the people to development, which is of course in the best interest of developers.

2035 Comprehensive Plan

Promote a diverse housing stock, providing options in terms of type, location, and affordability. Changing trends in the housing market constantly support the case for providing housing options. Dense communities, attached single-family homes, and rental units are drawing consumer attention. Additionally, to maintain a competitive workforce across multiple industries and pay grades, variation within the housing stock is an asset.

2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT

Promote a diverse housing stock, providing options in terms of type, location, and affordability. Changing trends in the housing market support the case for policies that could increase choice in housing options with respect to both unit types and price points. High-quality, mixed-use, and multifamily communities with a range of housing types, including housing on smaller lots and with fewer maintenance needs, continue to be in demand locally and nationally, especially among young people just starting out and older adults. It is also important in order to maintain a competitive workforce across multiple industries and pay grades. This includes both new housing and infill housing in existing neighborhoods. Local and regional examples of new housing development that have been constructed since the last comprehensive plan was adopted provide models that can be instructive for the future.

The 2035 plan value on housing sounds great. Suffolk does need a variety of housing options and needs more affordable housing. The 2045 plan contains this as well, so no complaints there. However, the first highlighted statement fragment seems oddly specific and isn’t actually true.

“…including housing on smaller lots and with fewer maintenance needs, continue to be in demand locally and nationally…”

According to James Hughes, a land developer in Charleston, the smaller lots are actually designed to make “entitlement groups” (those that buy land speculatively, rezone it and sell lots to builders) the maximum amount of profits by squeezing the most number of lots they can into a plan. It has nothing to do with what consumers want, or what builders would build on. It is due to the greed of these entitlement groups, that this is what is available.

And that’s not to say there is anything wrong with houses on smaller lots. We need variety: small lots, medium lots, big lots, townhomes, condos, apartments, single family homes, etc.. However, the vast majority of the new construction of single family homes doesn’t actually offer variety. It offers small lots because the person rezoning the land wants to maximize his profit and the city managers allow it. Its addition to the new comp plan draft just sounds like a developer marketing talking point. Maybe that’s because I heard these same words come out of the developer’s representative during a rezoning hearing.

The 2045 plan mentions infill is important and I agree with that wholeheartedly. 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/or businesses near the center of cities and towns. It is a sound planning principle that keeps development close to the city center. It is better for infrastructure costs and helps create economic opportunities for downtown areas.

However, this isn’t how most of the development in Suffolk has been happening in the last decade. The city managers have been happy to have developers gobble up large swaths of valuable farmland in rural areas for both warehouses and housing developments and continue the sprawl which is unhealthy for a city. With this new growth area, the sprawl will continue and there will be no real emphasis on infill. They say so themselves:

“Local and regional examples of new housing development that have been constructed since the last comprehensive plan was adopted provide models that can be instructive for the future.”

The city plans to continue to promote these practices and they are clear about it.

2035 Comprehensive Plan

Protect the natural, cultural, and historical assets of the City. During public meetings, residents emphasized the value of Suffolk’s natural assets. The rural open spaces, an undisturbed rural night sky, the character-defining waterways, and the Great Dismal Swamp are treasured in the community and contribute to the quality-of-life. These natural assets, as well as the cultural and historic ties to the Nansemond, the defining early years of America, and agricultural production, are a part of what Suffolk is today, and should be preserved for the enjoyment and enrichment of future residents.

2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT

Protect the natural, cultural, and historical assets of the City. Community members have emphasized the value of Suffolk’s natural, cultural, and historic assets. Rural landscapes, parks and open spaces, and wetlands and waterways are treasured in the community and contribute to the quality of life that residents enjoy. These natural assets, as well as the cultural and historic ties to the Nansemond River, the defining early years of America, and agricultural heritage, are a part of what Suffolk is today, and should be preserved for the enjoyment and enrichment of future residents.

These two values are very similar in each plan. I wish I could believe the last sentence. However, this paragraph takes on a new meaning when you look at it as a whole with respect to the guiding values, and in light of the statement below:

“The plan seeks to identify new opportunities to maintain the conservation of natural resources and agricultural areas outside the Growth Area.” (2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT, p. 25)

The city managers aren’t concerned with any conservation in the designated growth areas. This is a big deviation from previous comp plans. In fact, they even want to change anything in the existing growth areas that are still classified agricultural, rural conservation, or wetlands to the new land use types of Employment Center or Suburban Neighborhood. They are also expanding the growth area by nearly 25%. I guess if you move land into the new growth area and state you will only look to preserve these ‘natural assets’ outside that growth area, that makes the job of rezoning those lands for developers much easier.

2035 Comprehensive Plan

Maintain high-quality services and facilities as growth occurs. As growth occurs, existing services and facilities will require maintenance and expansion to accommodate future growth. Facilities and services should be located with current population centers and future growth in mind to ensure that they are accessible from and adequately serve target communities.

2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT

Maintain high-quality services and facilities as growth occurs. As growth occurs, existing services, such as public safety, and facilities will require maintenance and expansion. Facilities and services should be located within current population centers and with future growth in mind to ensure that they are accessible from and adequately serve communities. This includes the quality of schools and parks and their relationship to land use and development.

It is great that the city wants to make sure that we as citizens continue to have high-quality services even as we grow, but they haven’t actually done this. Our schools are overcrowded, traffic is horrendous, and our roads are unsafe. Our hospital can’t accommodate demand and we don’t have the required number of teachers or emergency responders that are needed. Citizens are fed up with the growth coming before services, because we suffer as a result. City Council knows this because the citizens have been very vocal about it, including during all the engagement sessions the planning department held for the new comprehensive plan last year.

Every five years or so, the city is required to evaluate the current comprehensive plan and then make changes as necessary. This guiding value should address the previous comprehensive plan’s failure to uphold that value, not simply double down and then ignore it. The changes the city managers are making to the new plan will actually exacerbate these problems, not relieve them.

2035 Comprehensive Plan

Preserve the agricultural heritage and character of the City. This plan continues the ideals of the Comprehensive Plan for 2026 regarding the preservation of agricultural land. The public strongly supported this value during the public meetings, as residents of rural villages and areas emphasized their love for the rural way of life and the general public voiced support of varied landscapes and rural natural assets. As adequate capacity exists within the vicinity of the identified Growth Areas in the central and northern parts of the City, the more rural southern portions of the City will be preserved for low-density agricultural uses.

2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT

Preserve the agricultural heritage and character of the City. This plan continues the ideals of the Suffolk 2035 plan regarding the preservation of agricultural land, while recognizing business realities and market forces. It focuses on the idea of providing choices to farmers and agricultural property owners that both encourages the preservation of the rural landscape, where desired, and provides them with flexibility. Related to this idea is the concept of encouraging growth and development in locations with existing infrastructure and supporting placemaking and the concentration of activity in some of the City’s villages. This plan carries forward the idea that more rural southern portions of the City will generally be preserved for agricultural uses.

Let’s start with that second point first:

“It focuses on the idea of providing choices to farmers and agricultural property owners that both encourages the preservation of the rural landscape, where desired, and provides them with flexibility.”

This is exactly the language used by developers during rezoning applications. The farmer’s property rights are sacrosanct to developers. It is the farmer’s land and he should be able to do what he wants with it.

The problem is, the farmer’s do not actually have the right to rezone their land. We wrote about this previously. They can request a rezoning, but it is up to City Council to decide and the public gets to express their concerns. It may be in my best financial interest to put a gas station on my residential lot, but it would negatively impact my neighbors who intentionally purchased their homes to be in a residential neighborhood. The traffic and noise alone would diminish their quality of life. What about their property rights? This is why it is not just up to every resident or land owner to decide what they want to put on their land.

The farmer is free to sell his land as agricultural land anytime he wants. And let’s be really honest here. If a farmer came up and said he wanted to rezone his hundred acres and build 300 new homes, the city wouldn’t let him. There is a reason the farmer has to sell to these “entitlement groups” we spoke of earlier. These people don’t own the land or build the houses, but they know how to get land rezoned and make a bunch of money off of it. None of this is about helping farmers. This is about making it easier for developers. Look at the new growth areas being proposed. The majority of the land in these areas is currently agricultural, much of it currently being farmed. Adding this language to the comprehensive plan makes it that much easier for a developer when he goes before City Council. Now he will be able to quote the Comprehensive Plan (keeping in mind the new plan is really just quoting developers.)

Now let’s talk about the business and market realities. The city managers say they want to preserve agricultural land BUT there are these vague realities of business and market forces that have to be acknowledged. It is as if the city managers don’t know that it is within their purview to keep development out of agricultural areas, if they chose to.This makes it sound like these development decisions are forces beyond the city’s control. They aren’t.

There is room to grow within the current growth area. That is where the city managers should be focusing growth. It might mean that the city has to say no to most of the warehouses that the Port of Virginia would like to see built in Suffolk. It might mean that the city has to tell developers to build housing within the current growth areas. This would actually be best for Suffolk. It would keep development where public services already exist and spur economic development back to the downtown area which needs it. It isn’t that we don’t want any warehouses here – we actually have many. It isn’t that we don’t want new houses built. We recognize the needs for more houses, particularly affordable houses. It means that continuing the sprawl away from downtown Suffolk isn’t good for downtown or for Suffolk as a whole. The city managers work for the citizens of Suffolk. They are supposed to make decisions based on what is best for us.

The developers and builders will build where they are allowed to build. City managers could and should do this in and around the downtown area. Instead, this new comprehensive plan is giving developers exactly what they want. Farmland is cheap (comparable to land already zoned for industrial or residential in the city), flat, and easy to build on. The “entitlement groups” can make way more money building on Suffolk’s prime agricultural land, so why would they make efforts to improve other areas of Suffolk if the city is happy to give them exactly what they want? This is yet another reason why this plan feels like it is more about the developers than the citizens.

2035 Comprehensive Plan

Keep jobs and schools near population centers. A positive mix of jobs, schools, housing, retail, and recreation is the definition of a vibrant city. Single-family homes on large lots promote suburban isolation. The City has made positive steps towards achieving the goal including establishing a framework for incorporating smart growth principles in school planning, which emphasizes working together to make schools the focal point of communities, and the adoption of a mixed use zoning ordinance which allows for jobs and housing to be mixed on the same lot. This plan furthers this goal by promoting mixed use areas in more areas of the City and focusing growth in target areas.

2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT

This Guiding Value did not have an equivalent in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT.

This particular guiding value from the 2035 plan did not have an equivalent in the new draft. It is unfortunate that the city managers chose to cut this section out. The principles of smart growth help make for healthier and safer cities. Smart Growth promotes growth inwards toward city centers and is in opposition to suburban sprawls. This section promotes community, keeping housing next to the places they go: schools, shops, restaurants, work, churches, parks, etc., but I guess that doesn’t really fit with the future sprawl that is in this plan.

2035 Comprehensive Plan

This Guiding Value did not have an equivalent in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT

Support economic development opportunities with benefits across the community. Suffolk has experienced significant investment in existing and emerging businesses since the last comprehensive plan was adopted. However, while employment has grown, the City and the Hampton Roads region have fallen behind the state as overall GDP has decreased since 2012. Sectors that generate high levels of employment should be targeted in addition to those that support public amenities such as retail and service businesses. Suffolk must position itself competitively both within the region and the state and consider how changes to the concentration of employment in certain industries and commuting patterns relate to land use decisions.

If you had any doubts as to the reason behind the changes in the new draft, it is right here with this new guiding value. I want to start by saying that I think economic growth is important. I don’t think any reasonable person opposes having a strong city economy. However, you will notice that with this new draft, the focus is all on the edges of the growth area in the new land use category: Employment Center. The city managers in their wisdom have decided to call it ‘Employment Center’ when in reality, this is where the new warehouses and logistics centers will be built.

This is NOT the economic growth Suffolk needs. The city receives more tax revenue from commercial properties than they do industrial (which is the zoning that corresponds to this land use category). Additionally, modern warehouses and logistic centers have constant tractor trailer traffic which makes our roads less safe and causes a lot of wear-and-tear on our roads, which ultimately, the citizens will have to cover. They are noisy because trucks come and go at all hours and they pollute.

Look at the map of existing land use below and the accompanying growth area map. (Left Map) The dark purple of the current map is industrial and where warehouses and logistic centers can currently be built. Now look at the growth area map with the land use type Employment Center in light purple. (Right Map) The Employment Center areas in future Suffolk are about four times current industrial zoning. The difference is staggering.

The city is about to offer developers easy access to land to build even more warehouses. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the public has told the city during this comprehensive plan process. We already have many warehouses and the citizens are frustrated with the truck traffic, accidents, litter, noise, and pollution that come with it. Instead of the city managers listening to the citizens and limiting warehouse constructions, they are about to make the situation in Suffolk so much worse. This guiding value is all about helping developers build more warehouses. And note, this new guiding value is the only one that uses ‘MUST’ instead of ‘SHOULD’. This differs from the other values about conservation or maintaining high quality services for citizens – those are just ‘SHOULD’. This is a MUST. The push to have warehouses all over Suffolk is a ‘MUST’ for the betterment of the region. This has nothing to do with what is best for the City of Suffolk and its citizens.

Suffolk needs economic investment, but that won’t come with warehouse sprawl. Just like with infill housing, the city needs to focus on bringing commercial business to downtown. Commercial businesses in the form of shops, restaurants, professional offices, corner grocery stores, hi-tech businesses, etc. all bring needed tax dollars while keeping growth where there are already public services. Suffolk is accepting the low hanging fruit instead of doing the hard work of out-of-the box thinking on economic growth. Instead of creating a strong identity for Suffolk and marketing its character, history and beauty, they are offering up Suffolk’s one non-renewable resource – land!

2035 Comprehensive Plan

This Guiding Value did not have an equivalent in the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

2045 Comprehensive Plan DRAFT

Support Collaborative Regionalism. Suffolk’s roadways, sewer and water service, and solid waste program continue to relate to regional plans and agreements. At the same time, Suffolk’s challenges and opportunities need to be understood in the context of the regional housing and job market. Roadways are impacted by transportation plans made by VDOT and the Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO). A Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) federal consent order decree may impact the City’s expansion of its sewer system, while the Western Tidewater Water Authority influences planned water facility development. Likewise, a regional agreement impacts solid waste management within the City. As with the Suffolk 2035 plan, this plan considers these regional conditions when planning for future land use and growth, in recommendations provided for the transportation network, and in provisions of municipal facilities and services to help ensure that future development within Suffolk continues to support and enhance the vision reflected through these regional plans and agreements.

Here is another example of the city managers adding a guiding value that was not here before. The 2035 plan did discuss in parts about Suffolk’s position in the Hampton Roads area. However, it was not the main focus or a guiding value. In this draft they want to make sure that it is clear that all of this is being done to ‘support and enhance’ regional plans. I can translate that for you: the city managers want to turn Suffolk into a dry port. It isn’t just the city managers who want this. The State of Virginia, the Port of Virginia, and all the developers that are about to make a lot of money building warehouses in Suffolk want this. A dry port is an inland location away from a port where all the cargo can be taken and sorted and then sent on its way. A dry port can be a great economic opportunity for a city or community that is economically depressed and is looking to turn old manufacturing locations into warehouses. This does not apply to Suffolk. We are overall economically sound. These warehouses will not be occupying abandoned manufacturing, they will be paving over some of the most fertile soil in Virginia. This will clog our roads, pollute our water, destroy our farmland all in the name of regionalism and to line the pockets of developers. This is Region first, Suffolk last!

I propose that instead, in the name of Regionalism, we give farmers the support they need to continue to provide Suffolk, and the Hampton Roads area, with the many crops they grow that provide us the food we eat and cotton for the clothes we wear. Additionally, I propose that in the name of Regionalism, we stop developing on the reservoirs which pollutes the drinking water of the people of Suffolk, Portsmouth and Norfolk. Let’s NOT expand the growth zone in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area so that we can continue to protect our waterways and the Chesapeake Bay, a regional treasure. All of this would be for the benefit of Suffolk residents as well as for the region.

If you think the last 10 years has seen a huge shift in Suffolk with the construction of enormous warehouses bringing lines of tractor trailers and huge densely pack housing developments on rural farm roads, and you don’t like the over-crowded schools, heavy traffic, and unsafe road conditions, you need to check out this new comprehensive plan, because it is about to get a whole lot worse.

City Council Member Roger Fawcett speaking at the Suffolk City Council Join Work Session with Suffolk School Board, December 6, 2023.

Mr. Fawcett credits the developers for building this city. He thinks they did a good job. I’m not sure citizens agree. I know I don’t. I don’t fault the developers. This is what they do and they are looking out for their own best interest. I blame the city managers and City Council members who continue to let the developers dictate how growth will happen in our city.

It is the city managers’ and City Council’s responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the citizens of Suffolk, not what is best for developers or the Port of Virginia. Even the State of Virginia says that this plan must be: “with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.” This new comprehensive plan is a shift in focus from citizens to developers. This is not what Suffolk wants or needs.

Call or email your City Council member and let them know what you think.

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

Purple Lipstick on a Pig

Care4Suffolk — Sun, 10 Mar 2024 23:47:38 +0000

Suffolk’s city managers and planners want to start calling warehouse and industrial areas ‘Employment Centers’. You can find them as purple on the planning maps. While there is definitely employment going on in these places, they are trying to re-name them at the same time as they are trying to expand them for miles. (Interestingly, though, they are not trying to re-name commercial or office/institutional areas, which are also known to employ people.)

The City has spent the past two years working to revise its Comprehensive Plan. You may have heard about the ‘2045 Plan’ and some open house and town hall type events seeking public feedback. The Comprehensive Plan guides a city’s growth and development and includes boundaries for ‘Growth Areas’. Once these areas are put on the map and voted on by city council, this is where developers go and it becomes very easy for them to rezone and build what they want, regardless if the actual location is suitable or proper infrastructure is available. Most of us have witnessed this happening quite a lot in recent years.

Our city managers and planners are recommending very large increases to Suffolk’s Growth Areas. A 23% increase, actually, although there is no requirement to change the Growth Areas. In fact, for the 2035 Comprehensive Plan (under which we currently operate) there was a 0% increase to the Northern Growth Area and just 5% to the Central. Let that 18% difference sink in!

If you look at page 41 of the draft of the 2045 Suffolk Comprehensive Plan (available for public review and input at Suffolk2045.org), you will find the ‘Future Land Use and Growth Areas’ map. It shows both the new growth boundary lines that city management wants, as well as the new Land Use terminology they are proposing. You will see that purple is very prevalent; they are trying to expand where they want to allow warehouses, in both the new growth areas and in many parts of the current ones. We know from Planning’s January presentation to City Council about this map that the Port of Virginia is the driving force behind these recommendations. The Port is pushing for more warehouses.

Anyone who went to last year’s open houses or public meetings about this new Comprehensive Plan knows that expanding warehouse areas is the opposite of the feedback the city received. Purple is pretty, but on this map it means warehouses. And city managers and planners are putting lipstick on a pig by labeling it all ‘Employment Center’. (See also the ‘Future Land Use Types’ chart, page 44 of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft.) People are not fooled by re-naming these purple blobs on a map.

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

Sacrificing Suffolk’s Natural Resources

Care4Suffolk — Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:07:04 +0000

Suffolk’s city managers seem eager to sacrifice the city’s natural water resources in the name of development. For decades, previous city administrations have implemented planning strategies designed to limit development within our watersheds and adjacent to reservoirs. This does not appear to be a concern for our current managers when you look at the Growth Area expansions they recommend in the 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft, for which they are responsible. These expansions will allow heavy development into large swathes of our watersheds and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (CBPA).

Suffolk has two Growth Areas (Northern and Central) that were outlined in the first Comprehensive Plan in 1998 after the State of Virginia mandated such plans. These growth areas were expanded upon in the two revised plans that followed in 2006 and 2015. There is no requirement to extend or expand these areas, just to review the Comprehensive Plans every five years “to determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan” (Virginia Code Section 15.2-2230).

Previous city managers and planners chose to expand the Growth Areas in small, fragmented increments around the edges of the original boundaries. It turns out, there was a very good reason for this:

“In addition to the two Growth Areas, a key component of the growth management strategy is to designate a third large area of the City as a rural conservation / low density residential area. This area allows a lower density of residential development that is designed as a method of protecting the region’s water supply reservoirs that Suffolk hosts.” (2035 Suffolk Comprehensive Plan, p. 30, bolded for emphasis)

In the 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft, the paragraph on the “Growth Areas Over Time” states that “As part of the Suffolk 2045 plan, the growth areas were again reconsidered and it was determined that growth should continue to be focused inward with a limited number of areas identified for expansion.” City managers SAY “inward” and “limited”, but then they also want to extend the Growth Area by 23%–all within the watershed and CBPA. How is 23% expanded growth limited?

Compare these outward extensions to the CBPA map below. It’s almost as if Suffolk’s leaders are determined to eventually turn the whole CBPA into one massive Growth Area.

Planners are even telling us that as long as they determine land to be in the Growth Area, they don’t need to worry about natural resources: “This plan seeks to identify new opportunities to maintain the conservation of natural resources outside of the Growth Areas” (p.25, emphasis added). Are they really only concerned with our natural resources outside the Growth Areas? How many opportunities do we get to conserve natural resources? What happened to the old opportunities inside the Growth Areas? What will happen five years from now when they review the Comp Plan again and decide to extend the Growth Areas even farther?

Suffolk is blessed to have all the water resources that it does. But this means that its land use must be planned extremely thoughtfully and with more limitations than other places. Perhaps not every opportunity or development is suitable for a place that has so much to protect. Having open land does not mean that land is not already serving a purpose.

Statements and actions from our current 2035 Comprehensive Plan show that this concept used to be understood:

2035 Comprehensive Plan (p. 20)

2035 Comprehensive Plan (p. 138)

2035 Comprehensive Plan (p. 194-195)

Why are the current Suffolk city managers willing to sacrifice our natural resources to developers when decades of previous planners understood the unique and valuable resources we are fortunate to have here. They need to understand they work for the people of Suffolk, not for the developers. They need to stop this drastic expansion into the watershed and CBPA and focus on preserving this valuable resource before it is 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

The Loss of Farmlands: A Loss for All of Us

Care4Suffolk — Wed, 21 Feb 2024 17:59:04 +0000

We recently wrote about the City of Suffolk’s plan to increase its Growth Area by 24%. Now we want to explain why this is a short-sighted plan on the part of City Planners and why it is critical for our community to stop what will be a massive hit to our agricultural community and have negative impacts on our citizens for generations to come.

The City of Suffolk is 429 square miles, but 72 square miles of that is the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (Source: City of Suffolk). While the refuge is an ecological and historical treasure for our state and the nation, none of the 72 square miles can be developed. That leaves 357 square miles of already developed and potentially developable land in the City of Suffolk. The current growth area is 74.5 square miles (about 21% of the non-swamp land in Suffolk). The Planning Department is recommending expanding the growth area by 18 square miles (a 24% increase to its current size) which would bring it to 92.5 square miles. That will create a total growth area that is equal to 26% of all non-swamp land in Suffolk.

Only 17% of all land in America is ideal for farming. (Source: Modern Farmer) As a country we have lost 11 million acres of farmland and ranchland between 2001-2016 due to development. (Source: American Farmland Trust) Further, 62% of all development has happened on agricultural land. (Source: Modern Farmer) As the world population grows, the natural resource of farmable land becomes increasingly valuable. The world’s population is expected to increase by 35% by 2050 and “nearly all new food production in the next 25 years will have to come from existing agricultural land.” (Source: National Geographic Magazine)

Those are just some quick facts to show that this problem is not localized to just Suffolk, which has lost 17% of its farmland in the last 20 years. (Source: Suffolk Agricultural Advisory Committee) This is a problem throughout the country. According to the 2022 Census of Agriculture, the number of farms in Virginia decreased from 43,225 in 2017 to 38,995 farms in 2022, losing about 500,000 acres of farmland. (Source: 2022 Census of Agriculture (Reported by On the Farm Radio)) That’s a 6.4% in just 5 years. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, in response to the 2022 Census of Agriculture stated, “This survey is a wake up call…Are we okay with losing that many farms? Are we okay with losing that much farmland? Or is there a better way.” (Source: AgWire)

“This survey is a wake up call…Are we okay with losing that many farms? Are we okay with losing that much farmland? Or is there a better way.”

Here is why you should care about this loss of farmland:

Farmland keeps property taxes lower. In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, they broke down the impact of the cost of services for agriculture, residential and commercial properties. For each $1 collected in property taxes for each type of land, the city has an associated cost of services. The results may surprise you. (Source: Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)

$1 of agricultural tax revenue = $0.36 spent in public service

$1 of commercial tax revenue = $0.99 spent in public service

$1 of residential tax revenue = $1.30 spent in public services

Turning farmland into commercial and residential land actually costs the city (or the taxpayers) more money. Cities lose money on residential properties because they require schools, improved roads, and other additional services such as water, sewers, police, fire, and medical. The city actually makes significantly more money on agricultural land than it pays in services. If citizens (and responsible city planners) want to save money, they should stop rezoning agricultural land to build houses and warehouses.

Other benefits of preserving our farmland (Source: Lehigh County, Pennsylvania):

It provides locally grown foods that are more nutritious and less expensive than food that has to be transported over long distances.
It improves water quality by filtering runoff water through topsoil versus going directly from paved surfaces into drainage. This is particularly important in Suffolk, home to many of the reservoirs that provide drinking water for so many people in Hampton Roads.
It benefits the environment by protecting against soil erosion, offsets greenhouse gas emissions, and provides habitat to many wildlife species.
Open farmland is more visually attractive and creates a higher quality of life for citizens.
Additionally, Agriculture is big business. Agriculture generates roughly $462 million of direct and indirect economic impact for Suffolk. (Source: Suffolk Agricultural Advisory Committee)

It is nearsighted planning that will destroy the valuable natural resource of Suffolk’s nutrient-rich farmland to build houses and warehouses. The huge expansion of the Growth Area in the upcoming Comprehensive Plan will facilitate this loss of farmland. Its destruction will be permanent and will be a loss to our city, our community, and future generations.

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