What’s Behind the Riversbend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

council@suffolkva.us

Michael D. Duman, Mayor

mayor@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 514-4009

Lue R. Ward, Jr., Vice Mayor

(Nansemond Borough)

nansemond@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 377-6929

Shelley Butler Barlow, Council Member

(Chuckatuck Borough)

chuckatuck@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 346-8355

Leroy Bennett, Council Member

(Cypress Borough)

cypress@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-3750

Timothy J. Johnson, Council Member

(Holy Neck Borough)

holyneck@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-0556

Ebony Wright, Council Member

(Sleepy Hole Borough)

sleepyhole@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-9873

John Rector, Council Member

(Suffolk Borough)

suffolk@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 407-1953

LeOtis Williams, Council Member

(Whaleyville Borough)

whaleyville@suffolkva.us

Phone: (757) 402-7100

EDA – Care4Suffolk

What’s Behind the Riversbend?