environmental study – Care4Suffolk https://care4suffolk.org Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:11:27 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://care4suffolk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/cropped-Care4Suffolk-32x32.png environmental study – Care4Suffolk https://care4suffolk.org 32 32 Can Ryan Homes Be Trusted with Toxic Cleanup? https://care4suffolk.org/2026/03/30/can-ryan-homes-be-trusted-with-toxic-cleanup/ https://care4suffolk.org/2026/03/30/can-ryan-homes-be-trusted-with-toxic-cleanup/#comments Mon, 30 Mar 2026 20:09:28 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=8978 Read More »Can Ryan Homes Be Trusted with Toxic Cleanup?]]>

We recently wrote an article about environmental concerns on the old VDOT parcel on Main Street that is about to go before City Council for rezoning approval. Ryan Homes wants to build about 500 homes on this site.

 

Previously completed environmental studies of the property found toxic chemicals called Diesel Range Organics (DROs) and other toxins like arsenic, toluene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene by taking samples throughout the site.

 

These toxins have known health impacts, but they CAN be cleaned up to allow reuse of the site for other purposes. However, that process has to be done correctly, and it takes time and money. 

 

Here’s the problem, though. It is Ryan Homes (owned by NVR Inc.) that wants to purchase the property. It would fall to them to clean up these environmental toxins. Does City Council think Ryan Homes will do its due diligence to ensure it is cleaned up and safe for the residential use that they are planning? 

 

Here’s a 2019 news article from Delmarva Now, about an Ocean City condo community called Sunset Island. It details the problems of 11 condo buildings, built by Ryan Homes, faced with “extensive water damage” due to improper waterproofing with an estimated cost to fix around $8 million. Then Board President Roger Williams stated that Ryan Homes conditioned “any repairs that were done, to be done under the terms of what they call their settlement or release agreement which allows for the repairs to be done, but then they are released from all future obligations for the buildings.” According to the article, when there are problems, before Ryan Homes will do the repairs, they force the homeowners into arbitration and non-disclosure agreements. 

 

Here’s another news article from Cincinnati Enquirer called Dream Home Nightmares: Ryan Homes buyers face delays, hassles as repairs lag. In this article, one Ryan Homes buyer had “toilets left unconnected to the sewer, flushing waste” under their new home for nearly a year. Another homeowner reported “improper repairs to an uneven floor that caused the possible loss of structural integrity” of the house. It’s not just the shoddy workmanship and cutting corners that are listed in the article, it goes into detail about the difficulty these homeowners and other buyers face when dealing with Ryan Homes to get repairs. The article states:

 

“Ryan, part of a publicly-traded conglomerate that builds more than 18,000 homes a year and churns out $800 million a year in profits, also demanded customers enter into restrictive arbitration agreements and agree never to publicly discuss their cases or repairs, homeowners say.

 

The secrecy means even more customers may have been affected and settled for less than they were possibly entitled to, but they are not allowed to talk about it.” 

 

The concerns about Ryan Homes are not limited to a few homeowners. In November 2019, four U.S. Senators wrote to NVR, Inc.’s president to share their concerns:

 

“We write to express our concern about NVR, Inc.’s (NVR) use of mandatory arbitration provisions in its new home construction warranties, as well as its use of non-disclosure agreements. These anti-consumer tactics attempt to shield NVR, your subsidiary Ryan Homes, and affiliated entities from accountability and scrutiny over homebuyers’ complaints about negligent, faulty, or deficient home construction. We ask that you immediately remove the arbitration provisions from your agreements and stop requiring homebuyers to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to resolve disputes.”

 

Also in 2019, Maryland’s Governor’s Office, a Maryland State Delegate, and Maryland State Senator all wrote letters to Maryland’s Attorney General’s Office asking them to investigate the complaints from citizens into NVR, Inc.’s business practices. 

 

A lawsuit filed in 2011 by the Cowie Law Group on behalf of Anne Arundel County (Maryland) condominium owners successfully sued Ryan Homes for $5.6 million on the basis of:

 

“…the complaint alleged, the company did not comply with building codes, deviated from plans, used inferior materials and did not meet minimum industry standards.

 

These defects led to leaking windows, flooding in the units, premature deterioration, structural instability, wood damage, peeling paint, wall and roof structural damage and mold growth…”

 

The point of all this is to ask: Is Ryan Homes the company City Council wants to entrust with the environmental cleanup needed to make the area safe for the 500 new homes they are planning? 

 

We will all find out when Council votes this Wednesday, April 15, 2026 at 6pm at City Hall. Mayor Duman has had to recuse himself from voting on Riversbend because he has financial dealings with NVR, Inc., Ryan Homes’ parent company.

Below are pdfs of documents mentioned in this article:

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2026/03/30/can-ryan-homes-be-trusted-with-toxic-cleanup/feed/ 1
Environmental Concerns at Riversbend https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/17/environmental-concerns-at-riversbend/ https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/17/environmental-concerns-at-riversbend/#respond Tue, 17 Feb 2026 02:26:10 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=8838 Read More »Environmental Concerns at Riversbend]]>

According to the environmental studies (attached below) conducted on the old VDOT site at 1700 N Main Street, there were numerous soil and water samples that contained high amounts of Diesel Range Organics (DROs) as well as other toxic chemicals like arsenic, toluene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene that were found in the samples from the site.

Slide 1 created by Care4Suffolk with sources: Environmental Studies Phase 1 and 2, Duke University, and DC Department of Energy and Environment.

On Slide 1, the sample S-19 shows a large amount of DROs (Diesel Range Organics) present in the soil. This sample was taken from soil near the old VDOT administration building (the building is labeled 03 on the map and is circled in yellow). 

 

According to Duke University and the DC Department of Energy and Environment, any DRO amount greater than 100 mg/Kg (or ppm) needs remediation, a form of environmental clean up. Soil sample S-19 measured DROs at 16,000 mg/Kg– 160 times higher than that level. 

 

Known health impacts of DROs include: lung inflammation, difficulty breathing, decreased liver and kidney function, neurological system effects, eye damage, skin irritation, and some DROs are suspected of causing cancer. 

 

If the Riversbend rezoning is approved as things currently stand, the City will be receiving this particular building and roughly 2 acres surrounding it to use for the new Suffolk Public Schools administration building. Then it will fall to the City to clean up this hazardous DRO waste. 

Slide 2, created by Care4Suffolk with sources: Environmental Studies Phase 1 and 2

On Slide 2, additional areas were found to have DROs above the 100 mg/kg remediation level. This area is on the southeast portion of the parcel adjacent to the Nansemond River. The rezoning application shows this portion of the site remaining B-2 (commercial) and as the possible location for a marina (which has since been downgraded to a kayak launch.) 

 

Other toxic chemicals like arsenic, toluene, ethylbenzene and naphthalene were found in samples from around the VDOT site:

From PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, page 21

From PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, page 24

None of this is terribly surprising considering the Virginia Department of Transportation owned and used the land for roughly 80 years. I don’t think anyone is surprised that this type of site, used the way it was for so long, contains numerous hazardous materials that have leaked, leeched, or spilled into the ground and water. 

 

These chemicals CAN be cleaned up to allow the site to be reused for other purposes However, that process takes time and money. 

 

The City is about to assume the cost to clean up the hazardous waste located on the portion of the site containing the old VDOT administration building. Why has none of this been part of any of the presentations to the Planning Commission or City Council? The Interim City Manager has been very involved in this project, so surely he is aware of these studies. Did he notify the EDA (Economic Development Authority) Board, which is a party to this application? 

 

The high levels of DROs, the associated health risks, and the remediation were not included in Mr. Hughe’s presentations (there were two!) to Suffolk’s School Board about the VDOT administration building. Is the School Board even aware of this? They already would have to contend with the mold, asbestos, and lead paint in the building itself. Do they want to add this remediation cost and time to their limited window to complete a new school administration building?

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/17/environmental-concerns-at-riversbend/feed/ 0