Fire Safety – Care4Suffolk

Port 460 Engineer Giddy Over City Fire Code Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney-Work Product Privilege

Attorney-Client Privilege

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

Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

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

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

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

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

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

Council Reduces Fire Safety Standard

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 29 May 2025 15:31:30 +0000

At the May 7, 2025 City Council meeting, Council approved an ordinance to amend Chapter 38 Fire Prevention and Protection of the Code of the City of Suffolk. The main purpose of amending this chapter was to make Chapter 38 “coincide with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Act.” Only Council Member Wright voted in opposition to this ordinance.

The way that this was phrased made the change sound like Suffolk is changing its code to meet the State’s minimum requirements, which would not seem controversial. However, there was a VERY interesting exchange regarding this city code amendment during the City Council Work Session prior to the regular council meeting, at which Suffolk’s Fire Marshal, Christopher Cornwall, made it very clear that he is against a key part of the amendment that was being proposed: striking Section 507.3 regarding fire flow requirements.

While Suffolk cannot create less restrictive policies than the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Act calls for, it can put higher standards in place. The existing code was a higher standard, and by voting to make the change on May 7th, City Council LOWERED the standard regarding fire flows. Below is a screenshot of the ordinance amendments as presented in the City Council meeting packet. Take note that the existing code (that is lined out) says that “fire flows required shall be the cumulative amount” of internal and external demand (emphasis added).

By eliminating this section (which was based on the International Fire Code (IFC), Appendix B), Suffolk’s code defaults to the standards set by the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code Act, which has a lesser requirement of just the greater of internal or external demand.

Council Member Wright astutely asked “can that formula ever produce a low, but potentially inadequate, fire flow?”

The Fire Marshal’s answer was:

“My stance hasn’t changed as it pertains to municipal fire code Section 507.3. That’s simply that I’m not in favor of repealing it at all for that very reason.”

Suffolk’s Fire Marshal clearly stated opposition to removing this section of the fire code and most of City Council chose to ignore him?!

He did make it clear that the proposed change is compliant with code, but “reverting back to that State code section, becoming less restrictive by standard, it is a reduction in the amount of flow that is available, therefore a reduction in the amount of water that would be available for the suppression personnel to fight fire with.”

So why did City Council vote to approve a fire code change that may reduce the amount of water that will be available to fight fires, and against the Fire Marshal’s strong opposition?

This change to the code regarding fire flow requirements came from the City Manager’s Office. Fire Chief Barakey stated he spoke to City Manager Al Moor regarding this change. Why did the City Manager’s office request this change? And why did City staff frame this change to make it look like it was bringing Suffolk up to Virginia’s State standards, when the Suffolk code was already more stringent than the State?

Interestingly, Fire Marshal Cornwell brought up large warehouses a couple times when explaining his concern about reverting Suffolk’s code to the State’s lesser fire flow requirements. He gave the example that in a 200,000 square foot warehouse, the same number of sprinklers as in the council chambers would use up all the water available for suppression if we just follow the State standards.

He also acknowledged that people ask how everyone else can do it (meaning follow the State code for fire flow requirements), but pointed out that they also have other types of safeguards. He gave the example of Virginia Beach having: “other provisions in place to ensure that their safeguards are met as far as building construction that ensure they don’t have million square foot warehouse complexes completely unprotected by any other provision.”

This caught our attention! Is he saying that Suffolk’s fire code will now have no other protective provisions outside of the reduced fire flow requirements in the State code? Did City Council just reduce fire safety standards to the benefit of warehouse developers without adding any alternative safeguards?

The Fire Marshal’s stance regarding this fire code change was very clear when he said:

“I feel like by reverting back completely to the state standard would leave us completely wide open to problems down the road.”

We should all take notice when a top safety official says something like this.

How much risk is City Council exposing the citizens of Suffolk to by lowering the fire flow requirements?

Suffolk City Council has recently approved some things that allow for warehouses and residential development in close proximity to each other, along with expanding the areas in which they feel warehouses are appropriate. If reduced fire flow requirements are a cause for concern regarding suppression capabilities at large warehouse sites, how could this potentially impact the people living in and around these areas?

In November 2023, City Council unanimously approved Ordinance Text Amendment (OTA) 2023-007, which added a section to the Unified Development Ordinance about warehouses. It established a mere 30-foot front, side, and rear setback from all abutting properties – including residential! This minimal setback was approved despite citizens voicing concerns.

In December 2024, City Council approved the City of Suffolk 2045 Comprehensive Plan, which vastly expanded the City’s growth areas and established large swathes that they desire for “Employment Centers.” (This is the new phrase they are using for warehouse/industrial areas.) These areas are colored in purple, as you can see on the below Land Use Map. These “purple” areas originally did not include allowances for residential use, but during the last few weeks of the comp plan development, “Residential” was added as an acceptable secondary use of “Employment Centers.” (Only Councilmember Bennett voted ‘nay’ on the 2045 Comp Plan and Councilmember Wright was not yet on council.)

In September 2022, City Council approved the rezoning of 540 acres to allow 5 million square feet of warehouse space in ten buildings along Pruden Blvd./Rt. 460 bounded by Kings Fork, Pitchkettle, and Murphy’s Mill Roads, close to existing homes, businesses, and a school. (Councilmembers Johnson, Butler Barlow, and Bennet voted ‘nay.’)

There are still many unanswered questions regarding the City’s decision to lower fire safety standards in Suffolk. Care4Suffolk will continue to follow this issue. As we investigate further, we will provide the public with more information.