land use – Care4Suffolk

City Relying on Bad Data

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 06 Aug 2024 14:58:00 +0000

At the July 17 City Council Work Session, Mayor Duman stated (mark 1:39:34)

“The numbers are pretty impressive. When you take Ag land, conservation land, and then put parks and open space with it, it is 82% of our land mass. I mean that’s, I mean that’s…anyway, I knew it was a lot, but that is, that is a lot. To say we have 82% in Ag, conservation, and in parks.”

That does sound like a lot, but is it true? Who is checking the data coming out of the Planning Department.

Mayor Duman is referring to the data presented by the Planning Department earlier in the work session. Keith Cannady presented the Pie Chart below with the breakdown of Land Use type. The purpose of this was to show how much land in Suffolk is still ‘rural’ (that is agricultural land, conservation, with parks & open space).

Adding those numbers up you get 83% making it look like Suffolk still has a lot of green space. That is what Mayor Duman was referencing in his quote.

We made a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request of the City for the areas that those percentages are based on. We received this typed-up sheet in response (Full document is available as a pdf at the end of this article).

These numbers do in fact tally up to the percentages in the pie chart, but the question is, where did they come from? We dug a little deeper to find some other numbers from the City regarding Land Use. In the Suffolk 2026 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2006), Table 3-2 on page labeled 3-7 (page 37 of document), lists Land Use data from 2005, with the source being the City of Suffolk, Geographic Information Systems compiled by URS Corp in 2005.

The two sets of data were in very different formats, so we combined them into a chart to make a comparison easier. Land Uses/Zoning were placed beside comparable Land Use (the City changes categories with comprehensive plans, but they provide corresponding zoning and land uses categories.)

We noticed right away that the City used a different Total Area for the City of Suffolk in its Pie Chart numbers. The 2005 data uses 429.2 square miles (430 square miles is the generally accepted amount of area in Suffolk), while the recent 2024 data has 388.4 square miles. The amount of water in Suffolk is roughly 30 square miles, and since this is about Land Use, it seems appropriate that it was left out. That left us with balancing the total areas so that we can compare percentages. We did this by subtracting the difference between two total areas in the two data sets and then subtracting that difference from the 2005 data in the Conservation category (because that is the category the water area would fall under). It wouldn’t make any sense that the City removed 40-ish square miles from any other land use category (Suffolk has not shrunk in the last 20 years!), so this felt like a safe assumption. Now the Total Land Area of Suffolk is equal between both data sets.

Chart created by Care4Suffolk to compare data provided by the City of Suffolk in 2005 and 2024.

The chart is split into two sides with the 2005 data on the left and 2024 data on the right. The colors used match the 2045 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Categories to make it easier to compare and find corresponding areas on the Land Use Map. Some categories have been combined, but these are noted in the 2045 Comp Plan.

This slide is from the Planning Commission Meeting on June 18, 2024. We have circled the new Growth Areas in red to highlight them, since the City did not have any way to distinguish the current Growth Areas from Future Growth Areas.

Now, let’s dig into some of these numbers on that chart. If you look at the area in acres, you will notice that in the last two decades, Suffolk has managed to increase its green space (ag land, conservation, and parks) by more than 26,000 acres, all while decreasing commercial area (by 660 acres), industrial area (by 5,500 acres), and residential land use by a whopping 18,000 acres!

If you have lived in Suffolk for even part of that time, you might be asking yourself: HOW? How has the City of Suffolk, that consistently gets ranked as one of the faster growing cities in Virginia, managed to DECREASE the amount of land use for these land use categories while still maintaining huge growth. It defies belief.

The only reasonable explanation is that one of the data sets has incorrect data. The 2005 data is properly sourced and published in the 2026 Comprehensive Plan, while the 2024 data that was presented at City Council, and when pressed for the area (with the FOIA request), was just a typed up document with no source provided. So that begs the question, where did this data even come from?

This is not the first data that the City staff has presented data that doesn’t make sense. The Planning Department has stated multiple times that the Employment Centers category (where warehouses can be built) is only a 14% increase in area compared to current industrial areas. Here are the side-by-side map comparison:

The purple areas on both maps represent where warehouses can be built. The left side is current land use and the right side is what will be if the 2045 comp plan is approved. Of course the City doesn’t provide area numbers, they just state that it is a 14% increase. Does the purple on the right look like a slight 14% increase? Not even close! It looks to be more than double the current purple area (maybe even triple – that is a LOT of purple). Is this just like the City stating that Suffolk has 83% of its land as green space? What is the real measure of that green space? We know that in 2005, it was less than 73% and the growth in the City has been historically huge! Are we even at 50% any more? We have no idea, but the important point is neither does the City!

City Council is about to vote on the 2045 Comprehensive Plan in a few short weeks. They are basing their decision in large part by the data that the City’s Planning Department is providing them. But where is this data coming from? If this information is wrong, what else is wrong? We already know that the City staff choose NOT to have the Fiscal Impact Analysis done as was originally required with this new comprehensive plan. The City staff also have postponed the Master Transportation Plan until some unspecified date in the future. Both of these would have provided a tremendous amount of data to evaluate this plan. The City also used traffic data gathered during the pandemic (when schools went online, many businesses had work from home – so this was NOT typical of traffic patterns!) When the Planning Department presents information like this to City Council and the Public, the data has to be accurate. Decisions for our future are based on this data. What other previous decisions have been based on bad data?

This plan ignored public input, and now we find that City staff have been using bad data to frame the argument in favor of this plan. City Council needs to say no to this Comprehensive Plan. This is unacceptable and the citizens of Suffolk deserve better.

Please sign our petition and share with family, friends and neighbors in Suffolk.

Documentation:

Youtube Video for July 17 City Council Work Session
2026 Comprehensive Plan
2045 Comprehensive Plan
FOIA response from Suffolk regarding the acreage from slide show presentation

Servants of the Port

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 25 Jun 2024 13:59:46 +0000

The May 1st joint Planning Commission/City Council work session on the 2045 Comprehensive Plan concluded with uncertainty and a clear discomfort with the size of the proposed new Growth Area and the amount of land designated for “Employment Centers” (and identified by the color purple on the land use map).

Future Land Use Map June 18, 2024. No longer distinguishes between current and future Growth Areas, so the added Growth Areas have been circled in red by us.

During the recent June 18th Planning Commission Work Session about the 2045 Comprehensive Plan Draft, there was the impression that despite a reduction in the proposed Rt. 460 Growth Area, the amount of purple on the maps is still making people nervous. Planning and city management spent a lot of time trying to provide some assurance about this and presented some new twists on justifying more “Employment Centers.”

Comparison of warehouse development over time.

One new tactic was to give sort of a history of warehouse development, showing that the current industrial areas have been built out over time. It seemed they were trying to demonstrate that some of the purple areas within the current growth areas aren’t new and that we need more to support the Port’s needs. What this part of the presentation really demonstrated was how much warehouse space Suffolk already has! We already know we have the most in all of Hampton Roads: 21,683,290 square feet!

Data was presented from March 20, 2024 City Council Work Session Packet, p. 69.

There was also a pie chart to compare the percentages of the Future Land Use Types as they are recommending them. It seemed that they wanted to show that because Rural Agriculture and Parks & Open Space are the highest in percentage versus other land use types, the purple “Employment Centers” are insignificant–nothing to worry about!

Land Use by acreage - demonstrates that small percentages of intense development can have huge impacts on infrastructure and quality of life.

However, there was no clarification that a lot of land in the Rural Agriculture category are areas that used to fall under the land use types of Forestry and Wetlands, including the Great Dismal Swamp. Another point they never mention is that just because land falls in an agriculture category or zoning, does not mean it’s actually tillable land that can be farmed.

What is really telling with the pie chart though is that it really demonstrates that small percentages of intense development can have huge impacts on infrastructure and quality of life. Most people see and feel this everyday here now (except some city planners and managers, apparently!)

We may have a lot of open space, but our current growth areas are struggling under the recent growth and it seems city planners’ only answer is to continue letting that bleed out into our unprepared rural areas.

Slide explaining new secondary use of Employment Centers.

Another curious new effort to improve the image of “Employment Centers” is to allow for a new “secondary use” of vacant “Employment Center” buildings (of which there should be none if the need is so great!) This new use is labeled “Compatible Adaptive Reuse of Existing Employment Center Buildings.” It’s simple! The intent is to “Allow for the adaptive reuse of existing vacant buildings to non-employment center uses that are compatible with adjacent uses, building characteristics, site design and facility location. Such uses may include but are not limited to: indoor or outdoor recreation, public gathering and places of assembly. “(Page 50)

The City’s idea is to keep the land use ‘flexible’ by allowing almost any type of non-residential use to go there. This completely contradicts the ‘predictable’ part of the planning they say they are trying to accomplish.

Halfway through the 30-plus slide presentation, there was a somewhat bizarre attempt to focus on talking about Smart Growth. (Actually, not really talking about it so much as just using the phrase.)

We have yet to see one time where anyone who brings up Smart Growth actually explains what it is or specifies any Smart Growth principles they may be referring to. It’s especially odd considering that when you search for the phrase “Smart Growth” in the 2045 comp plan draft it comes up zero times. (Even in the 2026 and 2035 Comp Plans it only comes up a handful of times, and mostly about school facility planning.)

One of the main Smart Growth principles is to contain development where infrastructure is already in place. Two city planners mentioned Smart Growth and then proceeded to talk about extending water, sewer, and road improvements into current agricultural lands, so that they are ready for development which will make them more attractive to developers to build there. That is NOT Smart Growth, that is sprawl!

With each new meeting, the City presents information that addresses what they see as our (the public’s) main concerns. However, they are missing the crux of the issue. The citizens of Suffolk already told the City in the 7,500+ unique comments what we want. Overwhelmingly, people are fed up with the handling of development in the last decade. Instead of actually LISTENING to the citizens, they pat themselves on the back for gathering the comments, and then go on to do more of the same. It is not what we asked for and it isn’t what we want. According to the City Planner giving the presentation, not everyone will be happy with the plan, which is true, but there are clearly other ‘stakeholders’ more important to them than the citizens. The City is intent on making Suffolk a servant of the Port over the wishes of the people.

Slide showing the public comments the City received throughout the process.

Please sign our petition to urge City Council to vote ‘NO’ to the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

Land Use Change with 2045 Comp Plan

Care4Suffolk — Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:24:11 +0000

The 2045 Comprehensive Plan that will be coming before City Council on August 21st for consideration will have substantial changes in Land Use for the residents of Suffolk. It is important that the citizens of Suffolk understand the changes that will come if the 2045 Comprehensive Plan is approved.

At the June 18, 2024 Planning Commission Work Session, the Staff addressed a concern they were hearing, specifically about the large amount of purple on the map, the “Employment Centers”. These Employment Centers are where warehouses can be built. The Staff assured Planning Commission, and the public, that the increase in this land use type is only a 14% increase from the current industrial land use.

See for yourself. Below are two images, with the ability to slide between the Current Land Use (left) and compare it to the Future Land Use (right). On both maps, the purple areas are the Industrial Land Use/Employment Centers. Does that look like a 14% increase to you?

There is a diamond shaped cursor in the map. Slide it left and right to see the changes in land use that are coming with this new comprehensive plan.

The keys for the two maps are below. In general, green is for agricultural land, open space and parks; yellow to orange is residential; red is commercial; and purple is for industrial where warehouses can be built.

The maps and keys come from the 2045 Comprehensive Plan draft. The Current Land Use map and key are on pages 31-32 and the Future Land Use map and key are on page 41.

Current Land Use Key

Future Land Use Key

Please sign our petition to urge City Council to vote ‘NO’ to the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

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

Port or People: What is the City’s Focus?

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 06 Feb 2024 01:11:05 +0000

The Comprehensive Plan provides the framework that guides the development of the City of Suffolk for the next several years. Over the last year, the city has been actively seeking community input to help guide what this new plan will look like.

Community Engagement sessions and Open Houses were held throughout the city and during these, the collective voice of the citizens was clear: people were frustrated with traffic and didn’t want any more warehouses. Time after time, the residents from all areas of Suffolk expressed concern that their quality of life was being negatively impacted by warehouses and the heavy truck traffic that comes with them.

Above is a photo from the June 15, 2023 Open House that Suffolk hosted to interact with the public about the proposed plans and obtain feedback. In this snapshot, you can see that the green dot stickers (given to the public to express their opinion) are placed on the ‘thumbs down’ side to show their disapproval of more warehouses in Suffolk.

Fast forward to the January 17, 2024 City Council Work Session: Suffolk’s 2045 Comprehensive Plan Lead Planner, Keith Cannady, gave a presentation about the new Comprehensive Plan draft that included Planning Staff’s recommendations for Growth Area expansion. He touted the opportunities that the Port of Virginia provides. He stated that the Port of Virginia is “changing the dynamic for the state and the region in terms of economic development opportunities” and that this is a “major driver of what’s happening here in Hampton Roads.” He claimed that Suffolk is considering “opportunities that the Port provides as we consider Growth Area boundaries.”

Below are some of the Growth Area slides presented at this City Council Work Session. The corresponding written descriptions reflect what was explained verbally by Mr. Cannady while discussing the slide.

(We apologize for the poor quality; these were screenshot captures from the online work session which were not high resolution to begin with.)

Northern Growth Area Option Slide

The current growth area is within the dark blue border. The only option (Option A) presented for Northern Growth Area expansion is the area within the greenish border. This is the Nansemond Parkway area and would connect the Northern and Central Growth Areas. According to Planning it is “logical” to combine the two and use the railroad as the boundary.

(There is an “Opportunity Area” along I664 that will be discussed at City Council on Feb 7th.)

Central Growth Area Options Slide

There are 5 options being considered for expansion of the Central Growth Area. The current Central Growth Area is within the dark purple borders.

Option B: within the yellow border; expands the current growth area all the way to the city/county line along Rt. 460. The other boundaries would be the Western Branch Reservoir and “a wetland area that forms a logical boundary” to the south.

Option C: within the blue border; expands from the yellow border south to the railroad line and includes the Lake Cohoon area.

Option D: within the green border; expands west on 58 from the Centerpoint & Westport Commerce Parks down to Chapel Road.

Option E: within the red border; extends down 58 to Buckhorn Road.

Option F: within the orange border; extends north up Rt. 10/32, including Sack Point Road and up to Kingsdale Road.

Recommendation Slide:
The Planning Department is recommending that Suffolk incorporate Options A, B, D, and F into the 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

Breakdown of Future Land Use within Growth and Opportunity Areas:

Future Land Use Slide
The City is considering changing/adding new land use categories, listed in the map key on the left side and signified by the solid-colored rectangle. Currently, there are only six or seven land use categories.

Central Growth Area Future Land Use Slide
Within the borders of Option A (within the lighter green border at the top right), Planning is recommending land use categories for residential development.
For the Central Growth Area, Planning is recommending these land use categories:
Option B: residential development to the north of Rt. 460 and “employment center” to the south all the way to the city/county line.
Option D: “employment center” to the north of Rt. 58 and residential to the south up to Chapel Road.
Option F: residential on both sides of Rt. 10/32 all the way to Kingsdale Road.

While making it clear that Suffolk is prioritizing the Port of Virginia, Mr. Cannady provided only vague comments as to the opportunities that justify expanding the Growth Areas to such a great extent. Some of his reasonings were:

Rt. 460 and 58 corridors offer “what we believe are significant economic development opportunities in that area.”
Coming south (of Rt. 460) “to a wetland area that forms a logical boundary for that corridor and would allow us to capitalize on some of the options that are out there.”
Option D “looks to take advantage of some of the opportunities going west out of Rt. 58.”

The recommended Growth Area expansion will total almost 17 sq mi, increasing the current Growth Area (from the 2035 Comprehensive Plan) from about 74.5 sq mi to a total of about 91.5 sq mi. That is an increase of about 23%. That is a lot of growth!

While we expect a certain amount of Growth Area expansion, it hasn’t been made clear how enlarging them to such a great extent specifically benefits the City of Suffolk and its citizens. How much economic benefit will Suffolk see with port expansion growth? This question is not answered.

Adding huge swathes of land (light purple on the Future Land Use map) designated as Employment Centers (warehouses), doesn’t happen in a vacuum. We all want Suffolk to have a vibrant economy, but all those warehouses come at a cost to citizens. They bring truck traffic, higher road maintenance costs, and pollution, as well as destroy forever fertile soil that makes up our agricultural economy, which is itself an economic powerhouse generating $462 million of direct and indirect economic impact for the City of Suffolk. In no uncertain terms, development of warehouses is to the detriment of agriculture in Suffolk. This may be what the Port of Virginia wants, and what the Planning Commission wants, but is it what the people of Suffolk want?

These recommendations go counter to public feedback during the Community Engagement Sessions and Open Houses. Was the city genuine in its efforts to include its citizens in this process? From this presentation, it doesn’t seem like it.