Ryan Homes – Care4Suffolk https://care4suffolk.org Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:52:25 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 https://care4suffolk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/cropped-Care4Suffolk-32x32.png Ryan Homes – Care4Suffolk https://care4suffolk.org 32 32 Riversbend Rezoning Denied by City Council https://care4suffolk.org/2026/04/16/riversbend-rezoning-denied-by-city-council/ https://care4suffolk.org/2026/04/16/riversbend-rezoning-denied-by-city-council/#comments Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:50:51 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=9049 Read More »Riversbend Rezoning Denied by City Council]]>

Last night at the City Council meeting, the Riversbend rezoning was denied. This was a Ryan Homes’ project to build about 500 new homes on the old VDOT location at 1700 N Main Street. 

 

Just two days ago, the developer submitted a request to defer the item until May. During the portion of the City Council meeting, when items can be removed from the agenda, a motion was made by Council Member Rector to amend the agenda to continue consideration of the Riversbend project until the May 20, 2026 meeting. This motion was seconded by Council Member Ward. 

 

Council Member Bennett then made a substitute motion to accept the agenda as presented, keeping the Riversbend project on the agenda. Council Member Johnson seconded the motion. 

 

Mayor Duman, who has a financial conflict of interest with Ryan Homes, was unable to to be part of a discussion or vote on the Riversbend project, but was allowed to preside over the procedural activities. He asked for clarification from the City Council’s lawyer, Mr. Hutchinson, who then clarified that two motions have been presented. The substitute motion gets voted on first. He clarified that if the substitution to accept the agenda with item 13 (Riversbend project) is approved, then that item will be heard and discussed by City Council. He further explained that Council will have the option then to vote to approve, vote to deny, or table the item.

 

Mayor Duman then recused himself from the rest of the process due to his conflict of interest, passing the gavel to Vice Mayor Ward. Council then voted to 4 to 3 to accept the agenda as presented, keeping the Riversbend project on the agenda.

Council Members Bennett, Johnson, Butler Barlow and Wright all voted “YES” while Council Members Rector, Ward and Williams voted “NO”.

 

Just before the Riversbend project was heard before Council, roughly two hours into the meeting, Mayor Duman declared a 5 minute recess. The recess lasted closer to 12 minutes, but when Council continued the session, Mayor Duman recused himself from the deliberation and vote, passing the gavel back Vice Mayor Ward. 

 

Planning Director Kevin Wyne then gave the staff presentation, stating that there weren’t really many changes from the previous presentation. 

 

Council Member Butler Barlow spoke first stating she thought there were both positive and negative aspects to the project. However, she felt that due to this parcel’s unique nature, Council needed to put this parcel to “its very best use.” She then made a motion to deny the Riversbend rezoning. 

 

Council Member Johnson stated he has been against this project from day one. He then went on to second the motion. Council Member Wright commended the developer for being engaged and thanked Ryan Homes for listening and considering the voices of the people, however, she still had concerns about the infrastructure and felt the mitigations to the impact on infrastructure were not sufficient.  

 

Vice Mayor Ward talked about how the developer has bent over backwards. He stated the developer did everything he was asked to do. He also expressed concern that the developer wasn’t even there and may be unaware of the decision made tonight. Vice Mayor Ward went on to say that he felt the developer wasn’t treated fairly. He then stated,

 

“I understand how you feel. But when you sit up here, you’re here to govern. That’s what you’re supposed to do. I know most of you might be against me, that’s fine. That is fine with me. But my heart says different. I listen to the developers and I listen to my council people. Yes I do.”

Vice Mayor Ward then asked for Council to be prepared to vote. Before Ward cast his own vote, he asked for clarification from the attorney who very clearly stated, “‘YES’ is for denial, so ‘YES’ is a no.” Ward asked for him to repeat it, and the attorney stated again, “‘YES’ is for denial,” at which point the Vice Mayor interrupted and said, “Okay, I gotcha.”

The final vote was a unanimous ‘YES’ to deny the rezoning. The clerk announced the motion was approved 7-0, clarifying that it was a motion to deny. At this point, members of the public can be heard cheering while at the same time, Vice Mayor Ward seemed confused.

Vice Mayor Ward could be heard, as he turned to City Manager Kevin Hughes, “I don’t want to, I’m not denying it,” then he continued, “So what happens now?” as he continued to ask Mr. Hughes, “What happens now? What happens now?” 

 

At this point, staff and a fellow Council Member indicate to Mr. Ward that his microphone is still on.  He then turns to Council Member Johnson who explains that they just voted to deny the project. 

 

Where we are now: the rezoning has been denied and the rezoning can not be brought back up for rezoning again for a year. Ryan Homes still has a contract with VDOT to purchase the parcel, so it is unknown at this time if they will try to build a project that fits within the current zoning of B-2 (Commercial) or back out of the deal.

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2026/04/16/riversbend-rezoning-denied-by-city-council/feed/ 1
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
Eagles’ Nest Identified on Development Site https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/23/eagles-nest-identified-on-development-site/ https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/23/eagles-nest-identified-on-development-site/#respond Mon, 23 Feb 2026 21:38:08 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=8907 Read More »Eagles’ Nest Identified on Development Site]]>

A citizen of Suffolk recently spoke at City Council about bald eagles nesting on the old VDOT campus at 1700 N Main Street. This property is the site of a rezoning application (Riversbend) that City Council will vote on next month (after multiple delays). The developer, Ryan Homes, wants to build 500 homes on that property. 

After hearing Erin Clemow speak, I decided to reach out to her to learn more about the eagles and how this development may impact them. 

 

When asked how she first learned about the eagles, Erin responded, “I saw a Facebook post about the eagles in the vicinity of the site. I reached out to a neighbor from the Nansemond Gardens neighborhood on River Road to find out more about the eagles and where their nest is.” (This is the neighborhood across the river from the VDOT property.)

 

She said she also put up two posts on local Facebook groups, Suffolk 411 and Care4Suffolk, to see if anyone knew anything about these eagles. 

 

“I started researching who I should contact statewide and looking for what I can do if I am able to find their nest, “ Erin stated. She added, “I was specifically looking for the proper protocol to handle that.”

 

The first person she spoke to was Troy Andersen with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS.gov). He provided her with the link to the nest mapper on the Center for Conservation Biology’s website, part of the College of William and Mary.

This image shows the eagles on the Center for Conservation Biology’s website mapping tool.

The above image shows the eagles’ nest as the yellow dot in the middle of two concentric circles. Those yellow circles are the buffers. 

 

According to the Center for Conservation Biology, there are two buffers:

 

The smaller 330′ “primary buffer” is where human activities are considered to be detrimental to breeding pairs (e.g. residential/commercial development). The larger 660′ “secondary buffer” is where human activities are considered to impact the integrity of the “primary buffer” (e.g. construction, multi-story buildings, new roadways).

 

Below is an image of the parcel, for comparison. 

This image shows the 1700 N Main St parcel.

You can see that the eagles’ nest with its buffers are within the northern half of the VDOT property.

 

Erin also spoke with Shaughn Galloway, another representative with U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Region 5. He shared a lot more information with Erin and provided her with the Northeast Bald Eagle Project Screening Form. She asked him what would happen if someone took down the eagles’ tree and he told her that authorities would be sent and someone would be going to jail.

 

During this time, Erin said that the nearby community pulled together and found the nest. She received photos and videos of the eagles and their nest. One neighbor pinned (or geotagged) the location to provide her with the exact tree.

Erin then got in touch with Bryan Watts with the Center for Conservation Biology at William & Mary. He told her that the geotag is key (meaning the longitude and the latitude of the tree). He also explained that they do flyovers to pinpoint nests.

 

“This was not an easy journey,” Erin recalls, “I was just a concerned citizen and I was dealing with professionals in the field. They were asking me questions that I didn’t really know the answers to, but they were very patient and worked with me to help me understand, and they clarified the process with me.” 

 

Erin shared with me the type of information and documentation that these agencies were requesting. She said they wanted pictures of the eagles’ nest, although that alone wasn’t enough to show that it was an active nest. They wanted pictures or video of the eagles actually in the nest.  One tell-tale sign of an active nest is if the eagle is bobbing its head, which means there could be young in the nest.  Erin added that they were looking for other signs too, like whitewash on the tree, which she explained is eagle excrement accumulating on the trunk of the tree. Other indicators could be scattered fish carcasses and turtle shells which indicate the eagles are eating above that area. The most important part was getting the tree pinned. 

 

“It was a crash course in eagles,” Erin said as she gently laughed. She added that she didn’t know much about eagles before all this began, but now she wants to share this with others. It is clear in speaking with Erin that she is very passionate about this and truly cares about the eagles nesting in Suffolk. 

Erin continued, “I was just relieved that the nest is mapped and now I know the proper authorities will be involved in this in order to get permits.”

To clarify further, Erin stated:

“This is not about targeting Ryan Homes or any particular developer. It’s about making sure the public understands that these animals are legally protected. If they are living near the river on farmland that is later slated for development, that protection does not disappear. Any future property owner or developer will be required to address and comply with those protections.”

Erin shared that it is up to the developer to reach out to Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources (DWR) to get the correct permits in place. “Now that the nest has been formally mapped,” she explained, “there is no question that the nest is there. As I understand it, the nest is naturally protected, and the tree that the nest is in, is protected.”

Erin said that one of the reasons she spoke at City Council, and why she agreed to sit down and talk with me, is because she wants everyone to be aware. She wants to draw attention to the eagles, that they are protected, and to let everyone know (Council Members, Ryan Homes, and the public) that the eagles are nesting on that property and that nothing can happen to them without steep consequences. 

 

Here’s a link to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Bald and Golden Eagle Protect Act. It states:

 

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs.

 

The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle … [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part (including feathers), nest, or egg thereof.”

 

The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.”  Regulations further define “disturb” as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior” (50 CFR 22.6).

 

In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers effects that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.

 

A violation of the Act can result in a fine of $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for one year, or both, for a first offense. Penalties increase substantially for additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.  

 

Erin also shared the email that she sent to City Council. She said it was very important to her that they knew about the nest.

Erin Clemow’s email to City Council regarding the presence of eagles on the VDOT property. Care4Suffolk removed Erin’s personal contact information from the image

What touched me the most about Erin’s speech to Council is at the end, when she says the following:

 

“What a profound blessing it is to witness these majestic creatures nesting, hunting, and raising their young among us. They are more than wildlife; they are a reminder of resilience, unity, and the promise of renewal.

 

Suffolk deserves hope. Our citizens deserve it. And the presence of these eagles feels like a quiet but powerful sign that hope still lives here.”

 

Attachment:

Erin’s speech to City Council

]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/23/eagles-nest-identified-on-development-site/feed/ 0
Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up! https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/05/riversbend-foia-issue-foia-violations-are-piling-up/ https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/05/riversbend-foia-issue-foia-violations-are-piling-up/#respond Thu, 05 Feb 2026 16:46:16 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=8594 Read More »Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up!]]>

The FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) violations by the City of Suffolk are starting to pile up! The latest is from a FOIA request asking for emails between Mayor Duman and Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes:

There were three responsive documents – three emails that fit the criteria. One email was just a notice to all City Council Members stating the developer wanted to delay until December (their favorite month to put controversial votes!) The Riversbend rezoning was then delayed again to be voted on at the February 18th city council meeting.

 

The second document was an email dated October 14, 2025, that contained the slide show presentation that Kevin Hughes presented in front of the October 9, 2025 meeting of the Suffolk Public School Board. This was the meeting where Kevin Hughes, on behalf of the Mayor and City Council, asked the SPS Board to weigh in on the Riversbend rezoning and the potential administrative building proffer that the school board could receive as part of the project. 

 

The third document was actually withheld completely. It was an email that was not included at all, with just the reason given that it is a “working paper” for the City Manager.

I wrote to the head of the FOIA department back on December 19, the day after receiving this and followed up recently, having not yet received a response. I included in my email part of the state code that discusses the duty to redact. State code is very clear: it can only be excluded entirely if the entire content of the email has to be excluded. Otherwise, the City is required to release those portions that don’t qualify under the exclusion. 

By fully withholding the email, there is no way to ascertain WHEN it was sent, WHO is on the email, or any other information that may be gleaned from a redacted email, like how long it is, whether there were any attachments, etc.. 

 

We have had previous articles on FOIA violations by the City of Suffolk. You can read about another instance experienced by a member of Care4Suffolk here and here. In that case, the City redacted under the guise of Attorney-Client privilege, only for the member to later learn, after paying $80 to schedule a court date, that the email did not even have an attorney on the email, so withholding it on the basis of attorney-client privilege was definitely a violation.

 

We can follow that process again, by writing another petition for mandamus and spend the roughly $80 to have the City served and be required to appear in court – and we may yet choose that option, again – but we shouldn’t have to

 

The City of Suffolk should not be hiding information from citizens. They used the attorney-client privilege when there was no attorney on that other email. Now they are using “working papers” as an excuse. Why are there even “working papers” for  Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes in his communication with Mayor Duman, when Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest with the Riversbend rezoning and has had to recuse himself from the proceedings? 

I just want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that this whole Ryan Homes project for Riversbend has had a top-down push through the whole process. Examples include:

  • Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest in this project because of a financial relationship with Ryan Homes. (See videos below.)

  • Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, who reports directly to the Mayor and City Council has been very hands-on with this particular rezoning, even prior to the application being submitted to the City.

  • March 19, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable, of Land Planning Solutions, to Kevin Hughes to set up a meeting to “move forward with the VDOT property zoning”

  • March 26, 2025 – Email sent ahead of meeting with site map. Map had an original date of November 26, 2024  and then updated Mar 21, 2025, already showing EDA land as part of the site plan. (The EDA is the City’s Economic Development Authority board, so the land is owned by the City of Suffolk.)

  • April 22, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable to Kevin Hughes stating: “I wanted to verify that the Econ. Dev. Parcel shall remain as a MUD parcel on the attached? We are finalizing the application to get to you for signature” Note that this email was from 3 weeks before the EDA Board even knew about the project. Kevin Hughes was arranging for the EDA land to be included in the application. The EDA approval was just a formality.
  • April 23, 2025 – Email from Melissa Venable to Kevin Hughes and Adam Edbauer (Ryan Homes) with subject heading: VDOT Application & Signatures. Venable mentions proffer language that Edbauer and Hughes have discussed.
  • May 14, 2025 – EDA Meeting: During a closed-door session for 2 properties unrelated to Riversbend, Kevin Hughes gives a presentation on the Riversbend project and makes a push for the EDA to approve the EDA’s joint venture with the Riversbend Project. Approved by EDA. Note: the EDA land was essential for the Riversbend project to move forward because it need the the land for the primary entrance/exit. (Purple land on map is EDA owned land.)

  • September 11, 2025 – Hughes, in an unprecedented move, makes presentation to School Board and asks for formal response from the School Board

  • October 9, 2025 – Hughes, stating he is representing the Mayor and City Council, answers questions and again requests a formal response from the School Board. School Board votes 8-0 to deny support of the Riversbend Project. Again, with the Mayor’s conflict of interest, why is Mr. Hughes claiming to be speaking on behalf of the mayor?

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman on his Facebook Live (December 1, 2025) discusses his conflict of interest with Ryan Homes and the Riversbend project.

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman during City Council Meeting (November 19, 2025) wanting to ask a question regarding the Riversbend project and asking the City Attorney if he can with his conflict of interest. Meeting link

Suffolk Mayor Mike Duman during joint City Council & School Board Meeting (December 3, 2025): In this video clip, Mayor Duman is told multiple times, by City Council’s lawyer no less, that he is not allowed to speak on the Riversbend project, yet here is, trying to share his opinion on it. Meeting link

The above video clip is from the September 11, 2025 School Board Meeting. In this clip, Interim City Manager states that they don’t present to the school board ever on rezonings, because it is City Council’s purview. So we know that this unprecedented move makes this rezoning special, specifically regarding the proffers that Kevin Hughes helped write. 

The above video clip is from the October 9, 2025 School Board Meeting. In this clip, Interim City Manager states he is there “representing the Mayor and City Council” which is particularly interesting since Mayor Duman has a conflict of interest with this project.

 

And now we know that sometime between January 1 to December 3, 2025, there was an email that included BOTH Mayor Duman and Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, and we know it was regarding the Riversbend project. 

 

Yet, we are to believe that the city can’t release this email – not even the date or the subject or who was included on the email – because it is “working papers” for Kevin Hughes.

 

What does “working papers” even mean? The Code of Virginia defines it in the following way:

 

“’Working papers’ means those records prepared by or for a public official identified in this subdivision for his personal or deliberative use.”

 

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) explains it a little more fully:

“Most probably, the purpose of the provision is to provide certain high-ranking executives some privacy over their decision-making prior to that decision being made. The idea being that if the public can see the decision-making process at every step along the way officials might not be able to be as candid and the quality of the decisions they reach might be affected.”

 

Both of these identify the deliberative use, or decision-making process, as a necessary part of the “working papers”. So if this email is truly  “working papers” for Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, then why does it involve Mayor Duman, who indisputably has a conflict of interest with this specific rezoning? What decision was being considered by Mr. Hughes regarding the Riversbend rezoning, especially considering that the decision actually lies with City Council, not him? What Riversbend-related decision would Mr. Hughes need to involve the Mayor in, considering he is not only prohibited from voting on the issue, he is not allowed to discuss it?

 

The Riversbend project itself is rife with transparency issues. Suffolk’s Mayor has a financial conflict of interest with the project, and yet the Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes has been very hands-on from the very beginning. If this isn’t concerning enough for citizens, the city government is refusing to fulfill their legal duty to provide this email communication and instead is hiding behind “working papers.”  

Here are some FOIA Violations to date, that we are aware of:

  • December 2024 – City Council voted to adopt the 2045 Comprehensive Plan without giving the required public notice.

  • August 2025 – FOIA request resulted in a response of a fully redacted email while FALSELY claiming attorney-client privilege. It was later discovered no attorney was involved in the communication. 

  • May 2025 – City of Suffolk’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) entered into a closed meeting to discuss two projects (Polka and Goober). The Riversbend project was also discussed during this closed-door session without being on the agenda, even though it did not meet the qualifications for closed-door session because the Suffolk EDA was not contemplating the sale of a parcel or any other “publicly held real property”. Therefore, using the exemption at 2.2-3711-(A)(3) was improper. (See email and information below)

  • August 2025 – FOIA request for the slide show presentation given by Kevin Hughes to the EDA Board May 2025 meeting. The FOIA request was denied for the reason: closed door meeting. However, “no record that is otherwise open to inspection under FOIA shall be deemed exempt by virtue of the fact that it has been reviewed or discussed in a closed meeting.” (See email and information below)

The email below is from the FOIA Council, after the EDA Vice Chair reached out to them concerned about the EDA May 14th Meeting and whether proper procedure was adhered to. The FOIA Council response explains the following:

  • FOIA should be narrowly construed, meaning the city shouldn’t be using it to get around disclosure requirements.
  • Closed sessions are for the purchase, sale, or lease of real property and not for rezonings. Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes should not have used the closed meeting for his presentation to the EDA Board, as it was for a rezoning, not a sale, lease or purchase ofland.
  • The EDA Board’s vote on a rezoning application should have been part of the open session and part of the official record.
  • The city failing to provide the presentation that Mr. Hughes used to convince the EDA Board was also violation of FOIA. It should NOT have been withheld because it should have all happened during open session AND a closed session can not be used to prevent disclosure of information that would otherwise be open to inspection.
]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2026/02/05/riversbend-foia-issue-foia-violations-are-piling-up/feed/ 0
What’s Behind the Riversbend? https://care4suffolk.org/2025/08/17/whats-behind-the-riversbend/ https://care4suffolk.org/2025/08/17/whats-behind-the-riversbend/#comments Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:47:52 +0000 https://care4suffolk.org/?p=7940 Read More »What’s Behind the Riversbend?]]>

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

 
]]>
https://care4suffolk.org/2025/08/17/whats-behind-the-riversbend/feed/ 1