traffic – Care4Suffolk

Suffolk’s Most Dangerous Road

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 13 Nov 2025 16:12:20 +0000

It isn’t an exaggeration to state that Manning Road is one of the most dangerous and deadliest roads in the City of Suffolk.

The number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities are tracked and the data is available on TREDS (Traffic Records Electronic Data System), one of Virginia’s most effective and innovative information technology tools in the nation to identify and address road safety concerns. The Virginia Office of Data Governance and Analytics has ADT (Average Daily Trip) data available on the Virginia Open Data Portal (most recent data for Suffolk is from 2022).

Below is a chart that shows the comparison of accidents on various roads in Suffolk.

Click on Image of Chart to Enlarge

Manning Road is the location of the proposed Lake Pointe development that will add 300 single family homes and an estimated 2,772 vehicle trips per day. This will bring the ADT from 1,600 to 4,372 trips per day, nearly tripling the amount of traffic.

The chart includes a comparison with Grove Ave because Grove Ave is the location of the traffic study that the developer used instead of conducting one for Manning Road. The developer, with the agreement from city staff, has stated that it is a reasonable substitution. The Grove Ave accident data is from Grove Ave, Northbrooke Ave, and all side streets within that neighborhood combined.

It is expected that busier roads will experience more accidents. Busy roads have much more traffic. To give us a better idea of the safety of a road, we can divide the average number of accidents per year by the average number of vehicle trips per year. This gives us a rate, in this case a very small number because fortunately most drives do not end in an accident. This rate allows us to compare busy main roads to more rural roads and to neighborhood roads. It is similar to how in baseball, they use a batting average instead of the number of hits a batter has had. The batting average is the number of hits divided by the total number of times the player has been up to bat. In this case, the comparison is the number of accidents in a year divided by the total number of vehicle trips.

If you want to know how much more likely it is to get into an accident on Manning Road versus Grove Avenue, you can take the Manning Road Accident Rate and divide it by the Grove Avenue Accident Rate:

Manning Road Accident Rate / Grove Avenue Accident Rate = Likelihood of Accident

0.0000223347 / 0.0000008934 = 25.0

A trip down Manning Road is 25 times more likely to experience an accident than a drive on Grove Avenue. Below is a Comparison Chart that compares the likelihood of an incident to occur on Manning Road compared to other selected roads in Suffolk.

Click on Image of Chart to Enlarge

What this data is telling us is that if you are a driver in Suffolk, you are more than twice as likely to get in an accident while on Manning Road than when you turn onto Holland Road. That seems counterintuitive because there are far more accidents on Holland Road than Manning Road, but there are also thousands more cars traveling on Holland Road every day. For every 1 driver on Manning Road, there are 20 drivers on Holland Road.

Manning Road is one of the most dangerous and deadliest roads in Suffolk. When you turn down Manning Road from Holland Road, you have just increased your chance of dying in a car accident by 20 times. You are 17 times more likely to die on Manning Road than Main Street and 11 times more likely than when driving down Bridge Road. Let that sink in.

When someone from the Manning Road neighborhood tells you that they live on a dangerous road – believe them. The facts support this. It is in fact one of the most dangerous roads in Suffolk.

When the Manning Road neighborhood tells you that this road is far too dangerous to add 300 houses which will almost triple the traffic – believe them. Approving this development is likely to result in more deaths.

There is no plan in the city’s CIP or 2045 Comprehensive Plan to make any improvements to Manning Road – nothing to make the road safer. This development would be about a mile south of the Holland Road/Manning Road intersection. That is a long way to go on one of the city’s deadliest roads. There are no sidewalks, no shoulders, and the lanes are narrow, too narrow to fit large vehicles. Until the city makes improvements to Manning Road to make it safer, no rezonings should even be considered, let alone approved.

This is about preserving lives. Residents of the Manning Road area already risk their lives driving this deadly road daily. The city must not compound this risk by tripling the traffic on Manning Road – one of Suffolk’s most dangerous roads.

Rector’s Development Disconnect

Care4Suffolk — Mon, 12 May 2025 17:37:32 +0000

“As you ride around the city, we’re 430 square miles of nothing but needs. And, um, we’re doing our best to try to keep the bandaids on the wounds that are open and prevent other wounds from occurring.”

This was the comment made by Councilmember Rector during the FY26 Budget public hearing on April 16, 2025. It’s definitely not a ringing endorsement of the management of Suffolk!

There seems to be a disconnect from some of our City Council Members. Who does Councilmember Rector think is responsible for all these “needs” and “wounds”? And how does he think we can “prevent other wounds” if we just keep forging ahead with the unchecked growth?

The City has been pushing for rapid development over the last decade or more. “Economic Development” is now almost a sacrosanct phrase. We are supposed to accept any and all development without concern for the long-term impacts, fiscal or otherwise. They don’t even provide supporting data that supports that these “Economic Development” opportunities will provide positive fiscal impacts. We are expected to take them at their word and not question the rationale.

Some City Council Members have consistently justified rezoning prime farmland (a limited natural resource), approving large projects on insufficient roadways and in overcrowded school zones – all in the name of “economic development.” There is a certain fear of missing opportunities and disappointing developers that overrides citizens’ concerns and wishes.

Mr. Rector’s choice of words about the budget seem especially obtuse in light of some comments he made at the March 5, 2025 City Council meeting, expressing concern about “competition” from other counties and keeping “our foot on the gas” with regards “economic development opportunities.” As a matter of course, these “opportunities” are not specified.

“… there are a lot of areas that are part of the Hampton Road Alliance that are very, very eager to accept economic development and one of the newer members is New Kent County. And I can promise you that once the 64 corridor, between Williamsburg and Richmond, gets completed, New Kent County is going to be in a strong position to compete with Suffolk, and some of the areas for some of these economic development opportunities. So we need to keep our foot on the gas.” [Emphasis is ours.]

Oh no! You mean somewhere else might try to compete with Suffolk for the label “Warehouse Capital of Virginia”? Let them. We have enough warehouses and do NOT need any more.

We have warehouses being built without committed tenants. Speculative housing developments are being sold to (and by) the City as necessary “extra rooftops” to attract economic development. The new 2045 Comprehensive Plan is designed around this whole speculative concept!

The real disconnect comes when some City Council members talk about the problems around Suffolk. They will acknowledge there are problems, but act like the cause is out of their hands and say there is just not enough money for everything. This is pretty much what Mr. Rector expressed in that first quote.

Traffic, road improvements, over-crowded schools, drainage and storm water management issues are some of the most common concerns. Many of these go unfixed until they’re at a point of critical mass, often getting that way because of new development that exacerbates existing problems. Who does City Council think is allowing this to happen?

Our own Public Works Department has declared our inability to pay for road improvements, stating that we need state or federal funds, for which we only qualify if the situation becomes severe. Attempting to shift this paradigm doesn’t seem to occur to anyone. Instead, they follow the old formula of more unchecked growth to increase tax revenue, which is NEVER enough.

So why are some so determined to stay in this stale, tired old cycle?

Is it possible that some on City Council just can’t connect that the former (extensive rezoning) is the reason for the problems we are experiencing with the latter? Their decades of rezoning for “economic development” and more rooftops has made the situation worse, not better. The citizens recognized this during the 2045 Comp Plan public engagements. The main thing citizens wanted was for the City to slow down its growth so that the infrastructure can catch up.

What we need is a responsible local government that will actually use the brakes sometimes when it comes to development in order to allow time to fix our roads, schools, and storm water problems, and establish higher standards for what we want for our City.

We need City Staff and Council Members who are brave enough to break the cycle of dependency on new development. Just because regional entities and developers keep telling Suffolk how lucky we are to have them, doesn’t mean we have to accept everything they send our way. This strategy has not worked and Suffolk needs to use its leverage to focus on higher-quality growth. Most importantly, we need growth that does not worsen any “wounds.”

Will Taxpayers Be Footing the Bill for 460 Development?

Care4Suffolk — Wed, 24 Jul 2024 15:28:52 +0000

“Forty percent of the justification of any transportation project in our region today is driven by congestion. So if you don’t have congestion, you’re probably not gonna get money.”

-Robert Lewis, City of Suffolk Director of Public Works, Planning Commission 2045 Comprehensive Plan public hearing, July 16, 2024 (YouTube time stamp 2:20:50)

It isn’t Mr. Lewis’ fault that Hampton Roads’ traffic is an absolute mess. He was just stating things the way they are, but does that mean we have to just accept it?

He and our other city leadership seem resigned to it as the status quo instead of using the leverage our city has to demand better support of our infrastructure. Suffolk has the land that the Hampton Roads region and leaders in Richmond want to develop in support of the Port of Virginia—the port especially really wants and needs our land for warehouse space.

Our city leadership needs to hold people’s feet to the fire and not be so willing to bow down to the demands of other entities. We have what they want and they should support our city as an equal partner in this scheme they call “Responsible Regionalism.” This “responsibility” should work two ways and Suffolk should not be left scrounging to pay for the infrastructure the region needs.

An example is happening right now, as some people celebrate the $30 million that was just granted for Route 460 improvements to support the Port 460 project. Did you know that this three-mile project is going to actually cost a total of $86 million?

While watching the March 20, 2024 City Council Work Session about this project, I learned the following:

There is no requirement for these road improvements to be in place for Port 460 to be built out (per Deputy City Manager Kevin Hughes, Time Stamp 36:10)
The Port of Virginia only kicked in $1 million
The developer only kicked in $6.6 million
City officials have spent the past two years just trying to get the $30 million funding (take a look at the extensive packet that was put together to ask for this money—it looks like a lot of work hours must have been put in!)
City officials have decided that we are a “Port-Centric Partner” in order to “sell” our need for the funding
The $30 million is just for “right of way acquisition” and utility relocation
In order to secure the $30 million, the City had to prove that it can fund the remaining $48 million for the actual construction costs
As of now there is no outside funding for the $48 million, so it is budgeted into the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
City financial advisors were consulted to determine the city’s ability to fund “its portion” of the project and determined that Suffolk does have “the ability to issue an additional $48,049,520 in general obligation bonds between FY 27 and FY 29”
By FY 2027, Suffolk will have to find additional revenues to repay debt service; additional required revenue will increase each year

This is the point where we’ll probably accept the low-hanging fruits of development options as our sources of additional revenue. And the cycle will begin again.

And they wonder why we are concerned about a Fiscal Impact Analysis!

No doubt Route 460 must be improved to accommodate all the new traffic projected for Port 460 and the miles of even more warehouses and residential development envisioned by city staff in the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan, if it gets approved. According to the Suffolk News Herald article about the $30 million funding, Governor Youngkin said this is all happening “through the power of partnership.” However, it feels like our “partners” are making us jump through a lot of hoops to do their bidding.

Documentation:

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

Voice of the People

Care4Suffolk — Sat, 20 Jul 2024 17:15:47 +0000

The City of Suffolk is on the verge of adopting the new 2045 Comprehensive Plan. This plan just got approved by a vote of 7-1 by the Planning Commission and it now heads to City Council for a vote on Wednesday, August 21 at 6pm at City Hall.

This plan is NOT in the best interest of the residents.

Please sign our petition opposing this plan and read on for more details.

The City received more than 7,500 responses from citizens telling the City what they want for the future of Suffolk. The responses were documented and then summarized, and you can read those here.

The key themes from the public’s responses are in the chart below along with whether the City has a plan to deliver based on the 2045 Comprehensive Plan:

WHAT THE PEOPLE ASKED FOR:	2045 COMP PLAN TO DELIVER
Small town feel	NO
Downtown Investment	NO
Open Space and Parks	NO
Well planned development	NO
Fix traffic issues	NO
Safe, walkable communities	NO
Invest in public transportation, trails, and rail	MAYBE
Well planned economic development	NO
More amenities	MAYBE
Affordable housing	MAYBE
Limit warehouses	NO
Preserve agriculture	NO
Engage public about their wants and needs	NO

Using all the public feedback, the City could have developed a vision for Suffolk that the people could get behind. However, the 2045 Comp Plan has no vision. With the demand from citizens to invest in downtown, the City could have focused economic development on downtown, but instead, they are carving out new areas for even more warehouses (we already lead Hampton Roads in warehouses!) Instead of limiting warehouse development to existing space and fixing our traffic problems, the 2045 Comprehensive Plan will exacerbate these problems, destroy the open space and farmland people want to preserve, and ruin that small town feel that Suffolk has.

People want to live in communities that are safe and walkable. The push for more warehouses is driving the housing market’s need for higher density housing, and builders want to build where it is cheap and easy (namely on agricultural land), so they can maximize their profits. The City could have focused on community building and infill development close to downtown, but instead we are going to get more of the same suburban sprawl that is NOT walkable, and it will devour more agricultural land. The City keeps allowing these huge suburban neighborhoods and thinks that just because they put sidewalks there, that makes them walkable.

The people of Suffolk value the open spaces and farmland in Suffolk. Farmland is a finite resource that once gone, is gone for good. Getting rid of the land that grows our food is terribly short-sighted. The city pays lip service to preserving agricultural land, but it stipulates that it will preserve it only OUTSIDE the Growth Areas. Yet the City keeps expanding the Growth Areas. They also added language to this new plan that gives them flexibility to build outside the Growth Areas IF the City deems it is a good idea. So basically, no farmland, forestry land, or open space is safe from development, if it can feed the City’s voracious appetite for ‘growth’.

L.5.3 Consider amending the City’s development regulations to add guidelines for the review of exceptional development opportunities outside of the growth boundaries. (p.68 of 2045 Comprehensive Plan)

Before getting public comments, the City met with ‘focus groups’ and staff. We don’t know who attended these meetings, so we submitted a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, and are waiting for that information, but what is pretty clear is that early on it was staff and certain groups of people that were able to sway this plan to their desires, and it definitely wasn’t the citizens.

Here are some highlights from those meetings (full summary is here):

WHAT ‘FOCUS GROUPS’ ASKED FOR:	2045 COMP PLAN TO DELIVER
Interest in expanding Growth Areas	YES
Vacant, rural land provides areas for transformative development projects	YES
Demand is there for continued growth	YES
Efficient and predictable review process, “speed to build” or will look at other communities.	YES
Infrastructure costs – water, sewer, and roads can become barriers for industrial development.	YES
Growth of industrial areas is what drives many of the housing developments.	YES
There is a shifting need to invest in infrastructure prior to building homes (initial investments for long-term returns) would assist developers.	YES
City should either allow for more industrial development or limit based on current boundaries; there is a demand so this is a choice for the City to make.	YES
Renewable energy is looking within the region, planning for this in rural areas is important.	YES

These focus groups got a lot of things THEY wanted – expanded growth areas along with more land use for industrial and then more land for residential development to support it. They asked for a faster and more predictable review process.

L.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. (p.64 of 2045 Comprehensive Plan)

This is part of the “efficient and predictable review process”. It doesn’t matter how many times a staff or City Council Members says that this is ‘just a plan’ and ‘not written in stone’, because the City is planning to rewrite the UDO to reflect the 2045 Comprehensive Plan and rezoning applications that come before them that conform to the Future Land Map will get rezoned. This new Land Use Map is the future of Suffolk. If you don’t know what the land around your home will look like in the future, you should check it out now. This could be our last chance to change this.

The other item that was requested by these ‘focus groups’ was about infrastructure. Developers want it in place so they don’t have to pay or wait for it. Let’s take a moment to appreciate that one about infrastructure. As citizens, we get told all the time that development builds the infrastructure, as in literally, if a developer wants to build, he has to pay for the sewer connection, a pump station if necessary, build the roads and sidewalks, etc.. All of a sudden, developers are complaining about how expensive that is and maybe they won’t build unless the infrastructure is already in place – and so the City adds into the 2045 Comprehensive Plan:

L.5.1 Identify priority economic development sites and make strategic investments to advance site readiness. (p.68 of 2045 Comprehensive Plan)

E.1.6 Strategically expand utility service (water, sewer, fiber) to sites that can support new employment generating businesses. Develop financing options to

facilitate the construction of water and sewer projects to support development.

Use City-funded utility capacity improvements as incentives for development. (p. 81 of 2045 Comprehensive Plan)

The site-readiness is all about having everything in place so developers don’t have to do the work or spend the money to get the land ready. The idea is now that the city will bring in the sewers and other utilities and have the site ready to build on, which will make it more attractive to developers.

Keep in mind that the people asked for fewer warehouses, but now we will get to pay to help build what we don’t even want. How is this representing the citizens? If these warehouses are going to be bringing in so much money, the developers should foot the bill to invest in infrastructure – not the taxpayers!

To entice these warehouse developers that the citizens don’t want, the City is prepared to make Suffolk’s current farmland ‘site-ready’ for the developers on our dime. Knowing this, the City still made the decision to skip the fiscal analysis. The experts that had been contracted to do the FIA, recommend doing the FIA first and then evaluating options, only then should the city write the comprehensive plan. The City of Suffolk decided that it wasn’t going to even evaluate different options for development and it wasn’t necessary to look at the long-term financial impact. This is a HUGE increase in growth for the city, including building large scale warehouses and residential developments on farmland that does not currently have infrastructure.

The State of Virginia requires that comprehensive plans be adopted with the purpose of “prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants”. This plan does NOT meet that standard. This plan is supposed to be about us, our needs and wants, and our vision for the future of Suffolk, not the Port’s needs, developers’ desires, and the will of City staff.

If any of this isn’t sitting right with you, please join us in opposing the 2045 Comprehensive Plan. Please sign our petition, share with all of your neighbors, friends and family in Suffolk. Maybe, just maybe, if enough of us tell City Council we don’t want this, maybe they will listen to the voice of the people.

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

Update Lake Kilby Road Rezoning Request

Care4Suffolk — Fri, 03 Mar 2023 15:43:10 +0000

The blue rezoning signs should be popping up any day now on Lake Kilby Road. The Planning Commission public hearing for the Lake Kilby/Lake Cohoon Road rezoning effort (RZN2021-0018) is only a few weeks away (March 21st, 2pm at City Hall). We need as many people as possible to attend this meeting (wear a blue shirt!). They will vote to recommend approval or denial and City Council will take this into consideration when they make the final vote on it in April.

We still have an online petition that will get printed out and shared with the city. Please check out the link, sign it and pass it along! We appreciate comments on the petition, too!

A developer is requesting to rezone 87 acres on Lake Kilby and Lake Cohoon Roads from Rural Estate to Residential Medium Density to allow for 204 cluster style homes. Rural Estate allows for 1 house for every 3 acres. Residential Medium zoning allows for 4 houses per acre.

Local residents oppose this rezoning because our narrow, rural roads are already crowded and dangerous. According to VDOT, our impacted roads see about 1,200 vehicle trips per day. This proposed development would bring more than 2,000 additional daily vehicle trips. That number does not include delivery trucks and other service-related vehicles.

The public schools for this area are overcrowded. Elephant’s Fork Elementary is already at 110% capacity. It is listed as a school with most needs and has a poor facility condition per the Joint School Board Presentation. Kings Fork High School is at 104% capacity.

City Council has already approved more than 7,400 housing units across Suffolk that have not yet been built. We don’t need anymore new residential units in Suffolk.

This rezoning effort will go before Planning Commission for consideration 21 March 2023 at 2 PM.

Please help stop this rezoning by attending on March 21^st and by signing this petition!

Thank you!

Important Contact Information

City Hall is at 442 W. Washington St

Email the City Planning Department direct – planningemail@suffolkva.us

Email City Council direct – council@suffolkva.us

Call City Planning – 757-514-4060

To receive email updates, please complete this form.

Inadequate Roads

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 28 Feb 2023 20:47:29 +0000

These photos were taken by a neighbor in the Lake Kilby Road area. This narrow country road is a hazard to trucks and the cars on the roads with them. It is too narrow for tractor trailers and it has deep ditches right up along the road which causes a hazard when a truck or other car tries to move over and make room.

This is where the developer for the rezoning request (RZN2021-00018) for Lake Kilby wans to add 204 single-family houses, clustered onto roughly 35 acres. This will generate over 2,000 additional vehicle trips per day, just about tripling the amount of traffic.

It makes absolutely no sense to develop in areas where the infrastructure is not in place. Lake Kilby Road can not support the traffic it is currently experiencing. It would be dangerous to intentionally increase the traffic on this narrow country road.

Let’s make Suffolk better, not bigger

Care4Suffolk — Sun, 19 Feb 2023 16:15:23 +0000

Excerpt from a Letter to the Editor in the Suffolk News-Herald by Sherri Johnston:

Let’s allow the city to catch up on building schools and constructing roads and for the developers to grow into what is already in the development pipeline. Let’s give our citizens a break from added travel woes caused by the intense road construction throughout the city meant to accommodate the uptick in growth. If landowners want to build residential dwellings, they can do so within the current zoning designation or hold off until Suffolk can catch up to itself.

[Read the full letter here.]

The Long and Winding Road

Tom Rein — Sun, 12 Feb 2023 18:41:43 +0000

On February 15, 2023, Suffolk City Council, will reconsider a previously approved rezoning, RZN2022-004(Conditional). In order to rezone and amend the official zoning map of the City of Suffolk in order to amend the previously approved proffered conditions, for Bennett’s Creek Quarter Development, Zoning Map 12, Parcels 32*1,32*2,32*3,32*4, and 32*CH*1. This rezoning request is asking City Council to approve an additional 186 town homes BEFORE completion of the intersection at Shoulders Hill Road and Bridge Road, and additional road work on Shoulders Hill Road within the following timeline; an additional 56 units in 2023, an additional 48 units in 2024, and an additional 82 units in 2025. The original approved rezoning only allowed for 111 town homes “by right” until the completion of the roadwork at the intersection of Shoulders Hill Road and Bridge Road.

If City Council approves this they will have approved 261 additional units for this development before work on the Shoulders Hill Road and Bridge Road intersection has been completed as agreed to by both parties per the rezoning approval of March 21, 2018. The above noted breakdown of additional requested units was only presented during the Developers presentation at the January 18, 2023 City Council meeting. I spoke in opposition of this new information being included for consideration because it had not been made publicly available before this meeting. Council agreed and tabled reconsideration of RZN2022-004 till the February 15,2023 meeting. This new information and a brief history of this project was made available by City Planning on February 9, 2023.

I am in opposition of this reconsideration because it is in clear violation of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance and Suffolk’s United Development Ordinance (UDO), Section 31-601(2), “To ensure that Public Facilities needed to support new development meet or exceed the Level of Service (LOS) standards established by the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and this section”. Following is a brief history of the Bennett’s Creek Quarter Development and why I am in opposition to this reconsideration.

On March 21, 2018, City Council originally approved the rezoning of the noted property located at the North End of Shoulders Hill Road approximately 1500 feet from Bridge Road, from RR (Residential Rural) to RU ( Residential Urban). This permitted to developer, John Napolitano, the ability to ultimately build 417 town homes at this location. That approval is still in place and is not in question or dispute at the February 15, 2023 Council meeting. The original rezoning approval only allowed the developer to construct the 111 “by right” units until the COMPLETION of the upgraded intersection at Shoulders Hill Road and Bridge Road which is currently in development. This restriction is due the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division, determined at that time and reaffirmed this week, that the intersection of Shoulders Hill Road/Bridge Road/Knotts Neck Road did not and does not achieve an acceptable and necessary LOS C as required by Section 31-691, Adequate Public Facilities, of the United Development Ordinance. The additional capacity needed to maintain LOS C or better will not be available until significant COMPLETION of that City Project occurs. The project is fully funded and is currently in progress with an estimated completion date of late 2024 or later.

In addition, turn lanes on Shoulders Hill Road at the intersection of Laylock Lane that will serve the site are not in place but will be constructed as part of the City’s intersection project. The lack of turn lanes at this intersection poses a safety concern as vehicles slow to make turns onto Laylock Lane, especially for drivers approaching from the south, as they are required to wait for a break in southbound traffic before making a left hand turn into the site. To date, there have been no crashes at this location; however the risk of crashes increases with continued growth in site-generated traffic until needed safety improvements can be completed.

As of February 9, 2023, Traffic Engineering recommends that the current proffer limiting development of the property remains intact until the additional capacity needed to support the traffic generated by the project is available through substantial COMPLETION of the City’s capital project.

On June 1, 2022, City Council approved amendments to the original proffers of RZN2022-004 which had limited the number of Certificates of Occupancy to the 111 “by right” units until there was adequate capacity at the intersection of Shoulders Hill Road and Bridge Road. This amendment eliminated the requirement and replaced it with language that allowed for 75 additional units for a total of 186 units prior to the completion of the Bridge Road and Shoulders Hill Road improvements. Kevin Wyne, Director of Community Planning and Development, spoke at this meeting and clearly stated that City Planning DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL of this request for increased units as it did not align with the Adequate Public Facilities section of the UDO. This approval by City Council was in clear violation of the City’s Adequate Public Facilities ordinance of the UDO and should never have been approved by City Council at that time. Robert Lewis, Director of Public Works, also spoke at that meeting and noted that staff had reviewed the TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis) which was submitted by the developer, and did not concur with its recommendations and findings and therefore recommend DENIAL of the request. He continued to note that he personally experienced that this was a very challenging intersection. Councilman Fawcett spoke at length regarding his opposition to this request with extreme details including the fact that the developer had previously stated in writing that he would not come back to Council to request additional units (above the 111 “by right”) at any time until the construction of the noted intersection improvements were completed. City Council approved the request 7-1, with Roger Fawcett being the lone dissenting vote. Before the vote Mayor Duman stated in regards to approving any future requests by the developer for additional units, “and you can put this on record, from my standpoint, I can’t see doing any more units until that thing is done, DONE, DONE!”, referring to the completion of the noted intersection work.

Pause on Rezoning

Care4Suffolk — Sat, 28 Jan 2023 05:15:00 +0000

In a letter to the editor, Bryan Harris asks if it is time to take a pause on the rezoning currently before the Suffolk City Council. With the new Comprehensive Plan in the works, maybe it is time to re-evaluate how development is happening in the City of Suffolk. [Read it in the Suffolk New-Herald here.]

Last week, City Council voted to restrict through truck traffic on several streets in North Suffolk, including Shoulders Hill and Suffolk Meadows Boulevard. I appreciate Council responding to citizen concerns about the increase in tractor-trailer problems in that area.

Whenever I drive that way I get a clear picture of what we need to prevent right outside Downtown Suffolk. I recently wrote a letter about this, which I’d like to expand on by sharing some observations from the city’s planning documents that make me scratch my head.

I had never read a Staff Report, reviewed a Traffic Impact Study, or heard of a Comprehensive Plan until recently—when I learned that a developer wants to rezone parcels on both Lake Kilby/Lake Cohoon and Manning Roads to allow for over 200 and 300 homes, respectively.

It was a new experience for me to request documents from the City, but I have since looked at multiple residential rezoning requests. Some interesting trends have jumped out at me. First, is that the staff reports presented to the Planning Commission and City Council only note new peak hour vehicle trips projected by Traffic Studies, but not the projected new trips for the entire day. In the example of Lake Kilby Road, the difference is 300-plus peak hour trips verses over 2,000 for a whole day. There is also no mention of projected vehicle trips for other upcoming nearby developments. In the case of Manning Road, the projected new peak hour trips are over 500 while the daily trip number is over 2,800. Of course, peak hour traffic is important, but these daily totals are no small matter for our quality of life and roads.

The 2035 Comprehensive Plan (written in 2015) is a very important planning document used to inform growth and development decisions. Several policies from the plan are commonly used to help justify residential rezoning, but Policy 4-1 is one that especially struck me. It states: “Provide opportunities for residents to adopt a lifestyle that is less dependent on auto travel.” Let the irony of that sink in while you imagine an extra 2,000 daily vehicle trips on rural, ditch-lined roads combined with thousands of new tractor-trailers driving throughout the city.

Citizens are now speaking out about what is happening on our roads. Their actual experiences and concerns should hold the most weight in these large-scale decisions that cost the city a lot of money and potentially disrupt the way of life so many people enjoy.

Suffolk is currently working on a 2045 Comprehensive Plan, but we need a pause on much of this rezoning now before our road situation gets any worse. We need to ensure that future development is more compatible with reality than a plan written seven years ago.