VDOT site – Care4Suffolk

Environmental Concerns at Riversbend

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 02:26:10 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, page 21

From PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT, page 24

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

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

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

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

Environmental Studies:

Other sources:

Diesel Range Organics by Duke University
DC Department of Energy and Environment

The Fear Factor

Care4Suffolk — Thu, 23 Oct 2025 10:56:10 +0000

A common quote that developers use when faced with public opposition is: “If not this, then something worse.” I have seen this time and time again.

These are threats. They are stated for the intended purpose to get people to respond emotionally. When people are faced with two choices, they will pick what they perceive to be as the lesser of two evils. The developer is using this tactic to elicit support by threatening something worse.

This is what is happening right now with the proposed Riversbend rezoning. The Riversbend project is a development of 497 homes on 73 acres. The almost 500 houses is a big sticking point with citizens, School Board members, and some Planning Commissioners. The 500 houses is a huge project that will negatively impact already over-crowded schools and Main Street, which already suffers from heavy traffic.

How is a developer to deal with all the pushback? He could reduce the number of houses, and that might help. This option is very seldom taken.

Alternatively, he could induce fear and create a scenario that makes the 500 houses look like the better deal. For example, he could say:

“If they don’t allow these 500 houses, then 800 could be built there, ‘by right’ and it wouldn’t even have to go through rezoning!”

This is EXACTLY the scenario that is happening right now in our city. Decision-makers, like the Planning Commission and School Board were told that if they don’t agree to the 500 houses, that instead, the developer could come back with a MUD (Mixed Use Development) plan of 800 houses. City staff are actually confirming this for them.

The problem is that this threat of a development with 800 houses is a lie at worst or a deliberate misrepresentation at best.

The developer AND City staff, are saying this because this land is already zoned B-2, which is commercial zoning that allows MUD. Examples of this type of development include The Gallery at Godwin and Bridgeport. These are developments that offer both commercial and residential in the same development, like commercial space at the ground level and then apartments above.

There is a ratio set up in the UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) for MUD where there has to be one employee (one job created) for each housing unit built. They calculate the number of employees by taking the total square footage of the commercial space and dividing it by either 400 if it is retail space or 250 if it is office space. In order to put 800 homes at the VDOT site, they would need to build 320,000 square feet of commercial space. To put that in perspective, Bridgeport, which is quite large, is only 60,000 square feet of retail space.

They don’t have the ability to put that in this location. You don’t have to take my word for it– they already TRIED the MUD overlay district before applying to rezone.

In the above MUD conceptual plan, dated March 2025, look at what they were able to squeeze onto this space. They came up with 525 housing units and only 467 jobs, so the jobs number was too low! I don’t know how many iterations they worked with to try to maximize the housing, but they probably never even got to the 497 of the current application.

Also note, doing a MUD overlay does not absolve them from needing cash proffers for schools and roads, even if it does not need to be rezoned. At some point the developer looked at this, along with Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes, who was on the email that contained this plan (which I received via a FOIA request) and decided the best move was to rezone to RU-18.

All of this doesn’t even include the fact that no project of ANY density could be built there without the assistance of Mr. Hughes in gifting EDA (city-owned) land to the developer for use as the main entrance and exit. You can read more about this here.

So for everyone out there concerned that if the Riversbend rezoning doesn’t pass, we will be faced with 800 homes instead: don’t worry; this is a scare tactic. Shame on any and all city staff and city leadership that perpetuate this lie.

Riversbend Deal Keeps Getting Worse

Care4Suffolk — Tue, 16 Sep 2025 14:27:33 +0000

Watching the Suffolk Public Schools Board meeting on September 11, 2025 brought new information to light about this Riversbend Project. The deal that the Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes negotiated on behalf of the city, will actually turn the old VDOT Administration building over to another developer (separate from the rezoning applicant), after the rezoning. This new developer who specializes in office buildings will renovate the old VDOT Administration building, the City will then lease the building back for the use of Suffolk Public Schools’ administrative staff , and then buy the building back later down the road. Plus, there will still be no cash proffer for actually addressing capacity issues at the affected schools.

Here’s a quick list of of what’s in this deal Mr. Hughes negotiated:

Gift EDA land to a developer
Agree to no school proffers at a loss of at $6 M
Add a minimum of 135 students to already overcrowded schools
Add more than 5,000 extra vehicle trips/day on Main St, which is already near a failing level of service
Accept a building with two acres which is currently worth no more than a couple of million dollars
The city will give or sell (details are still fuzzy) this building to a different developer
After it is renovated the City will lease it for a time and then buy it back again

In a previous article, we wrote about some behind-the-scenes activity between Mr. Hughes and the Riversbend developer’s representative, Melissa Venable. We learned that Mr. Hughes was negotiating with the developer using City of Suffolk’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) owned land. He did so without the consultation of the EDA and only presented it to the EDA months after the developer had already incorporated the EDA land into the Riversbend site plan.

We also learned that Mr. Hughes worked with the developer on the language for the proffers. These proffers do NOT stipulate the value of the EDA land nor how the arrangement would work between the EDA and the new project. Additionally, the proffers offer the old VDOT Administration building in lieu of the usual cash proffers that go towards increasing school capacity.

During the presentation to the school board, city staff still presented the VDOT Administration building’s value at the hypothetical appraisal amount of $6.2million. If you read the rezoning packet and find the appraiser’s report, it turns out that this amount is reflecting the estimated value of the property AFTER the buildout/renovation to restore it to a “finish that is equivalent or better than contemporary office space.”

Despite the appraisal being for a renovated building and NOT the building in its current condition, city staff continually claim that the value of the building the city is receiving is worth $6,270,000. They say this EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT TRUE!

Additionally, the building renovations, to reach this appraisal value of $6.27 million, are estimated to be MORE THAN $7 MILLION. We know this from the presentation given to the School Board. Below is a slide from that meeting:

Why does City staff continue to misrepresent the value of this building? You might say it is the developer’s fault because he misrepresented it in the proffers. Remember though, Mr. Hughes was a party to the language of the proffers. City staff are not only repeating this lie, but at least one of them was part of the crafting of it.

Ms. Heather Howell, Suffolk Public School Board Chair, explained at the meeting that she had been told by the Mayor that this would impact Elephants Fork Elementary School. Elephants Fork is already in the CIP for a new building. In fact, the Riversbend project would impact Hillpoint Elementary, which isn’t in the CIP at all. There are no additions planned to expand this school’s capacity although it is already overcrowded.

Furthermore, as we broke down in an article about school proffers, Hillpoint Elementary School is already at 108% capacity. Adding the new students projected from the already approved housing in the residential pipeline data increases it to 150% capacity. If we add the potential students from this Riversbend development, it will be at 159% capacity. Yet there is no plan to alleviate this situation in the CIP nor in the proffers.

An additional concern is about how this process is being handled at the highest level of Suffolk’s paid staff. Mr. Hughes sprung this on the EDA board, expecting an immediate vote at that May meeting. Now he has waited until the 11th hour to ask the Suffolk Public School Board to give their approval. Why did Mr. Hughes make all these negotiations and decisions with the developer and only bring the project, last minute, to those City Boards that will be directly impacted? Why didn’t Mr. Hughes discuss this with the EDA and SPS Board early in the process? Emails show he and Planning Director Kevin Wyne in communication with Ms. Venable in early March and the title search was already complete. It is more than 6 months later, and they are just getting around to asking the School Board?

This same approach was used with the EDA Board. The EDA land was showing up in maps dated November 2024 and revised in March 2025, with EDA land already incorporated in the site plan. The EDA Board members weren’t told about this until May 2025 and were expected to vote on it immediately after they had just received the information.

This type of short-notice, strong-armed tactics have no business in city government where due diligence and open communication are expected and required.

During the School Board Meeting, School Board member Mr. Riddick stated:

“My perception is, is we’re being leveraged. As if, if we don’t accept this, we may half to keep our staff in a building that doesn’t suit our need.”

Mr. Riddick also stated:

“When I proposed us using this as our um, headquarters, at our joint meeting, it wasn’t so that a developer could get the land and we are propositioned. Because that’s what it seems like. It was us to move swiftly as a unit to get the land and move forward.”

Here is Mr. Riddick speaking at the previous joint City County & School Board Meeting last September:

School Board member Kimberly Slingluff stated after reading the school proffers aloud:

“That to me meant that the ownership of that particular lot of land and that building would be moved over to the city or to the schools. So I am confused as where we would have to then purchase it later.”

Here is a clip of Ms. Slingluff looking for further clarification:

Ms. Slingluff is confused because the deal doesn’t make sense. Suffolk is relinquishing school proffers in exchange for a building. The city isn’t going to do the renovations itself. Mr. Hughes’ plan is to give or sell (details are fuzzy) the building to another developer to renovate. When finished, the City will lease it back for a time and then buy it later.

Additionally, this is a project that is rezoning PUBLIC LAND. The State of Virginia owns the old VDOT parcel. Why were the citizens not consulted? I got to weigh in on which benches I would prefer and which garbage cans should be used in the public park on East Washington St – a park about a tenth of an acre. But for this 89 acre publicly owned land, the city doesn’t even get feedback on something as basic as: it could be a park, it could be commercial, or it could be 500 more homes – which do you prefer? This was a HUGE misstep to completely leave the public out of the process for this last large chunk of open space in the downtown area.

Waiting until the deal has been negotiated and about to be heard before Planning Commission and City Council doesn’t count. Yes there will be public feedback at the rezoning hearings, but the public voice will be in response to the deal as set by Mr. Hughes, not on what the public would have preferred to become of the 80 plus acres of public land.

It was previously suggested by the School Board to acquire this land for city purposes. Our City leadership could have led the effort and negotiated the purchase of this land from the State, renovated the admin building, kept the EDA land for actual economic development, and prevented this nightmare deal.

The taxpayers in Suffolk pay our Interim City Manager well over $200,000 in salary to work in the best interest of the citizens. How is this deal in the citizens’ best interest? This deal feels like a give-away to developers and the people of Suffolk deserve better.

What’s Behind the Riversbend?

Care4Suffolk — Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:47:52 +0000

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