Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

In a decision that sparked a lengthy debate about adherence to the city’s comprehensive plan and established procedures, the Suffolk City Council voted 5-2 Tuesday night to rezone property at 7250 Harbortown Parkway, paving the way for a 344-unit residential development known as Ascend at Harbortown. Vice Mayor Lue Ward and Council Member Ebony Wright cast the dissenting votes. Leroy Bennett was absent from the meeting.

The proposal sought to change the zoning of the nearly 20-acre undeveloped site in the Harborview area from a Mixed-Use Development (MUD) Overlay District to a Residential Urban 24 (RU24) Conditional Zoning District. The applicant, represented by Grady Palmer, argued that the rezoning was necessary after a single property owner within the existing MUD refused to sign an application for a MUD amendment, which would have allowed for the same development plan.

Kevin Wyne, the city’s director of planning and community development, presented the staff report recommending denial. He emphasized that the existing MUD zoning aligned with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan’s designation of the area as a mixed-use core, envisioning a blend of medical, office, retail, commercial, and assisted living uses.

“RU24 is not a mixed-use zoning district. It is residential,” Wyne stated.

He also noted that the comprehensive plan encourages master-planned communities, arguing that removing this parcel from the MUD would not contribute to that goal. The Planning Commission had also recommended denial by a 4-4 vote.

Former Suffolk Mayor Linda Johnson spoke in favor of the project, emphasizing its compatibility with the original Harborview concept and the presence of nearby employers such as Bon Secours.

“It was about walking to work, playing where you live, and just being able to stay within one place, having your restaurants, going to eat,” Johnson recalled of Harborview’s original vision.

However, the proposal raised concerns among some council members. Council Member Wright questioned the precedent approval might set, given the staff and Planning Commission’s recommendations and the apparent conflict with the comprehensive plan.

“My first question is what precedence do we set by allowing this plan that doesn’t align with the comp plan?” Wright asked.

She also pressed for clarification on why the original MUD master plan had previously reduced the number of residential units and questioned the implications of overriding the policy requiring unanimous consent for MUD amendments.

“Is there a way to change the policy before this decision is made, or are we just going to set a precedent that we are going to override policies and procedures that we put in place?” Wright asked.

Wyne and City Manager Al Moor suggested that the applicant might be better positioned to answer Wright’s questions. However, Mayor Mike Duman said he believed only council members themselves could address them.

“In all fairness, I don’t think anybody can answer that question except for the individuals up here based on the way they’re gonna vote,” Duman said. “You know, we’re talking about policy, but we do have latitude to change things, that’s why they call it a plan. I’m not saying that we don’t need to address the current policy, guidelines, because, as Mr. Wyne alluded to, he said we do not have a process set in place … So, to your point, I think it’d behove us, regardless of which way this decision goes this evening, that we revisit our guidelines in the MUD. Be it change the percentages to 80 or 85, or whatever it may be, whatever options we have.”

Duman also noted that, in his 15 years on the council, he could not recall a case where an applicant had to reapply for a different zoning designation because of the 100% signature requirement.

Following Duman’s comments, Wright reiterated her questions and stressed her desire to support the project if answers were provided.

“If this was a stand alone after the tumultuous process we went through with the 2045 Comp Plan and getting the input of all of the community, that was a very controversial plan,” Wright said. “So, out the gate, planning commission has done their part, they’ve done their research, they’ve given their recommendation. The staff has done their part, they’ve done their research and given their recommendation, so I am just asking because I want to get to yes.”

Wright acknowledged Bon Secours’ contributions to the city but questioned what message the decision would send to citizens.

Council Member Timothy Johnson, who moved for approval, acknowledged Wright’s concerns but emphasized that he believed the project was appropriate for the location, particularly given the nearby Bon Secours facility and the growing need for housing.

“Bon Secours is a very vital part of our city. They want this there. They need housing,” Johnson stated.

Council Member John Rector, who seconded the motion, also addressed the precedent issue, suggesting that each zoning decision should be considered on its own merits. He pointed out that the Bon Secours facility, although adjacent, is not part of the MUD and creates demand for housing nearby.

Vice Mayor Ward expressed discomfort with moving forward without clearer answers.

“Well, I have been on the council for a minute, and I believe this is the first I ever heard that we don’t have answers and that is really bothering me,” Ward said. “I just don’t feel comfortable. We don’t have no answers to this situation and for Councilwoman Wright to bring up two or three questions, she didn’t get maybe one answer out of, that [is] the first time I ever seen that.”

Council Member Shelley Butler Barlow acknowledged the concerns surrounding the 2045 Comprehensive Plan, calling the process “long” and “difficult,” but said the council must be willing to adjust the plan when necessary.

“I think the overarching goal of the mixed-use development is fulfilled by this because of the fact that the hospital is not going to expand onto this property,” Barlow said.

Despite the planning staff’s recommendation for denial and the concerns raised by some council members, a majority ultimately sided with the applicant, citing the perceived need for additional housing in the growing Harborview area.