Mr. Brito’s responses to our questions are in bold below.

1. It has been nearly two years since negotiations between the State and the owners of Crow’s Nest fell through. During that time, there has not been any apparent progress in the effort to permanently protect the entire peninsula from development.During the past two years, what actions have you taken to help save Crow’s Nest? For incumbents, what official Board actions have you taken?

I have been a supporter of saving Crow’s Nest for many years. I participated in efforts, dating back to 1999, to create a U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Refuge on Crow’s Nest. I attended the first Save Crow’s Nest community meeting in February 2003, and have spoken on behalf of saving Crow’s Nest at Board of Supervisor meetings, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. As a Board of Supervisor member, I will continue to support saving Crow’s Nest.

2. In the long run, it will cost County taxpayers less to purchase and preserve Crow’s Nest than it will to pay for the new school, road improvements, and county services that would result from the current plans to build nearly1000 houses there.  Instead of creating more traffic congestion, water pollution and crowded classrooms, investing in preserving Crow’s Nest will leave the region with a 4,000-acre park that can be enjoyed by outdoor enthusiasts, anglers and hunters, families, and students learning about the environment. What official Board actions will you take to permanently protect all of Crow’s Nest from development?

The Board of Supervisors must take the lead in preserving Crow’s Nest because it is County taxpayers who will have to live with the consequences of development on Crow’s Nest. Long after the developers leave, we will have to bear the burden of the higher taxes, crowded schools, and increased traffic that will come from nearly 1,000 new homes on Crow’s Nest.

As a Supervisor, I will advocate for partnerships with State, Federal and private partners to purchase Crow’s Nest. I will also sponsor ordinances to hold developers accountable for the impact of growth. I believe that the entire County should be designated a traffic impact area, and that developers must commit to paying the costs of roads before additional houses are built.

I am also willing to explore creative mechanisms to preserve Crow’s Nest, including trading density or a swap of County land for the properties on Crow’s Nest.

3. The State of Virginia has offered a low-interest conservation loan in the amount of $30 million to Stafford County for the purpose of purchasing Crow’s Nest. The debt service costs of this loan are much lower than a bond, and a loan does not require a referendum. In fact, because of pending deadlines, a referendum probably cannot be held in time to accept the loan. As of the date of the mailing of this questionnaire, the current Board of Supervisors has not voted to accept the loan in the full amount. Do you support Stafford County accepting the entire $30 million low-interest loan?

I am committed to approving at least $10 million of the loan. The reality is that the County and the taxpayers have two choices. Either we can accept the low-interest loan and invest in Crow’s Nest as a public park, or we will have to take out a bond for more than $40 million at a higher interest rate to build the schools and other infastructure needed as a result of development on Crow’s Nest.

4. As legislators, Supervisors have at their disposal a number of tools that could be used to ensure the best use of the Crow’s Nest property. These tools include 1) the zoning ordinance; 2) the planning process; 3) a gate keeping role in recommending roads for inclusion as VDOT state roads; and 4) comprehensive planning. Will you use these tools to ensure that the best use of the Crow’s Nest property occurs?  Specifically, what will you do?

For too long we have had Supervisors who have done nothing to raise the zoning and subdivision ordinances to the standards that are allowed by our State General Assembly, the same standards that could protect our citizens from out-of-control development.

I am committed to reviewing our laws, and improving them so that the best use is made of land everywhere in the County. The many failed attempts over the past fifty years to develop Crow’s Nest, and its current forestry land use, demonstrate that the best use of Crow’s Nest is as open space. We need to change our comprehensive plan to reflect that. And when it comes to large subdivisions, we need to improve our requirements for site planning, managing traffic, protection of water resources, and soil and erosion control.

5. Steep slopes and highly erodible soils are dominant on Crow’s Nest. These landscape conditions necessitate the use of cut-and-fill development practices and have significant negative impacts on water quality, protected stream buffers and other natural resources. Although prevention is considerably more economical than mitigation, Stafford County ’s regulations and requirements provide limited protection for these valuable natural resources. What tools and/or strategies would you use to protect these environmentally sensitive areas on Crow’s Nest?

Zoning ordinances should protect the health and well-being of the community, the rights of property owners and the pockets of taxpayers. Inappropriate building on steep slopes and erodible soils pours mud into our creeks and onto our roads, erodes septic drainfields, and can lead to unstable house foundations. And in the end, it costs taxpayer dollars to fix the messes made by developers who have taken their money and run.

I strongly support a county-wide ordinance to prohibit building on steep slopes, particularly when those slopes are next to creeks and rivers. This will also bring our laws into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which for years has stated that steep slopes are not suitable for development.

6. Crow’s Nest provides an extraordinary habitat for a variety of animals and plants, in part due to the contiguous nature of the property. There have been some suggestions that a cluster development, which would increase the building density on one part of the property and leave a portion of the property in open space, is one solution to Crow’s Nest. This would fragment the property and destroy wildlife habitat. Do you support a cluster development on Crow’s Nest that would leave a portion of the property in open space?

No, I do not support a cluster development on Crow’s Nest. The property is unique for many reasons, including the habitat that it provides for threatened and endangered species and the forested buffer it provides to the Accokeek and Potomac Creeks. Additionally, the terrain of the land, lack of access roads and reliance on well and septic make it unsuitable for dense residential development. Leaving the tip of the peninsula in open space and surrounding it with residential development will turn Crow’s Nest into a suburban city park, and in the process we will lose what makes Crow’s Nest unique.

7. The current Crow’s Nest property owners— Stafford Lakes LP (a.k.a. K&M Properties) made up of out-of-town developers Kamel Tabarra, Walid Kattan, John O’Connell and Warren Montouri—seem to be trying to extort windfall profits from taxpayers.  The County’s “fair market value” tax assessment of the property is $14 million.  Last year, Stafford Lakes was unable to find a buyer for the property when it was asking $50 million.  Now, they have reportedly raised their price again—to $56 million.  Under eminent domain, the Court would establish the fair market value of the property. Eminent domain would protect taxpayer dollars and ensure a fair market return for the owners, and because no one lives on the properties, no one would be displaced.Do you support, as a last resort, the County’s use of eminent domain to purchase Crow’s Nest?

My hope is that the property owners will come back to the table and negotiate in good faith for a fair market price for the purchase of all of their properties on Crow’s Nest. However, if they continue to try and squeeze out unfair profits from the sale of the land, profits that will come out of  the pockets of taxpayers, then yes, as a last resort I support eminent domain.