Save Crow’s Nest Voter Guide,

2007 Supervisor Election

Overall Grade Candidate
  Candidate Name: Bob WoodsonDistrict: Griffis-WidewaterIncumbent (yes/no): No

Party affiliation: Democratic


Total Herons
Total Bulldozers 0
Grade Question
  Question 1. Previously, 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. The Board of Supervisors did not vote to accept the loan in the amount of $30 million.If elected, will you vote in favor of Stafford County accepting the entire $30 million low-interest loan if that opportunity again becomes available?SCN position: YES. Save Crow’s Nest helped prepare the loan application and solicited letters from our members on behalf of the loan application. Information on the 2005 loan application is available on the very bottom of the archive page.

Candidate response: Yes.

  Question 2. In the 1970s, a large portion of Crow’s Nest was rezoned to an A-2 designation, which allows one house per acre. This land use designation is for transitional areas of the County that are served by either public water or public sewer. None of the properties on Crow’s Nest are served by public water or public sewer, and almost all of the properties on and surrounding the peninsula are zoned A-1, which requires 3 acres per house.If elected, will you vote in favor of “right zoning” land on the Crow’s Nest peninsula to A-1 agricultural land use? 

SCN position: YES. This is a position that Save Crow’s Nest has repeatedly advocated in favor of. See #2 from this 2005 piece, “10 Things Stafford County Supervisors can do now to help save Crow’s Nest.”

Candidate response: Yes.

  Question 3. Creeks surrounded by 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. Although prevention is considerably more economical than mitigation, this year the Board of Supervisors voted to kill Water Resource Overlay legislation. This ordinance would have protected sensitive water resources such as those on Crow’s Nest.If elected, will you vote in favor of the Water Resource Overlay ordinance, and vote in favor of designating all of the land on the peninsula east of Brooke Road a water resource overlay district? 

SCN position: YES. Save Crow’s Nest testified in favor of this legislation, which was effectively killed in 2007 in a 4-3 vote. See Water Resource Protection Overlay on the Stafford County Supervisors’ Report Card.


Candidate response: Yes. I will make it a priority to quickly pass this legislation.

  Question 4. There are many historical and cultural resources on the Crow’s Nest peninsula. For example, an October 2005 archaeological survey of only a small portion (450 acres) of Crow’s Nest identified 47 new archaeological sites, 14 of which meet the criteria for listing on the National Registrar of Historic Places. The County has an existing ordinance, the Historical Resource District Overlay, which could be used to facilitate protection of these resources, but so far has not designated any part of Crow’s Nest as an historical district.If elected, will you vote in favor of designating all of the land on the peninsula east of Brooke Road as an historical district? 

SCN position: YES. This is a position that Save Crow’s Nest has repeatedly advocated in favor of. As stated in testimony before the Board of Supervisors on June 5, 2007, “the Board could designate the entire peninsula as a historic resource. There are numerous cultural and historical resources on the peninsula. A“Phase I” archaeological study of 450 acres on the eastern half of the Crow’s Nest peninsula identified 47 new archaeological sites—14 of which meet the criteria for listing on the National Registrar of Historic
Places—and 57 isolated finds. These sites are in addition to the existing six recorded sites on the property. The Historic Resource designation will not permanently protect the cultural and historical resources on the
peninsula. However, if the owner wants to alter the resource, the owner must give the County up to a year to purchase the property a reasonable price. And hasn’t the matter of fair price been much of the issue in purchasing Crow’s Nest?”

Candidate response: Yes.

  Question 5. 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.If elected, will you vote in favor of a plan for a cluster development on Crow’s Nest? 


SCN position: NO. Building dense residential development on Crow’s Nest will not “save” it. As was stated in a 2004 op-ed: “K&M Properties first suggested “cluster housing” as an option, so that development would be concentrated in some areas of the peninsula while others would be saved. This is not an adequate solution because it destroys the fragile peninsula ecosystem while still producing unacceptable congestion.” (“Why a bond referendum is the way to save bucolic Crow’s Nest,” Fredericksburg Free-Lance Star, 2/20/04)


Candidate response: No. We cannot “save” Crow’s’ Nest by putting residential development on it.

  Question 6 and question 7. The Crow’s Nest Harbour is an area of almost 1,000 acres that was subdivided into lots in the 1970’s. There is a deed restriction on the lots in Crow’s Nest Harbour which prohibits the use of well water. Currently, there are not any plans to extend public water or sewer to the Crow’s Nest peninsula.6.  If elected, will you vote in favor of extending public water to the Crow’s Nest area?SCN position: NO.Candidate response: No.

7.  If elected, will you vote in favor of lifting the deed restriction?

SCN position: NO.

Candidate response: No.

  Question 8. The current Board of Supervisors has at various times voted in favor of road projects that will facilitate development of Crow’s Nest. These projects include the reconstruction of Courthouse (almost completed) and Andrew Chapel Roads, the reconstruction of the bridge on Courthouse Road, the hard surfacing of Rt 609/Raven Rd (the road that runs through Crow’s Nest), and a proposal to rebuild the bridge on Raven Rd at the entrance of Crow’s Nest.If elected, will you vote in favor of removing the Andrew Chapel, bridge replacement and Raven Roadprojects from all transportation plans? 

SCN position: YES. Save Crow’s Nest has repeatedly testified in opposition to these road projects. See the SCN Report Card and from 2005, “Paving the road to Crow’s Nest.”Candidate response: Yes.

  Question 9. The current Board of Supervisors passed the “Traditional Neighborhood Development” ordinance, which allows dense residential development. One project submitted under this ordinance, Stafford Town Station, proposes to place up to 2,250 housing units on land currently approved for 145 homes, and in exchange, provide money from cash proffers that might be used to assist in the purchase of Crow’s Nest. Another developer has had an option to purchase portions of Crow’s Nest and has actually purchased lots in Crow’s Nest Harbour. That developer has suggested at various times an exchange of protected property on Crow’s Nest for dense residential development—up to 12,000 housing units–on Widewater.  Both these proposals would create more housing units than can be built on Crow’s Nest.If elected, will you vote in favor of rezonings for dense residential development in exchange for the protection of a portion of Crow’s Nest if those rezonings will create more housing units than can be built on Crow’s Nest?SCN position: NO. Save Crow’s Nest is opposed to saving Crow’s Nest “at any cost,” meaning that we do not support a bad deal for taxpayers. See “Not in the name of Crow’s Nest.”

Candidate response: No. It would be fiscally irresponsible to do so.

What else would you like the members of Save Crow’s Nest and other voters to know about your position on Crow’s Nest?Candidate statement: Crow’s Nest is a beautiful place. Right now, because it is privately owned, it sits behind locked gates and the public cannot enjoy it.

We need to do everything we reasonably can to permanently protect the entire peninsula from development. That includes quickly passing legislation that will protect the peninsula from inappropriate development, such as cut-and-fill grading on steep slopes surrounding creeks. It also includes finding a public-private solution to purchase all of the Crow’s Nest properties, including the lots in Crow’s Nest Harbour, at fair market value, and not a penny more.

With a park on Crow’s Nest, we could tie school classes to water quality, science and environmental programs held at the park. It could also be a community service learning site. And a park of this size, within an hour drive of Washington DC and Richmond , could serve as a destination point offering recreational opportunities such as hiking and canoeing.