Question: Unmanaged development has a significant impact on the ability of localities to protect green open space and natural resource areas. The Virginia General Assembly has said that local governments have the tools they need to manage and contain growth within their jurisdictions. These tools include (1) the proffer system; (2) the issuance of permits for building and sewer hook ups; (3) planning and then legislating dedicated local funding mechanisms to leverage state and federal dollars for acquisition of parks and open space; and 4) comprehensive planning, zoning, and use of tax assessments to encourage/discourage types of development.

How will you use these tools to manage the pace of development and direct where growth occurs?

SCARBOROUGH: All of these tools should be used to encourage development that is balanced, economically sustainable, environmentally sensitive and responsive to citizen input. I support the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to preserve the Rural Crescent and to encourage infill of the designated development area and revitalization of the older areas of the county. We have considerable empty space in a number of strip malls throughout the county. I would consider tax incentives or other measures specifically targeted to encourage businesses to locate in those vacant areas, rather than in undeveloped areas. Finally, the active involvement of homeowner associations and groups such as LOCCA-PELT should be sought and encouraged throughout the approval process.

McBRIDE: The county does need to manage the pace of development, and by �county� I mean more than a sequestered backroom of planning officials. Residents, elected representatives, planning experts and the market need to find proper, common sense balances. The county government does have a role in what should be a true partnership and should effectively use tools at its disposal, such as: (1) Proffers to ensure homebuilders bear the true cost of development, unsubsidized by existing residents; (2) Building permits only for plans that incorporate �green building� techniques and materials; (3) Real estate taxation that fits a broader strategy of responsible stewardship, such as tax exemptions for undeveloped lands; and (4) Zoning approaches that avoid unintended negative consequences, such as exclusionary zoning rules that force people into cars and prohibit them from living within short driving distances and perhaps even walking distances from where they work and shop.

STEWART: These tools need to be maximized to control growth to the greatest extent possible. Developer contributions to proffers need to be increased to reflect the true capital costs to the County of each new residential unit. Permits for sewer hook-ups should be denied for areas where low-density is planned or where higher-density developments cannot be accommodated by existing infrastructure. County funding should be utilized to obtain state and federal grants and matching funds (such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund) for open space acquisition. Where federal or state funding is unavailable and acquisition costs too great, the County should pursue other options for open space preservation, such as conservation easements and developer incentives and disincentives. To the extent allowable under state law, the property tax structure should be reformed such that properties are assessed by land value, as opposed to improvements. This will encourage redevelopment of brownfields and reduce developer incentives to develop on open space. The comprehensive plan should be strictly applied to deny rezoning requests for development that fails to conform to the planned use. The Gainesville Sector Plan should be rolled back.

Question: Inadequate infrastructure - including storm water management, transportation, school and public safety systems - results in preventable increases to pollution levels, reduces quality of life for residents and challenges the integrity of valuable natural resources. There are currently 34,000 residential units approved for development in Prince William County that could accommodate 100,000 more people, increasing the current population by one-third.

What will you do to improve the current Levels of Service, and how will you ensure that new rezoning requests to accommodate new development will not make the current problems worse?

SCARBOROUGH: The county has made considerable progress in recent years to catch up with the infrastructure needs from past development. Every proposed new development should be closely scrutinized at every stage of the approval process to ensure that it results in the highest possible levels of service. That scrutiny should also include a review of the LOS impact for areas immediately surrounding the proposed development. Whenever necessary, creative proffers can be used to mitigate LOS results that are less than desired.

McBRIDE: We need comprehensive environmental planning. Rezoning requests should be reviewed case by case, with a constant eye on how each fits our needs and goals. I recognize the need for additional homes but as Supervisor I would tirelessly strive to ensure each rezoning request accommodates a true need and incorporates sound environmental consideration. Existing policies accelerate growth and existing residents are forced to subsidize the cost. Developers should not be excused from taking on the full cost of site preparation, infrastructure and environmental management. No development should occur without the appropriate infrastructure in place. I would review regulations that actually may contribute toward negative consequences. For instance, developers should manage implementation of storm water systems. We need to tap private sector creativity. As I have seen through my own volunteer efforts in this area, individuals, not a governmental authority, are often the source of more reasonable, efficient solutions. The government�s role is to ensure desired results and not to impose less-effective techniques.

STEWART: First, the County should seek State enabling legislation to implement an Adequate Public Facilities ("APF") Ordinance. The APF would permit the County to require developers to demonstrate to the County that adequate public facilities exist to accommodate the new development. Unlike the proffer system, the APF would apply to developments where the rezoning has already been approved. If the County is unable to implement the APF, we need to deny rezoning requests where the planned development is either not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan or �even if it is in conformance�the existing infrastructure cannot accommodate the development.

Question: Prince William County's current transportation system cannot accommodate traffic from existing development. The resulting traffic congestion increases automobile emissions into the air within the Northern Virginia region, recently reclassified as "Severe" for air pollution. The 2000 Census shows that only 3.2% of Prince William County residents use public transportation to travel to and from their place of employment.

What would you do to increase public transportation options for local residents and/or revamp land use patterns so jobs and housing are closer to each other within 20 years, especially in areas where redevelopment opportunities can maximize investments?

SCARBOROUGH: I use public transportation every day (VRE and Metro) to travel north to my office. We should continue the county�s financial support for various public transportation options, including adequate and free parking at VRE stations. We need to work to expand intra-county mass transit options. Employers should be encouraged to expand the use of telecommuting and flexible work schedules. I would advocate for working with the federal government, state government and our neighbors to the north to eventually extend Metro or some form of light rail to the county. To help attract Metro, I would support encouraging higher density development near major multi-modal transportation facilities. Finally, we need to continue the county�s economic development efforts to attract high-paying jobs to the county so more people can live and work in the county and not spend so much time commuting to their jobs.

McBRIDE: Sprawl is a symptom of greater metropolitan growth, which here is directly affected by expansion of the federal government. While that is beyond the purview of the BOCS, our county could seek cooperation with state and federal governments in exploring commute-reducing ideas, such as enhanced levels of telecommuting and perhaps the �sprawl� of government work spaces. The problem is the number of residents in our county and beyond who drive toward D.C. every morning, and short of capping federal growth, we need to find ways to encourage more people to live where they work and, secondly, to encourage more people to use mass transit. As Supervisor, I would encourage entrepreneurial approaches to alternative transportation solutions, work to implement in-county zoning that doesn�t force us into cars for every activity, eliminate development subsidies that artificially accelerates new home construction and seek consensus for the understanding that new and improved roads just encourage more development and discourage the use of mass transit.

STEWART: Most traffic congestion is along the main arteries to and from Northern Virginia and Washington, DC. There is very little the County can do on its own to solve traffic congestion along these arteries. Accordingly, we need to take measures to prevent the problem from worsening. First and foremost, we need to control growth in the County and work with neighboring counties (e.g. Stafford) to control their growth rates. Second, we need to focus on economic development efforts to bring good jobs to the County, such that commuting outside of the County will not be necessary. We need, for example, a zoning text amendment to limit development of prime commercial property (e.g., property near Exit 158) to desirable non-retail businesses. We can also seek more mass-transit alternatives, such as bus-rapid transit ("BRT"), which can be built faster and at a fraction of the cost of rail. Before such mass transit alternatives are pursued, however, we must assure that they do not simply enable more growth.

Question: The rapid pace of development in Prince William County challenges government capacity to adequately enforce existing Chesapeake Bay and other environmental regulations. And when infractions are identified, the current penalties are often insignificant compared to the financial benefits that can be realized through noncompliance. As a result, many infractions are either not corrected in a timely manner or not addressed at all.

What would you do to ensure regular, timely and comprehensive enforcement of existing regulations to safeguard Prince William's valuable natural resources?

SCARBOROUGH: The enforcement of environmental regulations must be a priority for the county. Violations can often pose serious health and safety risks to citizens as well as harm to the environment. We should consider whether increases in penalties or the number of staff hours devoted to enforcement would help address the situation. There may also be value in greater public disclosure of violations of environmental regulations, to shine a more prominent spotlight on those who are not complying with the law.

McBRIDE: As we have seen, penalties alone won�t stop profiteering, as long as profit margins exceed financial risk of noncompliance. We need to make profit levels more realistic by eliminating taxpayer subsidies to developers. In addition, responsibility for storm water management needs to transfer from builders to homeowner associations, rather than to the county. The county�s public offices should ensure the attainment of desired results and should also be a resource of assistance to private land managers. This is the most efficient and effective approach. As stated by the �Center for Watershed Protection,� a Maryland organization that seeks more efficient implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, �Unfortunately, many communities have found that their own development codes and standards can actually work against this goal [of protecting the environment].� We need a true public-private partnership. The BOCS needs to provide oversight and ensure compliance, but this authority should not necessarily make it the senior partner in the relationship.

STEWART: Penalties for infractions of environmental regulations are set much too low in the County to serve as an effective deterrent to noncompliance. Accordingly, they must be increased to at least the same level as those penalties imposed in Fairfax County. The County also needs to enhance its enforcement initiatives and to consider a whistleblower ordinance, which would compensate County residents and company employees for informing the County of infractions of environmental regulations.

Question: As a signatory partner to the Chesapeake Bay agreements, Virginia has committed to invest in productive strategies that support better ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay. Prince William has taken positive action to fulfill this commitment through efforts that begin to assess the ecological health of many County streams.

Do you support a comprehensive stream protection strategy similar to that in Fairfax County, including the development of management strategies for the protection and/or restoration of County subwatersheds?

SCARBOROUGH: Protecting the integrity of the county�s streams and groundwater supply is critical. I would support a comprehensive stream protection strategy.

McBRIDE: Fortunately, we are not in the predicament of Fairfax County, in that we have not replaced so many of our headwaters with concrete pipe. Still, the 2002 Report on Impaired Waters issued by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is an eye-opener in that our county is disturbingly well represented on the list. I would ask the board to consider adopting the guidelines of groups like �BuildingGreen� and the Center for Watershed Protection�s �Better Site Design� principles as a model for homebuilders to follow, offering quicker site approval as an incentive. The county should protect environmentally sensitive building sites by removing blanket restrictions in areas that are further removed from streams. Removing the real estate tax burden on property owners who wish to keep their land in its natural state should have a huge positive effect on protecting our sub-watersheds. Also, I would encourage the continuation and expansion of existing public-private efforts to reforest our streams.

STEWART: Yes. The County should conduct a detailed stream assessment, similar to that conducted by Fairfax County. Unlike Fairfax County, Prince William County can act in advance to prevent damage to its streams, such as the catastrophic damage done to Neabsco creek. The County must use the proffer system and various zoning tools�such as open space districts, overlay districts and limited development� to restrict development near its streams.

Question: Steep slopes and highly erodible soils characterize many of the remaining undeveloped parcels in Prince William's designated development area. 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, current regulations and requirements provide little, if any, protection for these valuable natural resources.

What tools and/or strategies would you use to protect these environmentally sensitive areas?

SCARBOROUGH: The Environment Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan describes the goal we all share: to ensure that the quality of Prince William county�s natural environment is maintained and enhanced as future development occurs. Steep slopes and areas of highly erodible soils present a particular challenge. All development applications in such sensitive soil areas should be required to specifically describe all methods proposed to mitigate the impact of the development. I support the goal of the Comprehensive plan to preclude development on slopes of 25 percent or greater unless the applicant can demonstrate that adverse impacts can be eliminated through mitigation measures.

McBRIDE: A review of these regulations is clearly in order. We need to rely on environmental expertise of state and county staff, in coordination with private sector engineers, to ensure common sense at all phases of the development process. Riverside County in California has streamlined its development planning process by incorporating environmental analysis from the outset, rather than waiting for reaction to plans from environmentalists, and this reportedly has served to both expedite the process and produce better, more comprehensive planning. I think PWC should do the same, by opening the process to on-staff public as well as private environmental expertise. Zoning is among the driving issues here as well. To re-emphasize my earlier points, I think that the unintended consequences of restrictive zoning have actually served to push builders into environmentally sensitive areas. The county needs to take a look at this, and ensure our own protective rules aren�t actually causing more harm than good.

STEWART: Where a rezoning is needed to permit the development, the proffer system should be used to prohibit development on steep slopes or highly erodible soils. The County should also utilize environmental regulations to the greatest extent possible to prevent the development. Where the County is unable to prevent the development through regulatory means or the proffer system, it should consider a land acquisition or swap.

Question: Prince William's designated rural area (Rural Crescent) was adopted in 1998 to preserve open space, agricultural resources and our groundwater supply. Since that time, development pressures continue to challenge local capacity to sustain these goals. Other open space areas protected by state and federal agencies are threatened by encroaching development. Prince William surveys repeatedly show that residents want more green, open space and passive recreation opportunities, such as birding, hiking, photography and other nature explorations.

What tools, strategies and/or funding mechanisms would you use to protect and increase green, open space areas and agricultural resources? Would you support a comprehensive system of greenways and trails connecting parks in the county?

SCARBOROUGH: I support preserving the Rural Crescent. As the Comprehensive Plan notes, parks, active and passive recreation facilities and public open space are an important quality-of-life issue for our county�s residents. Having grown up in Nebraska, I certainly appreciate the importance of preserving our agricultural resources and open space, particularly given our close proximity to the urban metropolitan area. We should encourage the use of conservation easements, public/private partnerships and tax benefits to act as incentives for developers and private landowners to provide land to keep up with the county�s growing needs for parks and open space. While private landowners cannot be required to participate, I would support a comprehensive system of greenways and trails connecting parks in the county.

McBRIDE: The county government has two primary pro-active courses in pursuing its goals. One is prohibition of undesired activity, and the other is financial incentives to influence activity. I believe that we should be extremely cautious about using the former in relation to economic development � history is rife with examples of failure, some of them enormous, despite the best of intentions. We can more often responsibly pursue the latter. Exempting undeveloped land from property taxes would create a positive, responsible influence. This should include a mechanism for property owners to revert developed property to an undeveloped state, which could allow former farmers an opportunity to hold unused land without estate-breaking tax bills. Refusing to subsidize development is another, forcing builders to make more careful business decisions. A comprehensive system of trails interconnecting our green spaces would be beneficial and, I believe, greatly appreciated by residents.

STEWART: The County should consider the gamut of regulatory, zoning, administrative and policy tools to protect and preserve open space. Those tools include agricultural and forestal districts, open space districts, overlay districts, dedications, impact fees, developer incentives and disincentives and improved use of the proffer system. As alluded to above, it must also attempt to implement the APF.

Question: Over 80% of Prince William public water users rely on the Occoquan Reservoir for clean drinking water. Although it is now too late to protect lands along the southern side of the reservoir, much of the headwaters lie in western Prince William. Conservation and preventative efforts offer significant economic advantages over technological solutions, as documented by the EPA in their assessment of New York City's successful watershed protection strategy.

What tools, strategies and/or funding mechanisms would you use to protect the public drinking water supply? How will you protect the headwaters of the Occoquan Reservoir as development increases in the upstream sections of Bull Run, Cedar Run, and Broad Run watersheds?

SCARBOROUGH: Providing adequate levels of high quality public drinking water must continue to be a priority for the county. We should continue to support the Occoquan Monitoring Lab and the multijurisdictional Occoquan watershed program. We should require best environmental management practices in all development applications to prevent sedimentation runoff and to minimize stormwater runoff. The Virginia Cooperative Extension Service has considerable expertise in soil and water conservation best practices. The county should partner with Cooperative Extension on public education and awareness campaigns on what citizens can do to protect our water supply.

McBRIDE: I would strive to protect the headwaters of the Occoquan by implementing financial incentives to maintain green space, ensure that new development incorporates comprehensive environmental planning from the start, and support the removal of existing financial incentives, also known as taxpayer subsidization, to build new homes. I would use the BOCS position to educate the public, to promote participation in ongoing efforts to reforest streams, and would encourage other board members to do the same. We need to identify and protect the areas that are most critical to the ecosystem, and put mechanisms in place that retain the biologic function of our streams. Regardless of the ecological benefits of conservation, I think that homeowners would prefer the esthetics of a wooded stream near their homes to a concrete trough or a submerged pipe, and builders should be cognizant of this. I�d like to seek out positive ideas from district residents and use my office as a focal point for bringing the district�s creativity to the county at large.

STEWART: The County should pursue open space, overlay and forestal districts to prevent development along the Bull Run, Cedar Run and Broad Run watersheds. An urban growth boundary could also be draw outside of these areas. Where applicable, rezoning requests for these areas should be denied.