www.roanoke.com

In his arguments before the Blacksburg Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and Judge Bobby Turk, town consulting attorney Greg Haley repeatedly summarized this essential concept in Virginia land use law: "The reward for specificity is vested rights."

His explanation was easy to follow: if you commit to something specific and get permission to proceed, a governmental body cannot change its mind and forbid you to do it. But you have to commit to something specific.

Regrettably, both the BZA and Turk were unable or unwilling to comprehend and apply that concept. It took the Virginia Supreme Court -- and therefore a tremendous expenditure of funds -- to confirm Haley's knowledge.

In its thorough rejection of the First & Main developers' claims, the court wrote, "The developers concede that the conceptual plans and the description of the project in the rezoning application and the proffers were intended to provide for 'flexibility' in the ultimate development of the property. However ... flexibility is the opposite of specificity, and specificity is what code S 15.2-2307 requires for a landowner to obtain a vested right."

The court dismissed the developers' contention that their commitment to spend $25,000 to improve an intersection just north of their property was unrelated to the rezoning. "The necessity to the developers' intended project of having improved traffic flow at a nearby major intersection is self-evident," it wrote.

Further, the preposterous assertion that a pedestrian path owned and maintained by the developers constitutes, "a 'donation' of the property is simply not supported by the record".

The court noted the developers' repeated references to "mixed-use" and "residential" in their zoning application and strongly denied that a proffer limiting residential density gave a vested right regarding commercial use. It does create a vested right for that residential density.

Similarly, a proffer to forego eight commercial activities does not constitute a specific plan to engage in whichever remaining commercial, residential, office, hotel, entertainment or other option the developer may someday select.

"The reward for specificity is vested rights. ... No specificity, no vested rights."

At the BZA hearings, the court noted, "[there] was a high level of public participation at the meetings, with sentiment strongly against permitting a 'big box' retail store to be built on the property."

The court was probably unaware of the overt bias shown by the BZA. The first citizen to speak was interrupted repeatedly by the chairman and was only permitted to finish her allotted three minutes after public insistence. The second speaker was also interrupted and stopped before he appeared to have completed his argument. Thus, public participation was discouraged, belittled and dismissed.

In contrast, the BZA chairman seemed star-struck in the presence of attorneys, particularly the developers' boorishly theatrical Richard Cranwell, and failed to control the opposing attorneys' frequent interruptions and loudly muttered dissents throughout Haley's argument.

Why did the five individuals on the BZA and a circuit court judge unanimously get it wrong? What are the odds that six people, chosen at random, would all interpret legal arguments directly opposite to a unanimous decision by the Virginia Supreme Court? Not likely. There would have to be a selection process that somehow favored such bad judgment.

There was a moment in the circuit court hearing when I thought that Judge Turk was going to address the burden placed on the neighbors by the developers' deviation from their zoning application. "What," he asked, "protects the landowner?" I quickly realized that I had misunderstood the nature of his question. The landowner he was referring to was the developer.

Perhaps Turk and the BZA members are cut from the same ill-chosen cloth. For some people, there is only one landowner, and the rights of affected neighbors or a community are subservient to those of developers, the wealthy and the well-connected. This certainly appeared to be the perspective of the BZA.

Perhaps Turk's erroneous ruling resulted from a similar bias. Justice is supposed to be blind to who is making the legal argument, not blind to the arguments of those with less wealth or perceived prestige.

The developers were undefeated in the New River Valley, but once they reached Richmond it became obvious that they had no game. Despite the exceptional talents of the fundamentally decent attorney James Cowan, the facts of the case and the code of Virginia were insurmountable. They should never have made it past the first round. When the case was evaluated with objectivity and competence, the result was a resounding victory for the town and citizens of Blacksburg.

David C.Wood is a veterinarian in Draper.