The appeal put before the BZA claimed that the approved First and Main Phase I Site Plan was not in conformance with Ordinance 1412 when it rezoned a portion of the property by taking the residential units out of the plan.  The appellants claimed that the developers were not following the ordinance and that the zoning administrator overlooked the ordinance when the plan was approved.

On February 13, the BZA held a hearing in which the appellants, Blacksburg citizens Carol Guest, Jane Sprague, and H.C. Rogol, presented to the board the reasons they felt that they qualified as an aggrieved party, which is required to have standing for an appeal.  Last night's meeting came after the two-week period the Board established to evaluate the appellant's standing.

The hearing began with a request by Llamas, a regional division of First and Main developers Fairmont Properties of Ohio, that the file of suit be dismissed because of a lack of evidence provided by the appellants to prove they should be considered aggrieved.  

Rogol, the one member of the three appellants who does not live near the site, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the other appellants to prove they were aggrieved. Rogol also stated his reasons for wanting to appeal the zoning administrator's decision.

"We are challenging the approval of the site plan because it overlooked existing laws," Rogol said.  

The BZA and Rogol discussed the requirements for Guest and Sprague to be considered aggrieved.  The BZA stated that landowners have to show that their property has some sort of damage because of the site.  Furthermore, the appellants had to show the burden is suffered on their property, but not by the public at large.  

After discussing at length the two residents' property damage in reference to the development of the site, the BZA voted to go ahead with the hearing for the appeal.  The rest of the hearing focused on whether or not the zoning administrator made the right decision to approve the site plan.  

When Rogol took the floor again, he said that the comprehensive plan for the site included a plan for residential units.  

"When they dropped the residential units, they basically ignored (ordinance) 1412, and it benefited them," Rogol said.  

The BZA and Rogol disagreed over the intent of ordinance 1412, which states that the "application dated May 09, 2006 shall govern the development and use of this law."  Rogol and the other appellants took that to mean that the comprehensive plan and the application for rezoning was the final plan, and dropping the residential units from that plan was violating that application.  

Larry Spencer, Town Attorney, said that the comprehensive plan was essentially just a "sales piece," and there was no binding development plan.  This claim angered citizens who felt that was not made clear.  

Despite the request to appeal it, BZA voted to uphold the decision made by the zoning administrator.

 This appeal involves phase I of the development of First and Main and is separate from the controversy surrounding phase II, which involves the development of a big-box store.  Some citizens of Blacksburg have related the two because both involve what the appealing citizens see as inconsistencies in the approval of developments under town zoning ordinances.

• Baseball's Octoberfest is down to its final four teams
• Hokie wideout's career goes a Mile High
• Editorial: Publicly funded research should be publicly accessible