Then, he continued,

Then, he continued, DeMent wrote back, claiming that the building permit complied with the special use permit. At the June meeting, said Fitzgerald, the BZA "in continuous action” suspended the special use permit until it could be made clear to DeMent what the conditions were. DeMent then asked for a meeting with the BZA and was heard—in effect, satisfying legal requirements for an appeal, according to Fitzgerald.

“At that hearing, the BZA said ‘We don't agree with you, Mr. DeMent. What you’re doing is not what...was granted in the use permit for you to do...We revoke that permit,' ” Fitzgerald said.

He conceded that state law doesn’t give revocation powers to the BZA but argued that the precedent for the case didn't address whether the Supervisors could delegate revocation powers to the BZA. Further, he pointed out that the Rappahannock Zoning Ordinance specifically gives revocation powers to the BZA.

“The BZA doesn't have the right to determine whether the ordinance it’s acting under is valid or invalid," Fitzgerald maintained. “It is duty bound to comply with the law.” Maurice Biddle, attorney for DeMent’s adjoining land owners. stated that "revocation must be included within the power to grant as a matter of law and a matter of logic."

Really Building Permit

Did the BZA revoke a building permit or a special use permit?" asked Davis. "My contention is, even though it's called a special use permit, it is in reality a building permit." He maintained that the Zoning Administrator did not deny the building permit applied for by DeMent but rather "simply referred it to the BZA.” The BZA, according to Davis, had no original jurisdiction to issue a building permit. “They can call it a special use permit application if they want to...but it is identical to what would be required in a building permit. A cat might have kittens in an oven but