When the Supreme Court of Virginia invalidated the amendments to the General Plan enacted in January 2003, it wasn't ruling on whether downzoning was good for the county or not. Instead, the court determined that the county had failed to properly inform the public about the impending downzoning.
According to the court, the county failed in two respects: first, it failed to provide a "descriptive summary" of the land that would be affected by the downzoning. The public hearing notices "failed to state any specific geographic boundaries or landmarks that would have allowed the public to ascertain the areas that would be affected by these amendments," the opinion, written by Senior Justice Roscoe E. Stephenson Jr., read.
The county also failed to define "Conservation Design," a term mentioned in the newspaper advertisements for public hearings. This is how Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) explains it: "No one knows what conservation design is," he said. "It's like saying only blue cars can drive on a road, but you didn't tell anyone you're talking about blue cars."
Two of the complainant's assertions were denied by the Supreme Court, upholding the Loudoun County Circuit Court's decision. First, the complainants held that the county should have advertised that they were going to "adopt" not "consider" new zoning. Second, they contended the public was not suitably aware that information on the zoning amendments was available for review.
— Suzannah Evans