Purcellville officials, residents oppose Valley Commerce Center; planning commission sends application to work session

The Loudoun County Planning Commission on July 29 voted 8-1 to send the proposed Valley Commerce Center rezoning in the Purcellville JLMA to a planning commission work session after a long public hearing period that drew elected town leaders, dozens of residents and several business proponents.

The applicant seeks to rezone roughly 117 acres in the Percival (Purcellville) JLMA from JLMA-3 to a Planned Development Industrial Park (PDIP) and to modify zoning standards to permit on-site wells and septic instead of central utilities. The planned development concept shows a mixture of flex/industrial buildings, roughly 1,300,000 square feet of total industrial area (applicant-supplied upper bound) with landscape buffers, proposed traffic mitigation proffers and a plan to reserve right-of-way for the Percival North Collector Road (PNCR) alignment.

Staff opposition: County staff told commissioners the proposal was inconsistent with the 2019 General Plan’s “rural neighborhood” place type that covers the JLMA north of Route 7, arguing the plan anticipates low-density residential, rural economy uses and agricultural transitions rather than large-scale industrial development. Staff also flagged long-term groundwater reliability questions in the applicant’s hydrogeologic report and remaining transportation, heritage-resource and tree-conservation issues. Staff recommended the commission not forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.

Public comment: The hearing saw more than two dozen speakers. Purcellville Mayor Christopher Bertot, Town Council members and the town vice-mayor urged denial, saying the plan conflicted with town and JLMA land-use guidance. Nearby residents said a large industrial park would increase truck traffic and noise on narrow, two-lane Percival Road, threaten groundwater and disrupt a neighborhood that borders the site; several speakers cited town council’s January rejection of an annexation request for the same land. Supporters, including small-business owners and commercial brokers, said the county needs more local flex/industrial space for contractors, trades and storage and offered design concessions the applicant proposes (landscaped frontage and lower building massing along Percival Road).

Traffic and water: The applicant proffered off-site fair-share contributions (roughly $130,000 combined) for traffic signals at local intersections and proposed a production well that it says can deliver 52 gallons per minute. County consultants questioned the long-term sustainability of on-site well production and potential drawdown impacts on neighboring wells; the applicant said it had offered to monitor nearby wells but that some neighbors declined to participate. Commissioners pressed both staff and the applicant on water reliability, road alignments for the PNCR and the project’s scale.

Outcome: Vice Chair Miller moved to send the application to a planning commission work session for further study. After commissioners summarized questions for staff and the applicant — including building envelopes, groundwater risk, scale and visual buffering — the commission voted 8-1 to schedule a work session (Commissioner Jasper opposed).

Why it matters: The Valley Commerce Center illustrates the tension that can arise where county-level economic-development goals and JLMA/town/neighborhood place-type guidance differ. The work session will focus on groundwater reliability, design commitments to reduce visual and noise impacts along Percival Road and refined traffic mitigation proposals.