Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Purcellville council agrees 4–3 to seek more water, traffic data on Valley Commerce Center
Summary
After more than two hours of public comment, the Purcellville Town Council voted 4–3 to direct staff to enter discussions with the Valley Commerce Center applicant and draft a memorandum of understanding to secure additional water, wastewater and traffic analyses before deciding whether to proceed with annexation.
The Purcellville Town Council on July 23 voted 4–3 to direct staff to enter discussions with the Valley Commerce Center applicant and draft a memorandum of understanding to obtain additional water, wastewater and traffic analyses to inform any later annexation decision.
The council’s action — expressly framed during debate as an information-gathering step rather than a commitment to annexation — follows hours of public comment from residents who opposed moving forward without clearer answers on water supply, traffic and compatibility with the town and county comprehensive plans. Mayor (speaking as the presiding officer) emphasized that the motion is “to gather information” and that any annexation would require more steps, public hearings and council votes.
Jordan Andrews, the town staffer who presented the report, told the council the next step would be to either deny the application or proceed with it; staff recommended additional well analysis and system modeling be written into an MOU so the outcomes would be available before any final decision. The town attorney said drafting an MOU or asking for analyses does not legally bind the council to annexation.
Residents who live near the proposed site in Wright Farm urged the council to pause. Pasquale DeBary, a 25-year veteran and civil engineer, told the council that “228 households out of 244 surveyed opposed” and warned the project would raise daily trips from about 390 to roughly 2,400. Jonathan Young said the plan encompasses nearly 1.3 million square feet and quoted a range of daily water demand between “78,000 to 255,000 gallons.” Audrey Young, a practicing Virginia lawyer, urged the council to incorporate drought and climate-change modeling into any water assessments.
The applicant and its representatives argued for consideration rather than a shutdown. The applicant offered to provide what it described as about $300,000 worth of completed transport and water studies and said staff could use those data to model net impacts. Counsel for the applicant noted that the county has signaled it would only consider annexation under a voluntary settlement with conditions — including prohibiting data-center use — which the applicant said it would be willing to proffer.
Council debate split largely along concerns about suitability and process. Several council members said comprehensive-plan consistency, drought conditions and substantial ranges in the water and traffic estimates merited more careful study; other members said the region’s growth made it prudent to get information in order to negotiate protections for the town if annexation ultimately advanced.
What happens next: staff will work with the applicant to draft an MOU or a similar written agreement to provide water, wastewater and traffic information for council review. Any decision to transmit an annexation application to Loudoun County or to enter binding negotiations would come in later, separately noticed steps and public hearings.
The council’s 4–3 vote sends the matter back to staff for that fact-finding and an MOU draft; councilors who opposed the motion registered concern that the step could be portrayed as moving toward annexation despite the mayor’s repeated attempts to limit the motion to information gathering.
