By Valerie Cury

Every election in Purcellville promises the same thing—protecting the town’s character while encouraging economic growth. The real differences are not found in campaign slogans. They are found in the decisions elected officials make once they take office. 

The Loudoun Times-Mirror’s mid-July article appears to portray Purcellville’s current Town Council majority as opposed to downtown revitalization and resistant to economic development. The record tells a different story.

The debate has never been whether Purcellville should thrive. It is whether revitalization should strengthen the town residents chose to live in—or gradually transform it into something else.

This year’s election is especially significant because voters are not choosing between competing slogans. They are choosing between two fundamentally different approaches to Purcellville’s future. 

One emphasizes preserving the framework residents established in the Comprehensive Plan while encouraging redevelopment that complements the historic district. 

The other supports greater residential density downtown, taller buildings, and expanding the town’s boundaries through annexation. Those differences are reflected not in campaign messaging, but in council votes, public statements, and campaign finance reports.

Those differences matter because they extend beyond individual projects. They reflect fundamentally different visions for what Purcellville will become. 

The decisions made by the next Town Council will determine whether Purcellville continues to be guided by its adopted plans or moves toward a different pattern of development. 

That choice deserves a complete and accurate discussion based on facts, history, and the record—not selective narratives or campaign rhetoric.    

The current council majority was elected on a platform of slow growth, preserving Purcellville’s small-town character, following the Comprehensive Plan, and evaluating the long-term costs of major development and annexation. 

Throughout their time in office, Mayor Chris Bertaut, Vice Mayor Ben Nett, and Council Members Carol Luke and Susan Khalil have governed according to those principles. They have maintained that excessive growth can alter the town’s character, increase costs to taxpayers, and strain transportation and utility infrastructure.

Those are not arguments against economic development or private investment. They are arguments for balance, fiscal responsibility, redevelopment that respects Purcellville’s historic character, and growth that remains consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Downtown revitalization has never been the issue. Throughout Purcellville’s historic district, property owners have invested millions restoring buildings, improving storefronts, and strengthening local businesses—all while preserving the character that makes downtown unique.

The Comprehensive Plan was adopted to ensure that redevelopment complements that character rather than replacing it. 

The question has never been whether to encourage investment. It has always been whether the scale, density, and design of new development are consistent with the community’s long-term vision.

No project better illustrates that debate than Vineyard Square. 

More than 15 years ago, the Lazaro Town Council approved a six-story, 40-unit condominium building along the narrow 21^st Street corridor, despite the project’s inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

That approval has remained at the center of the debate over how much density belongs in Purcellville’s historic downtown ever since. Despite more than fifteen years of active approvals, the project was never built. 

Approximately four years ago, Casey Chapman, who manages the properties, returned with a proposal described as a compromise. Rather than one large building, the new proposal reduced the 40 condos to 36 condominium units divided into several buildings behind the existing streetscape. 

Although presented as a compromise, it was a fundamentally different project than the approved site plan and would have required amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. No formal application was ever submitted because four-, five-, or six-story buildings are not consistent with the town’s Zoning Ordinance.

When the original approvals expired in July 2025, the property did not become undevelopable. It simply became subject to the same rules that apply to every other property owner. 

The site can still be redeveloped under the current zoning ordinance, which permits two-and-a- half-story buildings with retail, commercial, and office uses, along with up to two dwelling units per building. 

That distinction matters. Opposing an out-of-scale proposal is not opposing redevelopment. It is insisting that redevelopment respect the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the historic character residents have spent decades preserving. 

The public record provides additional context. Virginia campaign finance reports show that affiliates of Vineyard Square’s manager, Casey Chapman, and individuals associated with his uncle’s development company were among Council Member Erin Rayner’s largest campaign contributors.

The debate extends beyond Vineyard Square. The Nichols Hardware redevelopment has been welcomed because it restores historic buildings and strengthens downtown. 

The unresolved issue is whether the property should be permitted to nearly double the number of apartments allowed under the zoning ordinance—from six to 11. 

Erin Rayner’s campaign sign for mayor is displayed in the window of Nichols Hardware. Nichols is also seeking approval for greater residential density in the same historic corridor.

These decisions are not about one owner or one project. They establish precedents. 

Every exception becomes the basis for the next request. 

Incremental increases in residential density can fundamentally change the scale, function, and character of a historic downtown. 

The Board of Zoning Appeals denied Nichols’ request.

The same selective narrative appears in the article’s discussion of Purcellville’s participation in the Virginia Main Street program. The article leaves readers with the impression that the council majority opposed downtown revitalization because it voted to end the Town’s participation in that program. That leaves out important context.

Downtown revitalization was already well underway. Main Street and the 21st Street corridor are filled with examples of business owners investing to restore historic buildings, renovate storefronts, and strengthen downtown without relying on the Virginia Main Street program. 

The question before the Town Council was never whether downtown should be improved. It was whether a state-sponsored redevelopment program requiring additional local resources and  staffing was necessary when private investment was already achieving that goal. 

The Virginia Main Street program is administered by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. Its advanced tier can include housing-related development strategies.

Purcellville does not lack a vision for downtown. That vision was established through years of public input and is reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and private investment that continues to preserve and strengthen the historic district. 

Rayner has cited San Diego’s Gaslamp District as an example of the downtown transformation she envisions.

The issue is not whether downtown should evolve. It is whether that evolution should remain consistent with the character residents have repeatedly chosen to protect.

Rayner also cited the redevelopment of the former mill as evidence that the community initially resisted a project it later embraced. That portrayal rewrites the history of what actually occurred.

In the Loudoun Times-Mirror, Rayner stated, “Everyone was afraid of Magnolia’s when it was being redeveloped, and now it is a landmark everyone talks about.” 

The renovation was not an example of a community resisting change. It received broad community support as residents embraced the opportunity to preserve an important historic property while bringing it back into active use as a renowned restaurant. 

Confidence in the project stemmed in part from Bruce Brownell’s respected expertise in historic renovation and redevelopment.

That is precisely the distinction missing from the article. Purcellville has never rejected revitalization. Time and again, the community has embraced redevelopment that respects its history, complements its scale, and strengthens downtown. 

What residents have questioned are proposals that require greater residential density, taller buildings, or exceptions to the planning principles that have guided the town for decades.

The clearest example of the article’s false narrative is its discussion of the Valley Commerce Center annexation. The article states that Council Member Erin Rayner “was also a vocal critic of Valley Commerce Center.” 

The public record directly contradicts that characterization. For more than fifteen years, residents consistently opposed annexing the 117-acre property into the Town of Purcellville. The land could already be developed by right as a 39-lot residential subdivision, yet successive proposals sought annexation. The most recent proposal called for an industrial project totaling 1.2 million square feet. 

Rather than seeking to end years of annexation efforts, Rayner—who was part of a different council majority for one year before the 2024 election—voted in 2024 to continue annexation negotiations through a Memorandum of Understanding.

Rayner also supported pursuing a potential negotiated annexation, a process involving only the town, the county, and the developer rather than the traditional public review process. 

Ultimately, the decisive vote came after the new council majority took office on Jan. 1, 2025. One of the new council majority’s first major actions was to deny the annexation proposal outright. Mayor Chris Bertaut, Vice Mayor Ben Nett, and Council Members Carol Luke and Susan Khalil voted to end the annexation. 

Rayner, Kevin Wright, and Caleb Stought voted against terminating it. 

The voting record is equally clear on the Northern Collector Road. The same three council members voted against removing the road from Purcellville’s Townwide Transportation Plan. 

Those votes are not political spin; they are the official record. They reveal the real divide in this election—whether Purcellville should continue expanding its boundaries and pursuing large-scale development, or whether growth should remain within the limits established in the Comprehensive Plan and the town’s existing infrastructure.

Council Member Caleb Stought has since publicly opposed the Valley Commerce Center County rezoning proposal after the town’s annexation effort ended. Rayner and Wright, however, have not publicly opposed the county rezoning proposal.

The article references Magic Kayhan’s Pavilion on Main Street and the Norbo Medical Building. Both projects are moving through the Town’s established review process. 

The Pavilion project is permitted under existing zoning. The only Town Council vote related to the Norbo project was unanimous approval of a waiver concerning entrance measurements. 

Kayhan has not submitted a rezoning application for his property at the exit from the traffic circle onto Berlin Turnpike. Any proposal to expand allowed uses would require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

The larger issue is not one apartment building or one redevelopment project. It is whether voters are presented with the full context of Purcellville’s recent history.

What deserves scrutiny is not thoughtful redevelopment itself, but the repeated effort to redefine the debate. Support for preserving the Comprehensive Plan is portrayed as opposition to revitalization. 

Community support for historic preservation is recast as resistance to change. Those narratives may make for effective campaign messaging, but they are not supported by the votes cast or the actions taken.

This election is not about whether Purcellville should grow. It is about whether growth will continue to follow the vision residents established through the Comprehensive Plan or whether it will gradually reshape the town’s character.

Campaigns come and go. Headlines fade. Political narratives may be rewritten. The public record does not.

When voters cast their ballots this November, they should look beyond campaign messaging and judge candidates by the record they established while serving in office. Votes endure long after campaign promises are forgotten.