Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Transformation Temple topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves Transformation Temple special-use permit for Davis Ford site after daylong debate; 5-3 vote
Summary
Prince William County supervisors approved a special-use permit for Transformation Temple International Church to build an 18,416-square-foot facility on Davis Ford Road after a lengthy public hearing and technical review; the motion passed 5–3.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Transformation Temple topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prince William County supervisors approved a special-use permit for Transformation Temple International Church on March 9, 2025, after a day of public testimony and staff presentations. The 5–3 vote authorizes a roughly 18,416-square-foot sanctuary and related facilities on a 4.3-acre parcel along Davis Ford Road in the Occoquan magisterial area. The motion to approve the SUP with conditions dated March 4, 2025, was made by Vice Chair Bailey and seconded; the final tally was 5 in favor and 3 opposed.
The permit allows a sanctuary sized and arranged to seat 208 worshippers and requires the applicant to meet a list of conditions the county said would reduce local impacts. Planning staff and county reviewers told the board the application had been revised repeatedly, and that county, state and subject-matter reviewers had signed off on the technical elements required for final site plan approval.
Why it matters: The property is within a semi-rural corridor and is near environmental resource areas and a drainage swale that ultimately flows toward the Occoquan Reservoir. Opponents warned the board the size and intensity of the proposed facility did not fit the surrounding single-family neighborhoods and said the parcel had earlier been judged too small to support a single-family house. Supporters said the church already provides social services and charitable programs and had worked with county engineers to address traffic, stormwater and wastewater questions.
What the applicant proposed and county review: The church’s site plan submitted to the county shows an 18,416-square-foot building with a 3,608-square-foot sanctuary (208 seats), interior parking, and an underground stormwater management system. The applicant’s civil and soils engineers told the board and staff they designed a privately maintained on‑site wastewater system that the Virginia Department of Health had reviewed (VDH permit: not specified in record) and that the size and planned design meet VDH instructions as presented to the county. The applicant also agreed to several site and building-level commitments, including architectural treatments, perimeter landscaping and a monument sign with external lighting.
The public hearing: More than 70 residents and dozens of supporters testified during a long public hearing. Opponents — mostly residents of Davis Ford Road and adjacent subdivisions — cited traffic safety on a narrow two‑lane road, potential sediment/runoff and groundwater impacts from soil disturbance and large areas of new impervious surface, and the proximity of the septic/drainfield area to neighboring wells. Supporters — including scores of worshipers who travel from other parts of the region — described the church’s community services, charity work and spiritual ministry and urged approval. Several technical witnesses presented during the hearing on behalf of the applicant, including the civil engineer, soils engineer and the county planning staff.
Quote highlights: "The church currently has 120 members," attorney Ollon Simmons told the board during the applicant presentation, adding the congregation includes "physicians, lawyers, CPAs, nurses, federal workers, veterans, IT professionals and entrepreneurs." (Ollon Simmons, applicant representative)
"I oppose the location of the church and any other commercial use of that property," resident Val Stanton told the board, citing prior county staff advice that the same parcel would not support a 3,000-square-foot residence when she investigated building there several years ago. (Val Stanton, Davis Ford resident)
Key mitigations and conditions: The county’s approval and the staff report list multiple required conditions and proffers the applicant agreed to. The conditions include: architectural treatments to blend the building with surrounding development; limits on monument sign height and external lighting controls; underground stormwater management sized to meet the county’s DCSM standards; required right‑ and left‑turn lanes and roadway tapers on Davis Ford Road to the satisfaction of VDOT and county transportation staff; a construction management plan to control construction traffic; a proffered limit on outdoor amplified sound and a prohibition on any use outside authorized religious/institutional purposes; and a maximum seating limit tied to the septic design. During the meeting the applicant also offered to include a voluntary condition limiting regular worship services to two services on a Sunday (applicant offered the voluntary limit; county staff said that commitment would be recorded as part of the approved conditions on the SUP).
Board reaction: Supervisors split along a mix of policy and technical concerns. Those who voted for approval said county review had resolved the technical questions and that the applicant had worked to reduce impacts through design and proffers. Supervisors voting against approval said the parcel is too constrained, the risks of stormwater and septic failure are real on steep, erodible soils, and the county should not allow a higher-intensity institutional use in the middle of single-family lots.
Next steps: The SUP approval allows the applicant to proceed to the site‑plan stage. Site plan review will be required to finalize engineering, stormwater and construction controls; those rounds will be checked by county reviewers before a building permit can be issued.
Ending: The board’s 5–3 vote ends the application’s land‑use review at the SUP level but starts the technical, engineering and permitting work required to build the facility. Opponents indicated they will continue to monitor the project closely during the site‑plan and permitting process.
