It's official, and legal too: The Buddhist temple on Bull Run Drive in Centreville must close up shop immediately. It will no longer be allowed to operate there as a place of worship without obtaining a permit from Fairfax County.
That's because last Friday, March 8, Circuit Court Judge Kathleen MacKay entered a final decree declaring that the Vietnamese Buddhist Association's (VBA) use of this property "as a church, chapel, temple or other such place of worship without an approved ... permit is in violation of ... the [county] zoning ordinance."
And to the long-suffering residents of that neighborhood — who put up with the temple's traffic and worried what the large influx of visitors would do to their well water — the ruling came as good news.
"It had already been confirmed that they were in violation," said Judy Heisinger, president of the Bull Run Civic Association. "We're feeling relieved that this long process is finally over and the county now has an injunction that can be enforced. They'll have to obey."
Although neighbors said they were originally led to believe that the small, five-room house at 7605 Bull Run Drive was to be nothing more than a home for the one or two monks who lived there, that was not exactly the case. Instead, for 14 years, the VBA ran a temple there without first acquiring the county permit required to operate a place of worship in a residential area.
Between 1989-99, the county Zoning Department investigated the matter and issued four notices of violation to the VBA — but to no avail. Finally, 0n Oct. 18, 1999, county Zoning Administrator Jane W. Gwinn went to Circuit Court and filed a bill of complaint against the property owner, Tranh Van Tran, a Buddhist monk.
The case went to a hearing, Aug. 10, 2000, in Circuit Court before Judge MacKay. During the course of the proceedings, county zoning inspector Sandra Hicks testified that she didn't investigate the temple because of its religious use, but because it was a large gathering in the residential-conservation district (R-C). Said Hicks: "The act of worship is not prohibited anywhere, but it requires a special permit in the R-C district."
Ultimately, the judge ordered the VBA to cease operations there. But believing that the county's injunction quashed its constitutional rights of due process and free exercise of religion, on Nov. 29, 2000, the VBA filed a petition with the state Supreme Court to appeal MacKay's ruling.
The high court heard the case and, on Nov. 2, 2001, it issued its ruling. It declared the county's ordinance constitutional and said it didn't hinder anyone's religious freedom. It said the county was entitled to an injunction against Tran requiring him to stop any activities on his property that would violate the zoning ordinance.
But the justices found Circuit Court's August 2000 injunction against using the property as a "meeting hall or other place of assembly" without a special-use permit went beyond the scope of the county's zoning ordinance. This ordinance authorized certain group activities in the R-C district with such a permit, but using one's property there as a meeting hall or place of assembly — with or without a special-use permit — was not mentioned.
So the justices overturned the injunction and remanded it back to Circuit Court to be reworded more appropriately. County attorney Patrick Taves did just that and, last Friday, Judge MacKay made the new phrases part of the county's final decree against Tran. The document states that Tran, his tenants and all others "shall immediately [and permanently] cease the use of [that] property as a church, chapel, temple or other such place of worship" without the required permit.
It doesn't authorize the site to be used for anything not permitted by the zoning ordinance. And it further states that "the [county] zoning administrator and/or her agents are allowed, [until Aug. 25, 2002] to enter the ... property to ensure that [Tran] has complied and continues to comply with the terms of [the] final decree."
After the judge's August 2000 ruling, said Heisinger, the VBA continued business as usual — holding meetings and services attended by large numbers of people in cars. But the neighbors hope the new decree will change things. "Legally, they have to stop," said Heisinger. "Now, let's see if they do."
"This has been going on for years," added neighbor Ed Glade. "We've always been worried about the health issues because their septic system can't handle even their house, [let alone all the worshippers]. We worried about contamination of wells in the area."
Heisinger said there's obviously a need for a Buddhist temple in Fairfax County, but Bull Run Drive is not the place. "I feel sorry for the congregation," she said. "When [the VBA] bought the property in 1988, they knew there were covenants prohibiting places of worship there without a permit, so I feel the members were misled."
Saying there's no winner in this matter, Heisinger said, "It's sad to have to bring action against your neighbors to get them to comply, [but] we all have to pay attention to the zoning ordinances."
As for Glade, he praised Zoning Administrator Guinn "for all the effort she put into it" and Taves and MacKay for making the VBA play by the county's rules. Said Glade: "I was really proud of the county for getting this far and sticking with it."
If the VBA continues to violate the zoning ordinance, he said, "the county can either cite them for contempt or for another zoning violation, and they could fine or jail the owner. Now, if the county has the guts to go after them, it can."
Glade said the local residents are glad about what happened in court Friday. "For years, [the VBA has] been thumbing their noses at the county," he said. "They moved in under false pretenses and continued to expand and expand." Now, though, he said, "They know the county people will be watching them and so will we. We won't let up. We want to protect the integrity of the neighborhoods — we've got to do something."