Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

Discussion in 'Think Tank' started by Anonymous, Mar 23, 2009.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Did you mean the elastic pants? That is what scilons appear to wear these days
  2. Sponge Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    and with bicycle clips in case of entheta overload?
  3. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    I wish I knew if that were funny or not..if it were funny I would laugh, is it a funny or a cry?
  4. Lorelei Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?


    I hope this means what I THINK it means.
  5. Obi-Wan-anon Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Has anybody stopped by the post office to see if there are any signs "Parking is for customers of the P.O. only"? Maybe a heads up to the postmaster there would help.

    Has the cult posted signs stating the same (for "church" members only)? That is, will the cult allow the parking in the "shared easement" be used for customers of BOTH businesses?

    Try parking next to their front door, and go to the P.O to buy a book of stamps.
  6. ultrapoet Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    The situation with the neighboring Post Office is a touch messier than the possibility of people using the PO parking lot as overflow. As it turns out, some of the parking spaces ON THE PROPERTY technically belong to the Post Office, but they were grandfathered in from the original building's easements.

    A gentleman who approached me after the meeting raised the potential legal quandary of the fact that federal property (the portion of the property that still legally belongs to the gov't) shouldn't really have religious activities on it. Hmmmmmm...
  7. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    The authors of the First Amendment often met for church services on government property.
  8. Stutroup Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Actually, their entire brick-wall fenced area is papered with "No Trespassing" signs at every entrance. It's a thing of beauty that they want to share someone else's parking, but they're not willing to share their own.
  9. Sponge Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Thanks to Gumby

  10. Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    The lady near the end of the 3rd video dished out some epic win despite getting cut off early.
  11. Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    just realized Gumby posted parts 4 5 and 6 on OCMB:

  12. ethercat Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Ok, here is my written report of the meeting.

    The Planning Commission (PC) meeting was quite interesting, to say the least. I've been thinking about what actually occurred, and what the ramifications are for 5395 Roswell Rd.

    Scientology brought in Bob Adams, from Los Angeles, VP of the Church of Scientology International, to try to swing the case, in scn lingo, to "make it go right." They brought in a bunch of mounted renderings of the proposed insides of the building, complete with carpet samples, and lined them up along the back wall before the meeting started. No one went over to look at them. I had thought they would probably be presenting all these during their part of the meeting, but they didn't. It was kind of like that part of the song, "Alice's Restaurant" where Arlo Guthrie talks about "27 8-by-10 color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was," which were never seen because the judge turned out to be blind. Likewise, the renderings were not seen because the interior decoration of the building is not at issue - the issue is parking.

    They also brought in a lot of the local (and possibly some shipped in, or Sea Org) scientologists, who, because they were never introduced, or referred to, really just appeared to the non-activist Planning Commission as more neighbors who were there to show their opposition to the rezoning application.

    This was only the beginning of the footbulletry last night.

    Mr. Galloway was given 10 minutes to make his statements, of which he used the first one or two to reintroduce his case and to introduce the Rev. Bob Adams. Adams got up and told, in extensive detail, all about the building inside and how it would be used. He told us about the counseling areas, which will be assigned to the individual auditors specifically, and how there will be day and night classes, and about the classrooms, as well as how traffic in the building would flow from one to another. He told us about the large public display area on the first floor, which would have big screen TVs, playing the story of LRH and citing the history of scientology, so that the public could come in and learn about scientology.

    Wait, what? I thought Mr. Galloway had emphasized that the building would be for the use of the members only, and therefore would need less parking. I remember countering this with photos of the bookstore sign inviting the public to come in and visit, and the Sunday Services, all welcome sign.

    Adams told how they had done a study and found that the optimum (and necessary) size for an Ideal Org was 4~,~~~ (forgot the exact number, sorry) of square feet, and that they had to have the basement buildout to operate, they must have it, he said. He went on and on, and I was watching the clock run out. Apparently, so was Galloway, and with about 2 minutes left, Galloway picked up his notebook and went to stand behind Adams. Adams continued on, until Galloway had only one minute left, which was to include his rebuttal time.

    There were 5 residents who lined up to speak. The first was an architect, who had studied the parking requirements of SS, and had assessed the building size. He had determined that the building size was about 1500 sq. ft larger than the 43,~~~ sq. ft size being given at the meetings and on the application, and therefore would require more parking than was initially calculated. Next up were 2 ladies, the first of which represents a 500-resident association, of whom all are opposed, and the second has spoken in opposition at every meeting. She is concerned about the traffic increase at the intersection, because she was in an accident there a few years ago. Then an older man with a charming English accent spoke. He ran out of time about halfway through his speech, and the PC voted to allot more time so he could finish, and so the last one could give her speech. Even with the extra time, unfortunately, she was unable to finish hers, which had some comments that were different from any presented by anyone at the prior meetings.

    With the extra time granted to the opposition, the same amount had to be given to the applicant, that is, Galloway and Adams. The PCs had some questions, and they asked Adams what his function was with scientology, was it his function to travel around and try to explain the building use and pave the way for the Ideal Orgs. He talked a lot more, and didn't really say much, until one of the PCs called him on it, and told him to just answer the question. He had spewed so much BS by that time, I don't even remember his answer, and I don't guess it was really that important anyway. He did say that only half of the counseling rooms would be in use at a time (I guess Galloway must have said something to him during the opposition's speeches). One of the PCs wanted to ask the architect how he had arrived at the area calculations that were different, and he said that he had scanned the building plans into AutoCAD and used a feature of it to get the area. As I recall, Galloway had some objection, and the PC felt it necessary to say that he wasn't implying that the area had been intentionally misrepresented, and that he understood that there were different ways of calculating space in a building. (If the shoe fits, Mr. Galloway...)

    Mr. Galloway was upset by the interpretation the PC made of the parking study, and the fact that they interpreted it differently from what he intended it to show.

    Nancy Leathers, the head of the PC, had a brief but polite dispute with Galloway over what the law says about assessing necessary parking spaces, but her being the govt. and he being a mere attorney, she won.

    The PC was glad to finally understand the use of the building after much weaseling by Galloway, thanks to Bob Adams. They seemed to still be trying to wrap their heads around what kind of services this "church" holds, and what the use of the building would require in the way of parking.

    In the end, the PC voted to accept the Department of Community Development's recommendation, which was to approve the rezoning with conditions. One of the conditions is that they will not be allowed to enclose the underground parking area, but could count the spaces there in the total spaces provided.

    For some reason, this is unacceptable to the scientologists. I can think of some possible reasons, and will speculate below, but I really need to seek further clarification to fully understand.

    The first floor of the building does not meet the floor load requirement of 100 lbs. per foot (and I am unclear if this is specifically for an assembly area; I am under the impression that it is), and therefore they cannot build the "sanctuary" on any other floor than the basement (which they will not be allowed to enclose now).

    If they cannot have a sanctuary, will they qualify to be called a place of worship, and will that change the parking requirements yet again? If they cannot be called a place of worship, can they not qualify to be free from property taxes, which must be a bundle on a $5.6 million building, without a homestead exemption?

    Here is more that I understand as it was explained to me:
    Mr. Galloway argues that the parking space requirements with C of S must be the same as with any other place of worship in Sandy Springs, based on the size of the sanctuary. However, he has stated that the proposed use is not that of a traditional church, as a way to explain why they planned such a small sanctuary (1200 sq. feet. in a 43,000 sq. ft. building). (Of course, if the sanctuary were bigger, it would also require more parking spaces.) Because of this, the parking will be calculated on additional uses of the building, instead of just based on the sanctuary size. Galloway is not happy.

    The requirements are:
    5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft at 11,153 sq. ft: 56
    3 spaces per 1000 sq. ft at 17,065 sq. ft: 51
    Total required spaces: 107
    Total existing spaces: 111

    This is without the sanctuary, without the enclosed basement. If the square footage was undercalculated, it will increase the spaces required.

    There is also the issue of the perpetual easement granted by the US Post Office, on which 31 of the 81 surface parking spaces lie - there are questions being raised of the constitutionality of a government entity allowing the easement for a religious use.

    I am still trying to understand all of this, so will add anything else once I do.
  13. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Could some Sandy Springs people comment on this please?:

    1: Scientology have been arguing that parking requirements only should be determined by the size of the "sanctuary" part of the building, and saying how few members they have, but Bob Adams starts by describing how the whole first floor is going to be wide open for the public non-Scientologists to come in and look at audio-visual displays and buy books.

    2: Neighbors are concerned about having Narconon at the location, but Bob Adams says that they will indeed be doing detoxification at the location, when he comes to the exercise room. Did you catch that?
  14. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    They ended up just saying that Scientology could NOT convert part of the parking space into enclosed areas for non-parking (assembly areas, offices etc.) and they are NOT going to have to calculate parking space ratios now because they didn't want to force Scientology into building more parking. But yes, if they had decided to force them to build more parking, then they would have done that by adding up adding up the different uses of the building and applying ratios to each use - Scientology tried to get them to only calculate from the small sanctuary space because they were trying to apply an ordinance meant for real churches where the largest sanctuary space is also the space with the most people in it and the rest is just extra areas where nobody are during services.
  15. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    As the building in question is planned to be used partially for drug detoxification with an exercise room and sauna, would this violate any ordinances? As far as I understand, they've previously said that there wouldn't be a Narconon at the facility, but the detoxification area means that drug addicts will be coming there for detoxification albeit not spending the night there like a full Narconon facility. Have the implications of this detox area been made clear to the city, the zoning board and the surrounding residents?
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    I do not think any narconon will take place in the building. HOWEVER, my guess is that they will send patients/students (or bus them) to the Org to use the exercise and saunas. (They can charge more and funnel money to the Org this way). The alternative is running in circles around parking lots... So I'm guessing this will ultimately happen.

    Now.. I dunno if they are only sending "outpatients" to do this on their own, it's hard to say is that is part of the treatment program (or individual doing it on their own). However if they are keeping records or billing or the narconon staff are supervising,
    I'm guessing that is a problem.


    Regarding the easement.. I'm not sure if it is an issue. It's just pertaining to the deed and allowing for use of land without losing rights to it. For instance, the street side of almost every property has an easement for the sidewalks & utilities. The properties share that driveway so in some cases they get an easement for access (I don't think it is technically required in this case with another driveway).

    I don't think it is a federal separation of church issues. For one thing Federal govt is allowed to support churches. They do it all the time. Heck King George the Bumbling poured tons of money into religious groups. What you cannot do is officially support churches in govt capacity. ie. if the post office had a huge cross in it. Or if the public schools made everyone go to a catholic priest to confess sins. If the post office put an office for LRH in it because there was an easement the other way (and part of the post office was on chruch property) then that is the issue. Parking spots are meh.

    Also the post office isn't really part of the govt, per se.
  17. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    I guess this is done then and they got their "Church" based parking zoning approved.

    However, someone should have stood up and said, I'm going to start my Church of the Shamwow. And I will fit out the building with tons of offices and maybe even manufacturing space or warehouse space, and we will reverse engineer out "chapel" to be the exact size to support existing parking spots.

    Then we will get out 501c3 and we will be a religion until the IRS declares otherwise.

    The idea behind church zoning was that the biggest use will be when members come to fill the chapel. The building will be busiest when no one is in the chapel and all the workers and customers come in during business hours or up until 10pm or later on weekdays.
  18. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    No, they DIDN'T. Can you at least read the last page before replying? Their request to remove parking spaces by enclosing parking spaces in the basement and making them into a "sanctuary", offices etc. was DENIED. They will have to make do with the space they already have, and they'll have to keep all the parking they already have. They won't have to make more parking spaces either, but they consider this decision a loss.
  19. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Can you at least follow the applications and zoning issues before you jump down people's throats. The issue was rezoning and based on the sq ft of the chapel they didn't even have enough parking to begin with. I'm guessing they pulled out benches in the chapel to reverse engineer it to fit.

    The original application never talked about removing spots and whatever this roof parking enclosure crap is.. That is some later development based upon the structural issues and probably new code they will have to meet when the renovate.

    Of course insane expansion plans are not going to fly. But the fact is that the cult got approved as zoned for a church and chapel based head count. NOT the mixed use office space it really is. This was the real issue.

    Also, smart people usually throw a red herring in the mix that they fight hard for but they never intended to get.
  20. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Sorry I just stumbled upon this. You might want to send this to the mayor... is Narconon of Georgia, Inc. <--- this is no longer there goes to main page <--- broken link for Donations page <-- broken link for tour photos

    (I can't find THIS page on, so I don't know how old it is.)
    (It also could be multiple webpages on on the same webserver.. so it could be innocent thing)

    I personally think it is a violation of the IRS or at least their medical "license" to be pimping for a church. Anyways.. clearly Narconon plans to move in. Anyways, I don't know how old this Ideal Org website is or where it was originally hosted...

    From the FAQ

  21. Lorelei Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Nutshelled as best I can:

    Part 1:
    Council rep introduces issue; Galloway speaks, then Adams starts speaking.
    Galloway challenges the council rep re: which parking study she is referring to (theirs or the CoS') and is dissatisfied with the response, as far as I can tell.
    Adams refers to social betterment programs offered (e.g., Narconon, Applied Scholastics, Volunteer Ministers--no comment) and then waffles about irrelevant crap like rows and rows of books in a bookstore and the lovely wood paneling and video screens in the public areas. Apparently he had a whole presentation package about the stuff done to the interior of the disputed bldg. to point at, and I presume he expected the neighbors to care about these things.
    Why this misses the point: it has nothing to do with the issues the neighbors are complaining about, e.g., parking, traffic, EXTERIOR appearance of building. In fact, it underscores the neighbors' concerns that, with these "enticing" public services, parking and traffic issues will be inadequately addressed if the CoS gets their desired variance and closes off more parking spots.

    Part 2:
    Adams continues to speak; Daniel Hubble (?), architect speaks, Jane Kelly (representing High Point Civic Association) speaks.
    Adams stresses that they must have the basement remodel to provide religious services. He stresses that the space is not adequate for the amount of people needing the religious services space. He does not address neighborhood concerns. He does not address exterior reno / upkeep, parking, traffic, just repeats that they must have their way about this nclosed sanctuary space or they'll have hardship. No one is moved (as far as I can tell.)
    Daniel Hubble (?), architect explains his expertise and says that this bldg is not suitable for an assembly space. Also challenges the square footage measurements; says it is 44,569 sqft, not 43,246 sqft, which would increase needed parking. Says occupant load is too great for the space. Says parking for assembly use is insufficient. Notes sanctuary spot can't be placed anywhere but basement due to load-bearing issues.
    Kelly takes issue with CoA parking study, cites a relevant law / case study (?), and goes into detail about why it is flawed and biased. Cites "precedent" as a serious concern. Parking has been underestimated. Will cause excessive / burdensome ue of structure. Will not provide enough parking spaces to meet code. Issues with CoS parking study: Nashville / ATL are not comparable in size. Nashville is newer Org, thus has smaller congregation, compared to ATL Org. "Conversations w/ CoS determined peak parking"; that sounds unfairly biased. Counts of people / cars were done only four times and not at peak times; one count was done an hour earlier than applicant's stated Sunday service time of noon. Allowing CoS zoning request sets a dangerous precedent that may be exploited by other entities seeking a zoning variance and neighbors are opposed to this. If approved, then the hundreds of neighbors want these conditions placed on the CoS: limit hours of operation to the general public (cites hours that are short, compared to desired hours stated by CoS), require applicant to provide traffic flow management for attendance at events exceeding capacity of bldg, require applicant to provide off-site parking / bussing arrangements for attendance at events exceeding capacity of bldg, applicant (CoS) must allow assemblage of protesters to protest on their right-of-way property and not nearby residential property, prohibit change to signage (no "Celebrity Centre" signage), prohibit solicitation / testing / selling / distribution of promotional materials on the property, etc. Murmurs are heard when she mentions protesters being restricted to protesting on CoS property. (Heh.)

    Part 3:
    Patty Burns, Round Hill condos HOA speaks, Robin Leachey (?) (British fellow mentioned above), representing Willow Glen HOA speaks, Sheila O'Shea (resident of Round Hill condominiums) speaks, attorney Galloway responds.
    Burns: Disputes CoS parking study. Not a "religious" issue; other churches have ample parking. Also disputes the "church" designation, as church-related section of bldg is smaller than the office / classroom sections. Accident / injury data from that intersection is presented; it is noted it is from 3 years ago; comment that problem is worse now is made. Notes hundreds of neighbors opposing the zoning variance. Cites planned growth of CoS as important, as current congregation is already in excess of provided parking, etc.
    Leachey: CoS has ambitions to grow and to spend on renovations. Disputes usefulness of Cos parking study. Does not want front groups to use bldg, as it would add to parking / traffic problems, specifically CCHR, WISE, Applied Scholastics (is cut off).
    After dickering, Leachey is granted four additional minutes; four minutes also granted to CoS, the applicant, to be fair. Leachey says CoS bought inappropriate bldg for their needs and are trying to mold it to fit their needs: "Trying to fit a quart into a pint pot." If bldg is zoned for church use now, how will it be used in the future? (poor paraphrase) Dangerous intersection noted, again. Condition of property mentioned; notes state of property has been shabby for 3-4 years. Reiterates issues with parking, bad intersection, shabby state of bldg., shoddy state of bldgs owned by CoS in other cities. Not an appropriate case for a conditional approval, he says, firmly. "Do not engage in mental gymnastics in granting an approval for something for which the applicant is not even asking...the right answer here is a denial."
    O'Shea: Bldg was build as an office bldg., is currently zoned as office bldg, and is unsuitable for any other use by CoS...or any other religion. Their sanctuary space is not analogous to other churches (explains why). The classes, training, auditing, etc., are not an adjunct to CoS religious practices, they ARE CoS's religious practices.
    Allowing special privs. here may set dangerous precedent leading to frivolous "First Church of the Storage Closet" petitions from future applicants to get by zoning guidelines. Does not want CoS's overflow parking in parking lot of condos. Notes Galloway said large CoS events would be held off-site, but that he offers no details, O'Shea is not reassured or convinced. Starts to cite relevant legal reference, but runs out of time.
    No further extension of opposition presentation time is given.
    Galloway (representing CoS) speaks. Parking is supposedly determined by size of largest assembly area, "there is an excess of parking, based on your own code". Apply multi-use parking code to this church. All parts of bldg, offices, classrooms, chapel, etc., are relevant to--"every single part is an integral part of"--the practice of their religion. (IMHO, this further clouds the issue, and does not help the CoS.)

    Part 4:
    Galloway speaks; Floor closed to public commentary; Council debates.
    Galloway says every other church he cited in the CoS study got zoning variances asked for. CoS did buy property "with eyes wide open" and "knew what their needs are, what the size of their largest place of asembly would be." Kemblee-Horne(?) did do a parking study, it backs up CoS' assertions that parking is adequate. Compares Dunwoody site to Nashville site again, ignoring previous complaints that these are not comparable to SS site. Understood concern that Nashorg hasn't been open that long, has larger congregation than Dunwoody, had them study Buffalo church (do not recall this mentioned in study; he clarifies it was not in the study we've seen.) Disses parking study done by council. Looked at "times of highest use" (disputed already, earlier).
    Public comments closed; council begins to address issue.
    Nancy (?) responds to council question about whether they have had time to review the additional info Galloway refers to. trying to understand situation in the long run. Says Adams' info may be useful, but does not see relevance yet. Can't take new info into consideration at this time.
    Planning Commission (various; had trouble hearing some of the comments; please correct what I misinterpret or misunderstand):
    * Appreciate Adams' presentation, as now understands how Org will be used. Still has problem with some details about "counselling" mentioned.
    * Not sure if he understands, is hearing sanctuary is not the largst congregation area, according to Adams, needs clarification.
    * Basing a parking requirement on an assemblage use is probably inappropriate for how they plan to use this bldg.
    * Have to go back to square one; trust staff to come up with their numbers.
    * Concerned about future, the growth of the church; shares many concern about similar things as the neighbors are. Cites 400+ letters of opposition. Thinks it is all a little "intense" for this site.
    * Adams is asked if going around the country petitioning city councils and challenging variances is a common occupation for him. "Some churches have no parking requirement, because they are located middle in downtown cities...people take public transit." "Staff may be fairly small." "Carpooling makes a lot of sense." "Husbands and wives working together may carpool." (No mention of crap public transit system in ATL / SS at this point?!)

    Part 5:
    Council again (various), discuss; some questions directed to applicant
    * To CoS rep: "Do you understand why we are having a hard time coming to a decision? Do you experience this in other jurisdictions?"
    * CoS: "No, we had more time to delineate what the spaces are used for, and per capita uses of bldg space, etc."
    * CoS: "Counseling rooms are independently used by our counselors, it is not shared."
    * CoS: "Part of it is used during daytime, part of it is at night." (referring to private one-on-one counseling rooms)
    * CoS: "Part of the religious practice is theory, and part is practical..." & begins to discuss counselor's rooms and classrooms, but is cut off. No one cares about the details of CoS' beliefs or religious practices.
    * Hubble, architect, is challenged. Says he looked at plans given by Galloway, used standard computer to determine sq. footage. Difference in sq.footage over 1,000 feet (1,500?) ...not an insignificant discrepancy
    * That zoning impact analysis was done based on lower sq. footage is cited.
    * To CoS: Discrepancy of sq. footage is probably an accounting error, we are not insinuating that you deliberately misrepresented this; please do not take offense.
    * CoS (offended): We're not offended, but... This is a trivial matter! Five parking spaces more, waffle waffle waffle!! Five more parking spots!! Sputter! Harrumph!!

    Part 6:
    Council (various) discusses
    * We could make our recommendation based on a ratio, and let staff hash out / handle details.
    * "That's appropriate" / "That's fine."
    * We could agree on what the ratio is based on, and let staff hash it out.
    * Case has been going on since now July, and this is the first time we have gotten useful info about the use of the facility; this does great disservice to applicant, to community as a whole, and to staff. (CoS's legendary secrecy bites them in butt again.)
    * Correct the record: we've discussed what we believe will be bldg's use, but this is first time we have had this info supplied by CoS, believe applicant has tried to provide in good faith but did not understand what PC needed
    * Bottom line, new info from Adams can't be considered re: application because info arrived too late for reasonable consideration by staff.
    Motion to accept staff recommendations, seconded
    Discussion on motion:
    * Wants to double-check on staff recommendation. What IS staff recommendation?
    * "Staff recommends approval of existing bldg with existing parking for revised use, but NOT additional sq. footage added, or reduction of existing parking spaces."
    * "This would preclude them from modifying underground parking or expanding sq. footage, but can reorganize within unaltered sq. footage...bldg interior, as it is."
    * "Cannot convert parking to an enclosed space?"
    * "Correct."
    * "Must retain all parking slots on site as is, at this time?"
    * "Yes."
    * Should PC modify recommendation re: existing spaces based on three per thousand (occupancy stats)? Modify this ONLY to make consistent with existing parking?
    * (Joking:) We aren't going to make them ADD spaces.
    Roger: "I are confuse. Where did "ratio" stuff go? Wot hoppon?"
    * Explanation: If we reduce the parking slots we'd require them to have instead of using a firm number, then we'd go to a ratio because we aren't currently sure what the actual sq. footage of bldg is; the current status was grandfathered in and will not change, thus we do not need to use a ratio after all.
    * "Forget ratios, Roger." (Laughter)
    Motion voted upon. Carries.
    Asked: is there opposition? Yes. Measure is in opposition.
    Add item into record info re: article 28 dash point 1 waffle waffle numbers numbers: concerning revising parking based on what Galloway referred to; in approving any zoning dist, change / use permit, city shall impose conditions as noted earlier (e.g., no Narconon, etc.)
    Motion to include this commentary into record; agreed (as far as I can tell).
    Clarification as to which section is being discussed is requested, given.
    Motion voted upon; Ayes have it. Is there opposition? (unclear; assume yes.)

    Again, things I misunderstood or misrepresented, plz. correct. I have slight middle ear (crowd) deafness, and when everyone gets to mumbling and interrupting and talking over each other and I am viewing YT videos on a laptop with less than superb speakers, I have issues.
  22. ethercat Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Bob just demonstrated that Galloway has been either lying or misinformed about the use of the building. Galloway has said repeatedly that the entire building was only for use by members.

    As part of their "religious practice," scientology offers the "Purification Rundown," which is stunningly similar (well, the same as, actually) to narconon's "Sauna Detoxification Program." So officially, they can have the sauna for "church" use, while denying that narconon will use it. However, in actual fact, I believe narconon would try to use the sauna at the org, if they can get away with it. Georgia Department of Human Resources, who licenses narconon of Ga., does not allow narconon to operate a sauna at their facility, so they are forced to "outsource" the sauna and exercise part of the program. I believe (from research) that the "outsourcing" actually leads back to narconon and/or scientology entities, but I am not prepared to present proof at the moment.
  23. ethercat Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Actually, the driveway is not shared. The PO has its own driveway, which is not in the easement. The 5395 building has 2 driveways, one of its own, facing Roswell Rd. which is a major street, and one on Glenridge Dr., which is in the easement area along with 31 parking spaces. The driveway in the easement is only for the 5395 building. The property line for the 5395 building is 5 feet away from the rear building wall, without including the easement.
  24. HellRazor Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Regarding the sauna and Narconon in the building: ^^^ this ^^^
  25. ethercat Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    The situation with the chapel is that there is currently no chapel area, because the most recent use of the building was as offices. Scientology wanted to enclose the open basement, which is said to contain 30 parking spaces. I have not seen these, and from my views of the building, I don't see how there could be room to enter this area and access the parking spaces - as a known SP, I'm kinda reluctant to go poking around the building too much, ya know. The enclosure of the basement would compromise the building for any other future use, since it would remove 30 of the existing spaces.

    I do think the floor load ratings are the reason scientology wanted to enclose the basement parking, but I'm not positive.

    An important point to realize is that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to approve or deny the rezoning application; that is reserved for the Mayor and City Council (MCC), and the PC can only make a recommendation to them. The MCC meeting will be held on August 18, where a decision will be made. (unless Galloway and scientology ask for another deferral to make new plans, since they were bawwing about having to spend more money having the plans redone.)

    Another point is that the recommendation for approval is with conditions, which are more restrictive than scientology has been willing to agree to - one is a fire dept. cap on capacity. The residents have some additional and revised conditions they are trying to get considered by the MCC also, which will further put a damper on scientology's uses of the building, and which include the absolutely f*ckin' lulzy proposition that scientology host the protestors (US!) on their own property.

    New information on the use of the building was entered by Adams, but could not be considered for this meeting because information has to be submitted 2 weeks before the meeting to be included in a packet of information distributed to those people holding the meeting, so things may change in light of the new information. The SS govt. people now understand how the building will be used, and that is as a draw for the public, and not for members only as they had been told before. (I do not think this was the effect Adams was going for.)

    I know for a fact that SS people are lurking, so please keep your ideas coming; this is not a done deal yet.

    Also, understand on that red herring thing, do you think the enclosed basement was the red herring in this case?
  26. ethercat Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Thank you for pointing these out. Some of that information has already been sent, but not all. I am confident that it will be.

    From what I know of the ideal org website, it was first hosted at Hugh Elliot (and his then-wife Amy) was a major contributor to the ideal org, but at some point, the site ceased to be hosted on his domain. The domain now contains photos and mentions of Hugh's new wife (I heard that Amy died). There are no ideal org remnants to be found on it. To judge from what is at the current, I think Hugh may have left scientology. There are parts of the old site in

    Incidentally, it is Hugh and Amy Elliott who participated in the 1999 picket videos at:
    and particularly:

    Then the next I knew, there was, which is registered to Mary Rieser, head of narconon of Ga., and which for a while recently, went down due to expired hosting, and then returned hosted on a free hosting site, surrounded by ads. This was pointed out by citizens in letters to SS, when questioning their financial ability to renovate and maintain such a large building with the low numbers of members they claimed in the meetings and paperwork, and soon after (the letters being public record and obtainable by scientology) it went back to being hosted at a private paid hosting service.

    This ideal org material being hosted at drugsno is news to me, and has been saved in case it disappears from the site. It may have been there between and I found a link last night pointing to as their new narconon of Ga. site. Don't know why they have a new one yet.

    Ok, I will shut up and let someone else talk now. :)
  27. ethercat Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    I've been informed that the parking space ratio above is the old ratio that was applied, and the ratio approved the other night is to be at 3 per 1000 sq. ft. However, the bit that was disputed at the end, between Galloway and Nancy Leathers, as Lorelei put it: "Add item into record info re: article 28 dash point 1 waffle waffle numbers numbers" is in regard to using a different ratio the department will determine based on a different usage of the building than the one originally specified.

    Also, Nancy Leather's official title is "Director of the Department of Community
    Development, City of Sandy Springs." She oversees 3 deaprtments: Building and Development, Planning and Zoning, and Code Enforcement.
  28. AnonyMary Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Great stuff, EC. Loved seeing the conditions, lol. Georgia anons and critics be kicking CoS butt so far :)
  29. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    That amazed me. I was immediately intrigued as to whether their verbal shell game would possibly succeed, and it was good to see that it didn't.

    Scn: We R church, we can haz churchy stuffs nao? ^^
    PC Kenobi: That's no church. That's a battle station.
    Scn: NNNOOOOOOoooooooooooo................
  30. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    But it did. It did work, their parking IS based on church largest meeting room zoning.
    Read this thread from the beginning and it is all in here. .The SS ordinances and the parking spots per sq ft, or one spot for every 3 fix seats.

    Look, I don't know how they can even consider it under church parking zoning. If over 50% of the building is not chapel/sanctuary/ meeting room related.. It seems to not be a church. Fine, it you want to have a religion and have office workers. Hell, if you have a religion where everyone stands in 2' by 2' closets, that is your thing.. but parking spots are based on peak usage.

    Their sanctuary is gonna end up being a very small part of the bldg especially if they have to build it on the first floor.

    I wanna see how the fire dept sets the max occupancy for the bldg.. but there are four doors.
  31. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    I did read the thread from the beginning, and watched all the videos.

    I'm just following all this from far away; I'll leave it to those directly involved to debate this point with you.
  32. ethercat Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Anon, the parking is not based on the largest church meeting room. At the moment, it is somewhat questionable if they will even have an assembly room. I know this is all very confusing, because it is all confusing to me, and I've been keeping a close eye on it since it started.

    This is the latest document from Sandy Springs (note the date in the directory name and the filename, 2009-0716 and PC071609):

    It contains the staff recommendation which was voted on Thursday night. Page 8 shows the following, and I have indicated the most relevant parts (imo):

    The Planning Commission voted to go along with the staff recommendation above. The voting was:
    Mr. Thatcher - yes
    Mr. Boyken - yes
    Mr. Rubenstein - yes
    Mr. Rupnow - yes
    Ms. Mazier - no
    Mr. Pond - absent
    The Chair, Mr. Duncan, doesn't vote unless it is to break a tie.

    What has happened is that scientology amended the original application to drop the variance request concerning the floor load, and to include enclosing the basement parking and use the space for a chapel. That would reduce the parking spaces by 30. (They had originally intended to handle the floor load discrepancy with a sign stating such - but postulates won't hold up a floor.)

    Since the chapel in the basement would be less than 5% of the total usage, the staff calculated the required parking based on multiple uses. This was not satisfactory, because with the reduction in spaces by enclosing the basement, there would not be enough spaces left, so Galloway had a study done on the Nashville org, which showed Nashville to have a ratio of 3 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. I believe Galloway wanted the study interpreted in a different way, but this was the way the department interpreted it.

    This was not satisfactory either, because 3x43,000=129 spaces, and there wouldn't have been enough spaces, with the basement enclosed. Therefore, the staff decided since it wouldn't require more spaces to be added (since there is not enough room on the lot), that it would approve the request with the condition that the building remain as-is wrt enclosed sq. footage, and that the underground spaces must remain.

    This will leave them without an area for the chapel, unless they reinforce the first floor to the required 100 lbs/ft. floor load rating. This will be expensive.

    Here are a few more notes from the document, which are pertinent.
    On page 11:
    On page 12:
    There are more conditions which are being requested by the neighborhoods.

    Somehow I have missed where it is documented that there are 4 doors; where did you find that?
  33. ravenanon Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Sadly I missed this Epic meeting, Thanks EC, Gumby, and Lor for getting all this worked out and posted.

    If sci moves in they are not welcome in Sandy Springs. If they move in to a building that has no sanctuary I'll laugh for days on end.
  34. Lorelei Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    To help the ADHD Anons:

    Scilons can't enclose basement for sanctuary because this would remove parking spots.
    Basement is only level with a floor load-bearing rating suitable for a large gathering.
    Other floors would need major construction / reno to provide sanctuary space: expensive. Local Scis are already strapped for donations.
    Scilons cannot extend footprint of building, so no annex will be lumped on.
    Neighbors thoroughly inoculated; no recruiting is going to happen.
    Neighbors thoroughly educated; front groups will be rooted out.
    Neighbors thoroughly annoyed; Scis already held events, peddled in parking area and flyered residences with adverts.
    Adams further annoyed community by whining about what CoS wants and ignoring wog issues and complaints.
    Local Scis are mostly older folks; younger people are avoiding them.
    Long list of conditions attached to zoning recommendation; neighbors have more; Scilons NOT happy: funniest / best ones included no testing / booksales in lot, no Narconon on site, condition demanding Anon must protest on SCI property, not nearby residential or public right-of-way areas.
    Yes, will probably try to sneak Narcononers in to use sauna. Won't work; we'll know, and raise hell if this breaks final zoning agreement.
    Sci's tendency to lie / be sneaky, duplicitous, secretive and self-centered and to be dismissive of wog goals / laws / desires / needs was a combo-platter volley of footbullet crossfire: actual usage / purpose of bldg. was hidden until too late, total number of Scis currently and expected in near future fluctuated wildly from moment to moment, Sci did not answer many direct questions and concerns, etc.

    Bottom line: Scis bought white elephant bldg and are now stuck with it...and they can not haz huge meeting area. Any reno will reduce usefulness of space for future groups / offices. We're 90% there; Mayor et al will have to swoop in to be the ultimate heroes and heroines of the story.
  35. Lorelei Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Worst case: CoS weasels a way to get around zoning issue. Neighborhood is still educated, anti-cult, and pissed. They won't be able to drop even a cig butt in the parking lot without someone having a cow. Anon comes by to party on a regular basis and never relents with the education process. Cult starves without new victims, or dies out. WIN.

    Best case: CoS gets to party with Anon in parking lot every month. CoS stuck with unsuitable bldg in neighborhood that loathes them. CoS challenged constantly on every front...OR, we can but dream...CoS realizes Georgia is not down with human rights abuses and deceptive front groups and cults and gets the eff out, permanently, and we salt the earth so it can't grow back and continue to destroy lives. EPIC WIN.
  36. ravenanon Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    I want to see them move into this building without it having the "sanctuary" and then play pretend church.
  37. xenubarb Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    I want them to move into this building and start walling off the parking garage without permission. Because that is absolutely essential, according to their "studies." Also, they want it.

    Heh, maybe they'll just set up their VM tent down there and make it a good old tent revival!
  38. Stutroup Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    The videos have been taken down, but they're still completely relevant. Here are links to the first five meetings, so far.

    Here they are, at least which of the 5 meetings I have so far, as playlists. I haven't uploaded everything yet; YouTube is being a bit wonky with its uploader, but as the videos are added, the playlists will be updated.

    First meeting, Community Zoning Info Meeting, held on March 24, 2009:
    YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

    Second meeting, Community/Developer Resolution Meeting, held on April 23, 2009:
    YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

    Third meeting, Georgia, Planning Commission, held on May 21, 2009:

    Fourth meeting, The Mayor and City Council Meeting, held on June 16, 2009:

    Fifth meeting, Planning Commission, held on July 16, 2009:
  39. Anonymous Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    "Removed by the user". Why?
  40. ravenanon Member

    Re: Zoning Meeting for Scieno Property--What To Do?

    Several in ATL are working on getting the videos up and mirrored. Thanks to Stu for having them and getting them up first and the fastest.

    As far as the originals I would pm him about what happened. I don't speak for other protesters/activists.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins