Print

[SocialTransparency]

 I know this thread is a little early within the context of its intent. Yet having watched the manner in which Mayor and city council members of Sandy Springs vote on proposed zoning variance applications, i would like to throw these questions out here for fellow posters.

 It has been my observation over the last 5 months, the Sandy Springs Mayor and city council members have historically followed suit when staff has made a recommendation and the planning commission approves those recommendations.

 In July of 2009, the Planning commission voted on and approved staff recommendations for the C of S of Ga property @ the corner of Roswell rd and Glenridge Dr. The Mayor and city council will vote on those recommendations August 18Th 2009.

 If the zoning variance is adopted for said property in its present form with staff recommendations, how will this affect the owner?

 If the zoning variance is adopted for said property in its present form with staff recommendations, how will this effect the immediate community?

 If the zoning variance is adopted for said property, with the parking stipulations recommended by staff,how will this affect the actual outcome of the properties intended use by the applicant?

 Having watched multiple videos on the subject, then attending multiple meetings on the subject, this posters is of the opinion the merit of the original zoning variance, has basically come to a stand still. Meaning, nothing would change zoning wise, that would alter the properties end usage, from that of 4+ years ago. By this i mean, whatever zoning applied to this property back in 2005 would for all intents and purposes remain the same.

 Thoughts? I am curious to see if the zoning variance, as it is written, will allow the applicant the ability to physically occupy the building. And what approved usage the applicant is granted via the zoning variance approval, as it is currently written.

[ethercat]

If the zoning variance is adopted for said property in its present form with staff recommendations, how will this affect the owner?

 If the zoning variance is adopted for said property in its present form with staff recommendations, how will this effect the immediate community?

 If the zoning variance is adopted for said property, with the parking stipulations recommended by staff,how will this affect the actual outcome of the properties intended use by the applicant?

Interesting points, SocialTransparency. 

Having watched multiple videos on the subject, then attending multiple meetings on the subject, this posters is of the opinion the merit of the original zoning variance, has basically come to a stand still. Meaning, nothing would change zoning wise, that would alter the properties end usage, from that of 4+ years ago. By this i mean, whatever zoning applied to this property back in 2005 would for all intents and purposes remain the same.

I think you may be right.  Essentially, the things that will have been approved are things that would have probably been approved, no matter what - things like: allowing the building to vary from the required building setback which has been increased since the building was built, and allowing the existing sign to remain where it is.  What was the other, wasn't there three minor things? The thing they seemed to want the most - to enclose the basement in order to build an assembly hall - doesn't seem likely to be approved, because of the deficiency of parking spaces if it were. 

Is it possible that they don't care so much about a "sanctuary," and it acted as a red herring to allow them to occupy the building in the first place?  But couldn't they have occupied the building without the rezoning procedure if that were the case?

I wonder if the rezoning is approved with the conditions as are recommended now, will they be able to, at a later time, reapply for the basement enclosure, or once is it denied, is it allowed to be reapplied for?  The parking problem would still exist, so it doesn't seem likely it would pass later.

Thoughts? I am curious to see if the zoning variance, as it is written, will allow the applicant the ability to physically occupy the building. And what approved usage the applicant is granted via the zoning variance approval, as it is currently written.

I am sure they could occupy the building, and probably will, they will just have to accept that they couldn't get everything they wanted.  The sanctuary, and Sunday Services, as you know, is not a major part of the practice.  It just helps them to look more like a normal church, until one takes a closer look.  But will they want to?

Might they sell the building off to buy another one somewhere else, when the economy improves?

What could be their plan?  I can't imagine them giving up without more of a fight.

[Lorelei]

Well, rumor has it that Scientologists / Narconon people have been hunting down and pressuring people who live near the desired building (to do what the Scientologists want), which is obviously very creepy and invasive. If this happened to me or my neighbor(s), I'd write a scathing letter to the SS officials to complain.

It's a sign of things to come, unfortunately.

Heck, I don't even like being awakened early on a Saturday morning by polite religious solicitors like Jehovah's Witnesses or kids selling candy to pay for church outings. I'm not interested in their Watchtower pamphlets or their $5 fake Hershey bars, but they don't harass me constantly, you know?

I'll be darned if someone from the cult comes to hassle and harass me. The bottom line is that the cult bought a building that is unsuitable for their stated needs (even though those needs mysteriously change to match whatever they think will help them get their way, as does the actual / expected congregation size and what they plan to DO in the building). This definitely has a Somebody Else's Problem filter on it, in that SS should continue to point out that it is the cult's problem they made a dumb purchase in a posh residential (and clearly hostile-to-cults) neighborhood, and SS is not behooved to inconvenience residents and neighbors who have spoken out against the zoning variance just to please some pushy cultists who are mad they probably won't get everything they want even if they do pull out the usual intimidation tactics, bullying of those opposed, the "religious bigot" card, and attempts at sucking up to decision-makers and outspoken concerned neighbors beforehand.

I think the whole of their plan can be nutshelled thus: David Miscavige and the RTC commanded them to bilk the True Believers out of $$$$ donations for these "Ideal Org" buildings to bulk up the church's real estate holdings. Despite the fact that the number of parishioners seems to be steadily dwindling and the upkeep on these buildings and their ability to pay their bills in a timely manner clearly suffer because there are not enough Raw Meat converts coming in and handing over their wallets and the cultists already hit up for money can only give so much before the wells run dry, Miscavige has commanded the Scientologists to buy and move into these new buildings, and what Miscavige commands, the cultists must do.

I am sure the recession and the housing market also played a part. The cult bought the buildings when the housing market was thriving, and they are now stuck with them now that foreclosures are at an all time high, and the price of housing has dropped significantly. If they try to sell it, who will buy it? They don't understand "curb appeal," for sure, having sunk so much dosh into stuff no one but the cultists give a darn about, like the video screens no one will watch and the other expensive niceties that do nothing to fix the rotting exteriors and yards of these Orgs. It is significant that none of the money they plan to spend is earmarked for EXTERIOR improvements or basic maintenance.

Anyway, they swore they'd hold parties and such off-site, so I suspect they'll be stuck with the Shallowford property for a while, too. We'll see.