The Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc. (herein after the Church, Plaintiff) sued the City of Sandy Springs (herein after the City), alleging that the City had violated the Church’s statutory rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Church bought a 32,053 square foot building that was zoned in an Office and Institutional district. The Church sought to rezone the building  to convert the 11,863 square foot basement/garage in accordance with the Church of Scientology doctrine that the Church required a building that was at least 40,000 square feet. However, doing so would eliminate 30 parking spaces. The City’s relevant parking ordinance provides that parking requirements be calculated based on the proportion that each use contributes to the total. Because the Church focuses more on individualized study rather than congregational gatherings, the City used a multi-use formula rather than the formula typically used for churches to determine how many parking spaces were needed. Based on the multi-use formula, the City determined the conversion of the basement/garage would leave the Church with inadequate parking and denied the Church’s application for expansion though the application for rezoning was approved. The Church later filed suit, and both parties moved for summary judgment. 

The Church alleged that the City’s denial of their proposed conversion substantially burdened its religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA because it encroached on its use of the building in accordance with Scientology scripture. However, the Court stated that not being able to operate a church on the scale desired is not a substantial burden.  A government may regulate the number of parking spaces required for a church facility or restrict the size of assemblies or institutions, and as long as such restrictions are unrelated to the religious characterization of the property, RLUIPA is not implicated. Moreover, where a religious organization fails to show that its property carries religious significance, the inability to relocate a religious facility is not a substantial burden under RLUIPA. 

Here, the Church does not assert that the City’s actions have coerced or forced it into foregoing practicing the religious precepts of Scientology. The Church also failed to assert that the subject property had any religious significance. The court found that the Church did not suffer a substantial burden. However, the Court did find that the City’s application of the parking ordinance was based on consideration of the Church’s individual case. Thus, the court denied summary judgment on that issue. 

Plaintiff’s remaining RLUIPA claims under the equal terms provision of RLUIPA § (b) alleged several instances where is believed that the City treated other similarly situated religious organizations more favorably with regards to the parking ordinance.  The Court noted, however, that RLUIPA’s equal terms provision does not require all religious entities be treated similarly. Summary judgment on this issue is granted to the City.                                                                     

Under RLUIPA’s nondiscrimination provision, the Church claimed the City has engaged in “religious gerrymandering” and selective enforcement of its parking requirements. The Court held that the Church failed to show that the parking ordinance separates permissible from impermissible assemblies or institutions in a way that burdens “almost only” religious uses. The court found no evidence of religious gerrymandering, even noting that the ordinance was passed before the Church purchased the property.  Though the court found no religious gerrymandering, they  noted that the Church has introduced evidence of a similarly situated comparator that may have received more favorable treatment than the Church at the hands of the City. Accordingly, summary judgment was denied on this claim. 

In determining whether the City acted with a  discriminatory purpose, the court noted that all zoning laws inherently create some level of selection and categorization. However, the court found that the City did not intentionally discriminate against the Church on the basis of religion, as a matter of law. The Court pointed out that the City found the conversion may have been recommended for approval if the Church had applied for a variance or could demonstrate that the on-site parking was sufficient. 

In regards to the Church’s freedom of speech claim, the court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment finding genuine issues of material fact about whether the City substantially burdened the Church’s religious exercise by effectively barring its use of the property for its particular form of religious  expression and assembly. 

The Church also alleged an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. However, the Court notes that this claim was not ripe as it is currently pending in state court. 

Finally, the Church also alleged that the City violated their substantive due process rights under the Georgia State Constitution. The court found that the Church failed to show that the City’s application of the multi-use parking standard was arbitrary and capricious, noting that the City’s interpretation and application of the parking ordinance was a reasonable exercise of its zoning authority. 

Church of Scientology of Georgia, Inc. v. City of Sandy Springs, Ga.,  2011 WL 4793144 (N.D. Ga. 9/30/2011)