Liberty Baptist Church v. Board of County Commissioners of Crawford County

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS LIBERTY BAPTIST CHURCH, a Kansas church individually and in its capacity as representative of certain individual members, and Pastor Sandy Stallings, Plaintiffs, v.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. 15-cv-___________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, Liberty Baptist Church, (“Liberty Baptist” or “the Church”), a Kansas church, individually and it its capacity as representative of certain individual members, and Pastor Sandy Stallings, by and through counsel, complain against the Board of County Commissioners of Crawford County, Kansas (“the County”) as follows: INTRODUCTION/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.

When government forbids where people may worship it must have a

strong and overriding reason for doing so. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v.

City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531-532 (1993); see Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 578, *31 (2012); see also Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 USC §2000cc, et seq. (“RLUIPA”).

1

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 20

2.

And “when a zoning law infringes upon a protected liberty, it must be

narrowly drawn and must further a sufficiently substantial government interest.” Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68 (1981).

3. There are no zoning districts in all of Crawford County wherein a church or religious assembly is treated as a permitted use. Group Exhibit A contains relevant portions of the Crawford County, Kansas Zoning Regulations (referred to as the “Zoning Regulations”).

4. In violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., a federal statute which was passed by unanimous consent in Congress, the County prohibits churches from locating anywhere in the county unless and until they go through the discretionary, costly, and time consuming process of seeking a zoning amendment and receive a conditional use permit.

5.

Because of the facially unlawful exclusion and unreasonable limitations of

the County’s Zoning Regulations and the County’s March 17, 2015 decision to deny the Church a conditional use permit, the County’s Zoning Regulations and actions are infringing upon the protected liberties of the Plaintiffs to worship at the Church’s property located at 1714 W. 20th St., Pittsburg, Kansas (the “Property”).

6.

Because the Zoning Regulations facially unlawfully exclude and

unreasonably limit religious assembly and because the County denied the Church a conditional use permit to worship at its property, Plaintiffs’ free exercise is being infringed, and Plaintiffs are entitled to immediate injunctive and declaratory

2

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 3 of 20

relief from said infringements. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); Murphy

v. Zoning Comm’n of the Town of New Milford, 148 F.Supp.2d 173, 180-81 (D.Conn. 2001) (“Since [RLUIPA] was enacted for the express purpose of protecting First Amendment rights of individuals, the allegation that [the Town] has violated this statute also triggers the same concerns that led the court to hold that these violations result in a presumption of irreparable harm.”) (citations omitted).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7.

This action arises under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States; the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000cc-1, et seq; Section 7 of the Bill of Rights of the

Kansas Constitution; and the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (KPRFA), 2013 Kan. HB 2203, 2013 Kan. ALS 47, 2013 Ka. Sess. Laws 47.

8. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action by virtue of U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. §2201 (authorizing declaratory relief); and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (authorizing injunctive relief).

9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(e).

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES 10. Plaintiff Liberty Baptist Church is a Kansas church (founded in 1947) with a congregation of about fifteen adult members and is incorporated as a Kansas non-for-profit corporation entitled to sue under Federal Rule 17(b)(3)(A).

3

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 4 of 20

11.

Sandy Stallings is the pastor of Liberty Baptist Church and has the

authority to speak and act on behalf of the Church and its members. His declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit B and supports the facts alleged herein.

12. The individuals whose declarations are to be submitted at a later date are members of Liberty Baptist whose civil liberties are also infringed by the County’s zoning laws and actions.

13. Defendant, the Board of County Commissioners, is a Kansas municipal corporation and political subdivision per K.S.A. 60-2101(d). The County is located in the State of Kansas and of this District.

14. The County, through its Commissioners, is responsible for the enactment and enforcement of the zoning regulations challenged herein.

THE COUNTY’S ZONING CODE 15. The “Zoning Regulations” of Crawford County govern zoning and land uses within the County’s jurisdiction. Relevant portions are attached as Group Exhibit A. 16. According the Zoning Regulations, the County is divided into seven different zoning districts:

Agricultural (AG), Rural Residential (RR), Single-Family

Residential (R-1), Village (V-1), Airport Overlay (AO), and Floodplain (FP). Id. 17. Churches or religious assemblies are not permitted uses in any of the County’s seven zoning districts.

18. The Zoning Regulations do not treat assembly uses in a generally applicable and religiously neutral way, i.e. as assembly uses generally, but specifically identify, single out, and define a “Church” as “an establishment, the principal purpose of which is religious worship, but which may include such accessory uses in the main 4

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 5 of 20

structure or in separate buildings, as Sunday School rooms, assembly rooms, kitchen, recreational facilities and/or library.” Group Exh. A at p. 7.

19. The Zoning Regulations’ definition of a “Church” is irrespective of the number of people involved in the religious worship.

20. Since the Zoning Regulations do not allow churches in any zoning district as a permitted use, any new church or religious assembly must petition or apply to the County for a zoning amendment, specifically a conditional use permit (“CUP”), before it may locate anywhere in the County.

21. The cost to apply for a conditional use permit is $225.00.

22. Section 23-107 of the Zoning Regulations provides that: “Whenever an application for amendment, supplement, change, rezoning or conditional use permit has been denied by the Governing Body [the Board of Commissioners], such application or one substantially similar shall not be reconsidered sooner than (1) year after said denial. Should an appeal be filed in the District Court by the applicant of the denied case, the one (1) year time frame restricting reapplication shall not begin until judgment has been rendered by said court, including any and all appeals there from.” Exh. A at p. 157.

23. The Property and locus in quo falls within an agricultural zone but is, according to the Zoning Regulations, too small to be used for agricultural purposes as it is less than 10 acres in size.

24.

The Zoning Regulations “grandfather” in all the churches and religious

assemblies which were operating prior to the enactment of the regulations in 19-102.

5

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 6 of 20

BACKGROUND OF THE CHURCH & THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE 25. Since 2013, the Church has met and worshipped at the home of Pastor Sandy Stallings in Pittsburg, Kansas.

26. In 2013, the Church sought to acquire a property of its own outside the city limits of Pittsburg in the County.

27. In or about November 2013, the Church purchased the triangle shaped property located outside the city limits of Pittsburg in the County at 1714 W. 20th St. (the “Property”), Exh. B at ¶ 11, which is pictured below in Google® Images:

28. The parcel is approximately 2.8 acres. Id.

6

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 7 of 20

29. Plaintiffs have sought to conduct ministries at the Property which are in furtherance of the sincerely religious beliefs of the Church and of its members; all of which are threatened by the County’ s Zoning Regulations and conditional use denial, id. at œ 12: a. Weekly assembly of the congregation to worship (Hebrews 10:25); b. Weekly preaching, including speech relating to personal morality, God, social, and cultural (2 Timothy 4:2); c. Pastoral counseling for the sick, disturbed, lonely, and bereaved; d. Prayer meetings (Acts 1:13-14); e. Singing and musical performances (Psalms 81:1-2) f. Baptisms, confirmations, weddings, funerals, and communion (Matthew 28:19; Luke 22:19)—all of which I cannot accommodate at my home; g. Bible studies; h. Youth activities which are not appropriate in my home i. Service projects for members of the congregation, the poor, and the general community (James 1:27); j. Evangelism-sharing the Christian message and encouraging others to believe in Jesus the Messiah, particularly those who visit their church meetings; k. Financial giving and special offerings to support the poor, and ministries for members of the congregation; l. Weekend services to reach those in Pittsburg seeking a place of worship; m. Financial aid to those who serve as missionaries in the United States and other countries globally. Liberty Baptist Church extends financial aid to 19 missionary families; 7

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 8 of 20

n. Ministries conducted to assist and care for the elderly in rest homes; o. Community outreach to Pittsburg State College.

2013 CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION AND DENIAL 30. While the Property was under contract, the Church, on September 12, 2013, filed an application for “conditional land use” with the Crawford County Regional Planning and Zoning Commission along with an application fee of $225.00.

Application is attached as Exhibit C. 31. On October 21, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Board heard the Church’s application and voted 5 to 0 to send a recommendation of approval to the County Commissioners. Minutes of the October 21, 2013 meeting attached as Exhibit D. 32. On November 19, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners considered the Church’s application and the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation and voted 2-1 to deny the Church’s application. Board Resolution 2013-031 attached as Exhibit E. 33. The Board’s Resolution 2013-031 cited the reasons for its denial as being: a. Proposed use not in the same general character of the neighborhood which is residential and agricultural; b. Concern about safety due to narrow road and sightlines at the entrance of the property; c. Residents concerns about activity on church grounds when property is not in use; d. Concern from neighboring landowners about the viability of the church which would lead to an abandoned structure with no upkeep or maintenance.

34. Without any factual basis, the County rejected the findings of the Planning and Zoning Board and denied the Church’s conditional use permit application.

8

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 9 of 20

35. The County’s decision was later appealed to the state district court under Chapter 60 for an appellate determination of whether the City’s action was “reasonable.”

36. Neither the County nor the state district court (sitting as a court of review) were presented with or asked to determine the Church’s federal rights under the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., or state religious freedom rights under the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. 37. On December 29, 2014, the state district court, acting in an administrative review capacity and not as a court of original jurisdiction, upheld the County’s denial as reasonable. Opinion attached as Exhibit F. 2015 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND DENIAL 38. On November 1, 2013, the Church acquired title to the Property.

39. Since the Zoning Regulations1 permit a property owner to reapply for a zoning amendment or conditional use permit a year after a prior denial, the Church filed another application on January 19, 2015 for “conditional land use” with the Crawford County Regional Planning and Zoning Commission along with an application fee of $225.00. Application is attached as Exhibit G.

Section 23-107 of the Zoning Regulations amended the code to provide that the County will not review the same or a substantially similar application for amendment or conditional use permit sooner than one (1) year after the denial, and that should an appeal be filed in the [state] District Court by the applicant of the denied case, the (1) one year time frame restricting reapplication shall not begin until judgment has been rendered by said court, including any appeals there from. In this case, it is unclear when this amendment went into effect but it is clear that the County nevertheless allowed the Church to reapply in 2015 and waived this section if it was indeed in effect at the time.

1

9

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 10 of 20

40. On February 19, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Board heard the Church’s application and voted 5 to 1 to send a recommendation of approval to the County Commissioners “noting that the Golden Rules all were met” and that the Church use would “be suitable in the surrounding area,” “would provide a benefit to surrounding area” and that the Church had “met all the factors established in the current Zoning Regulations.” Minutes of the February 19, 2015 meeting attached as Exhibit H. 41. On March 31, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners considered the Church’s application and the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation and voted 3-0 to deny the Church’s application. Board Resolution 2015-007 attached as Exhibit I. 42. The Board’s Resolution 2015-007 cited the reasons for its denial as being: a. Proposed structure and use not in the same general character of the neighborhood which is residential and agricultural; b. Concern about safety of the roadway and the entrance to the property.

43. Without any factual basis or new information, the County rejected the findings of the Planning and Zoning Board and denied the Church’s conditional use permit application.

44. By force of its Zoning Regulations and March 31, 2015 decision, the County is interfering with the Church’s religious mission and growth and threatens the existence of the church.

45. The Church members have been humiliated and have endured mental anguish and suffering as a result of these events.

10

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 11 of 20

46. The County’s Zoning Regulations totally exclude, unreasonably limit and substantially burden religious exercise in the County.

47. The County’s actions and Zoning Code violate Plaintiff’s rights under the United States Constitution; the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, et seq; Section 7 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution; and the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (KPRFA), 2013 Kan. HB 2203, 2013 Kan. ALS 47, 2013 Ka. Sess. Laws 47.

48. Through its Zoning Regulations, the County expressly discriminates against churches generally and threatens further irreparable harm to their constitutional and statutory rights.

49. To vindicate the Plaintiffs’ rights and avoid further irreparable harm, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of their constitutional and statutory rights.

50. The County’s Zoning Regulations and actions threaten the continued existence of the Church, interfere with the Church’s religious mission and growth and continue to put a major financial strain on the Church.

51. Plaintiffs accordingly challenge, both facially and as-applied to its religious speech and activities, the County’s Zoning Regulations.

52. Plaintiffs’ right to freely assemble and gather for worship and service is hindered by the County’s Zoning Regulations and conditional use permit denial.

11

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 12 of 20

ALLEGATIONS OF LAW 53. The Zoning Regulations and all acts of the County, its officers, agents,

servants, employees, or persons acting at their behest or direction, were done and are continuing to be done under the color of state law.

54. Unless and until enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Regulations unlawfully and unreasonably limiting religious assembly in the County and at the Property are enjoined, Plaintiffs will suffer and continue to suffer irreparable injury to their federal and state rights.

55. The Church’s religious worship, religious expression, and religious assembly are fully protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

56. Concomitantly, the use of an illegal zoning ordinance to deny the Church access to its Property to engage in protected religious worship, religious expression, and religious assembly is a violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and RLUIPA. 57. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ rights are further protected by Section 7 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution, as well as the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (KPRFA), 2013 Kan. HB 2203, 2013 Kan. ALS 47, 2013 Ka. Sess.

Laws 47.

58. Plaintiffs have no adequate or speedy remedy at law to correct or redress the deprivations of their constitutional and civil rights.

12

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 13 of 20

59. The County will suffer no harm if the injunctive relief is granted to the Plaintiffs because it has no interest in enforcing an ordinance which violates federal law.

60. The harm to the Church far outweighs any harm to the County. The public interest is benefited when constitutional and civil rights are protected.

61. Pursuant to Section 24-103 of the Zoning Regulations, the Church may be subjected to the following penalties if it proceeds with its religious exercise at the Property (emphasis added): Any person or corporation who shall violate any of the provisions of these Regulations or fail to comply herewith, or with any of the requirements thereof; or who shall build or alter any building in violation of any detailed statement or plan submitted and approved hereunder shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be liable to a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) and/or imprisonment for not more than six (6) months for each offense and each day such violation shall be permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense.

LEGAL BASIS FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE EXCLUSION PROVISION AND UNREASONABLE LIMITATION PROVISIONS OF RLUIPA 62. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

63. RLUIPA defines the phrase “religious exercise” to include “the use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(B).

64. RLUIPA Section 2(b)(3) “Exclusions and Limits” provides that: No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that: (A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or 13

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 14 of 20

(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

65. RLUIPA was enacted in 2000 after three years of Congressional hearings which produced a record of “massive evidence” that the “core First Amendment right to assemble for religious purposes” and the indispensable adjunct right of a Church to “build, buy or rent” a physical space “adequate to their needs and consistent with their theological requirements” is “frequently violated.” 146 CONG. REC. S7774-01, §S7774.

66. The Congressional record revealed that: Churches in general, and new, small, or unfamiliar churches in particular, are frequently discriminated against on the face of zoning codes and also in the highly individualized and discretionary processes of land use legislation.

Zoning codes frequently exclude churches in places where they permit theaters, meetings halls, and other places where large groups of people assemble for secular purposes. Or the codes permit churches only with individualized permission from the zoning board, and zoning boards use that authority in a discriminatory ways. (emphasis supplied) Id. 67. Congress found the discrimination often “lurks behind such vague and universally applicable reasons as “traffic, aesthetics, or ‘not consistent with the city’s land use plan.” Id. 68. On its face, the County’s Zoning Regulations totally exclude religious assemblies from the entire jurisdiction of the County.

69. On its face, the County’s Zoning Regulations unreasonably limit religious assemblies in the County.

70. The legislative history of RLUIPA further reveals that: Section 2(b)(3), on exclusion or unreasonable limitation of religious uses, enforces the Free Speech Clause as interpreted in Schad v. Borough of 14

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 15 of 20

Mount Ephraim, N.J., 425 U.S. 61 (1981) which held that a municipality cannot entirely exclude a category of first amendment activity. ... Section 2(b)(3) enforces the right to assemble for worship or other religious exercise under the Free Exercise Clause, and the hybrid free speech and free exercise right to assemble for worship or other religious exercise under Schad and [Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)]. 146 CONG. REC. at § S7776.

71. By failing to allow churches as a “permitted use” anywhere in its jurisdiction, the County has entirely excluded a category of first amendment activity and infringed the Church’s hybrid free speech and free exercise right to assemble for worship.

72. The County’s requirement that a new “Church,” like Liberty Baptist, go through the costly, time-consuming, and highly discretionary conditional use application process to locate anywhere within the county is an unreasonable limitation on religious assembly within its jurisdiction.

73. By forcing the Church to go through the costly and discretionary conditional use application process and to have to wait an unspecified amount of time to learn whether the application would be approved or denied by a discretionary board of decision makers and by subjecting the Church to conditions and limitations that may be contained in an approval, the County’s Zoning Regulations preclude the Church and its members from preaching the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, worshipping, ministering to others, and sharing their faith with others in the County and at the Property.

74. Importantly, RLUIPA requires a broad construction:

“This Act shall be

construed in favor of broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act and the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g).

15

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 16 of 20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the relief set forth in the prayer for relief.

VIOLATION OF RLUIPA SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN PROVISION 75. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

76. Section 2000cc (a)(1) of RLUIPA provides: (1)

General rule.

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution— (A)

is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(B)

is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

77. By forcing the Church to go through the costly, discretionary, and arbitrary conditional use permit application process and by denying the Church’s conditional use application entirely (without proposing conditions which would more narrowly address the interests, if any, of the County), the County has totally precluded the Church and its members from assembling together to hear the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, to worship, to minister to others, and to share their faith with others at the Property, and is thereby substantially burdening their sincerely held religious beliefs and exercises flowing there from.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the relief set forth in the prayer for relief.

16

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 17 of 20

VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 78. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

79. While general laws of neutral applicability are typically subject to rational basis review, “where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of ‘religious hardship’ without compelling reason.” Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 884 (1990); see also

Lukumi, 508 U.S. 520 at 537.

80. The County’s Zoning Regulations and conditional use permit application process is a system of individual exemptions.

81. Since denying the Plaintiffs’ use of its property for religious assembly exacts crippling hardship on Plaintiffs’ free exercise, the County may not refuse to extend a conditional use permit to the Church absent a compelling governmental interest.

82. The Church and its members hold sincere religious beliefs which motivate them to preach the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah, worship, minister to others, and share their faith with others.

83. The County lacks a compelling or even rational basis that would justify their denial of the Church’s use of the Property.

84. The County’s denial of the Church’s conditional use permit application therefore violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

17

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 18 of 20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the relief set forth in the prayer for relief.

VIOLATIONS UNDER KANSAS LAW 85. The allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

86. The County, in enforcing its Zoning Regulations against the Church, has violated Section 7 of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution, as well as the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (KPRFA), 2013 Kan. HB 2203, 2013 Kan. ALS 47, 2013 Ka. Sess. Laws 47.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant the relief set forth in the prayer for relief.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request relief as follows: A.

That this Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining the County, its officers, agents, employees, attorneys and all other persons acting in active concert with it, from enforcing its Zoning Regulations to prevent or attempt to prevent the Plaintiffs from using the Property as a church and as place for religious assembly, worship, and the ministries set forth in paragraph 24 above;

B.

That this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment declaring that the County’s Zoning Regulations totally exclude and unreasonably limit religious assemblies in violation of RLUIPA, are void and unconstitutional both on their face and as applied to the Church and that the Church shall be entitled 18

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 19 of 20

to use its property at 1714 West 20th Street under the Crawford County Zoning Regulations; C.

This Court enter a Declaratory Judgment declaring that the County’s Zoning Regulations and denial of the Church’s conditional use permit application impermissibly burdens the Plaintiffs’ free exercise in violation of RLUIPA, the United States Constitution, the Kansas Constitution, and the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.

D.

That this Court award Plaintiffs their costs and expenses of this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and other applicable federal and state laws;

E.

That this Court award Plaintiffs all the damages to which they are entitled;

F.

That this Court retain jurisdiction of this matter as necessary to enforce the Court’s orders; and

G.

Grant such other relief as this Court deems appropriate.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of the above captioned matter.

DESIGNATION OF PLACE OF TRIAL Plaintiffs designate Wichita, Kansas, as the place of trial of this cause of action.

Respectfully submitted this 27th day of April, 2015.

19

Case 6:15-cv-01130 Document 1 Filed 04/27/15 Page 20 of 20

/s/ CRAIG SHULTZ CRAIG SHULTZ, KS #09731 PATRICK TURNER, KS #23437 SHULTZ LAW OFFICE, P.A. 445 North Waco Wichita, KS 67202 TELEPHONE: (316) 269-2284 FACSIMILE: (316) 269-2011 craig@shultzlaw.net patrick@shultzlaw.com __/S/ STEVE STOCKARD_____

STEVE STOCKARD, KS #17692 WILBERT & TOWNER, P.A. 506 NORTH PINE PITTSBURG, KS 66762 TELEPHONE: (620) 231-5620 FACSIMILE: (620) 231-5819 sstockard@wntlaw.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS __/S/_NOEL W. STERETT__________ NOEL STERETT*, IL #6292008 MAUCK & BAKER, LLC ONE NORTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 600 CHICAGO, IL 60602 TELEPHONE: (312) 726-1243 FACSIMILE: (312) 726-1039 nsterett@mauckbaker.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

__/S/_JOHN W. MAUCK__________ JOHN W. MAUCK*, IL #1797328 MAUCK & BAKER, LLC ONE NORTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 600 CHICAGO, IL 60602 TELEPHONE: (312) 726-1243 FACSIMILE: (312) 726-1039 jmauck@mauckbaker.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

*Pending Admission pro hac vice

20