Case 1:14-cv LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LIFE COVENANT CHURCH, INC. Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 1:14-CV-1530 (LEK/RFT) TOWN OF COLONIE, TOWN OF COLONIE PLANNING BOARD, PETER STUTO, TIMOTHY LANE, LOUIS MION, SUSAN MILSTEIN, BRIAN AUSTIN, CRAIG SHAMLIAN, KATHLEEN DALTON, JOSEPH LACIVITA, MICHAEL C. MAGGUILLI, REBEKAH NELLIS KENNEDY. Defendants. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Life Covenant Church, Inc., ( LifeChurch ) the Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered case, files this Original Complaint against Defendants Town of Colonie (the Town ), Town of Colonie Planning Board ( Planning Board ), Peter Stuto, Timothy Lane, Louis Mion, Susan Milstein, Brian Austin, Craig Shamlian, Kathleen Dalton, (collectively, the Planning Board Members ), Joseph LaCivita ( Planning Director ), Michael C. Magguilli ( Town Attorney ), and Rebekah Nellis Kennedy ( Assistant Town Attorney ) and would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. NATURE OF ACTION 1. This action arises out of LifeChurch s continual efforts to obtain land use approvals from the Town to construct a new church facility and associated parking on its property. The Town through its Planning Board, Planning Board Members, Town Attorney, and PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 1

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 2 of 30 Assistant Town Attorney (collectively, the Town Officials ), has unreasonably delayed the review and approval of LifeChurch s zoning requests in violation of federal and state law. LifeChurch s zoning requests have been lost in a bureaucratic maze as the Town and Town Officials have routinely made conflicting requests and continued to unnecessarily delay in requesting and reviewing materials prior to the Planning Board s consideration of LifeChurch s zoning requests. LifeChurch has reasonably responded to the Town's requests. However, it is clear based upon the Town s and Town Officials actions and unreasonable delays that any additional attempts to accommodate the Town s and Town Officials requests would be futile and LifeChurch's zoning requests have been and will continue to be improperly delayed so as to effectively be denied. 2. The Town s and Town Officials unreasonable delays, obstruction, and hostility towards LifeChurch have inflicted immediate injuries and have placed an unjustified substantial burden on LifeChurch s practice of religion and have applied this burden in a manner that has discriminated against LifeChurch as a religious organization. Moreover, this suit seeks relief from the clear and purposeful deprivation of LifeChurch s rights to freedom of religion, assembly, speech, and association. In this action, LifeChurch alleges that the Town s and Town Officials actions violate the United States and New York Constitutions and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. ( RLUIPA ). As a result of the Town s and Town Officials unlawful actions, LifeChurch has suffered and continues to suffer damages. 3. LifeChurch also files this action for injunctive and declaratory relief to, inter alia, compel the issuance of all approvals and permits to allow it to construct its new church facility PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 2

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 3 of 30 on its property. LifeChurch also seeks compensatory damages and the recovery of its reasonable and necessary attorney s fees. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(a)(3), and 1343(a)(4), and under 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., this Court has jurisdiction over LifeChurch s claims arising under federal law. This Court has jurisdiction over the requests for declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. This Court also has pendant jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). 5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, as the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this District and the property that is the subject of the action is located in this District. III. PARTIES 6. LifeChurch is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and duly authorized to do business in New York. 7. The Town is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. The Town may be served with service of process by serving its clerk, Elizabeth A. DelTorto at Memorial Town Hall 534 Loudon Road, Newtonville, NY 12128, or wherever she may be found. 8. Town of Colonie Planning Board is municipal land use review board authorized and created by NYS Town Law 271. The Town of Colonie Planning Board may be served with service of process by serving its Chairman, Peter Stuto, at 347 Old Niskayuna Road, Latham, New York 12110 or wherever he may be found. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 3

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 4 of 30 9. Upon information and belief, Peter Stuto resides at 19 Newell Ct., Albany, NY 12204-1227. Peter Stuto is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Mr. Stuto may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found. 10. Upon information and belief, Timothy Lane resides at 7 Sage Ct., Albany, NY 12204-1404. Timothy Lane is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Mr. Lane may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found. 11. Upon information and belief, Louis Mion resides at 1 Altamont Ave, Albany, NY 12205-3605. Louis Mion is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Mr. Mion may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found. 12. Upon information and belief, Susan Milstein resides at 6 Sage Hill Ln, Albany, NY 12204-1334. Susan Milstein is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Ms. Milstein may be served with service of process at her residence or wherever she may be found. 13. Upon information and belief, Brian Austin resides at 14 Starboard Way, Latham, NY 12110-1306. Brian Austin is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Mr. Austin may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found. 14. Upon information and belief, Craig Shamlian resides at 25 Carriage Hill Drive, Latham NY 12110-4946. Craig Shamlian is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Mr. Shamlian may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found. 15. Upon information and belief, Kathleen Dalton resides at 54 Laura Drive, Latham, NY 12110-2308. Kathleen Dalton is a member of the Town of Colonie Planning Board. Ms. Dalton may be served with service of process at her residence or wherever she may be found. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 4

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 5 of 30 16. Upon information and belief, Joseph LaCivita resides at 9 Belleauwood Cir, Watervliet, NY 12189-1229. Joseph LaCivita is the Director of Planning and Economic Development with the Town. Mr. LaCivita may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found. 17. Upon information and belief, Michael C. Magguilli resides at 23 Newell Ct., Albany NY 12204-1226. Michael C. Magguilli is the Town Attorney. Mr. Magguilli may be served with service of process at his residence or wherever he may be found. 18. Upon information and belief, Rebekah Nellis Kennedy resides at 4 Marriner Ave., Albany NY 12205-2906. Rebekah Nellis Kennedy is the Assistant Town Attorney. Ms. Kennedy may be served with service of process at her residence or wherever she may be found. 19. Each of the individual defendants is named herein in his or her official capacity only. IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 20. LifeChurch is a religious organization that provides Christian American Evangelical faith services and faith oriented instruction classes to members of the Capital District community-at-large. LifeChurch presently provides faith worship services for church members in their 10,000 square foot facility, which is located at 560 Sand Creek Road, Village of Colonie, New York. This facility contains approximately 180 seats for its worship services. The current facility also contains four classrooms for children to attend Sunday school classes during worship services. The facility also has an associated parking lot that contains only 82 parking spaces. 21. LifeChurch s membership has been rapidly growing, more than doubling in the past five years, and its attendance requirements exceed the capacity of its current facility. The PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 5

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 6 of 30 inadequacies of the current facility have prevented LifeChurch from performing tasks that it believes are mandated by God, including expanding LifeChurch s membership and discipling to more members about the Christian faith. Additionally, the lack of adequate parking has prevented some current members from attending regularly scheduled religious services. LifeChurch thus requires the construction of a new facility to accommodate its existing and new members and to exercise its religious rights. The new facility would also enable LifeChurch to provide additional faith services and instruction not available at its present facility. 22. Worship sites (e.g., churches, temples, cathedrals) are essential to most religious groups, including to LifeChurch and its members. Beyond serving as a meeting place for group worship and religious services, the sites themselves are sacrosanct, and they serve as symbols of the tenets and beliefs which are observed, practiced and taught by religious groups such as LifeChurch. Preventing a religious group such as LifeChurch from building a necessary worship site fundamentally and substantially chills and inhibits its ability to practice its religion. 23. In order to further fulfill LifeChurch s Christian purposes, LifeChurch purchased property located in the Town of Colonie (the Property ), to construct a new church facility with appurtenant religious education and training rooms and associated parking (the Project ). The Project would contain a 36,601 square foot facility for worship services, 8 religious education and training rooms, and 457 parking spaces, which would allow LifeChurch to accommodate its growing membership. 24. LifeChurch s Project, and its eventual operation of religious facilities upon the Property, will substantially affect interstate commerce. 25. In order to develop the Project, LifeChurch commenced the site plan review and subdivision process. Pursuant to the Town s Zoning Code, the first step in the site plan review PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 6

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 7 of 30 and subdivision process is the submission of a Zoning Verification request to the Town s Building Department. The purpose of the Zoning Verification is for the Town s Building Inspector to determine if a proposed project complies with applicable zoning and to determine what type of approvals are required. 26. On March 21, 2013, LifeChurch submitted a Zoning Verification for its Project to the Town s Building Department. 27. Upon review of the application, the Town s Building Inspector informed LifeChurch s project engineer, Sipperly and Associates (Brian Sipperly), that he had a concern regarding access to the Property. Access to the Property on the submitted plans showed access by utilizing an existing easement along a private road known as Moffat Lane. Moffat Lane is physically located upon the parcel adjacent to LifeChurch which is owned by the United States Postal Service. Moffat Lane is a paved private road utilized by the United States Postal Service for ingress/egress to its facility located on the United States Postal Service s property. The Property is adjacent to Moffat Lane and is benefited by a filed and recorded access easement over Moffat Lane. 28. The Town s Building Inspector informed Mr. Sipperly that the Town would accept Moffat Lane as LifeChurch s means of access provided that its plans were revised to show a cul-de-sac being constructed at the end of Moffat Lane. 29. Upon submission of plans incorporating the revisions demanded by the Town showing Moffat Lane as the means of access with a terminal cul-de-sac to be constructed by LifeChurch, the Zoning Verification was approved for the subdivision portion of the application. However, the Zoning Verification for the site plan was denied because LifeChurch s proposed building exceeded the allowable square footage in the Office-Residential District, which is the PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 7

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 8 of 30 zoning district where the Property is located. As a result, application for an area variance was required. 30. On April 8, 2013, LifeChurch filed an application for an area variance for allowable building square footage with the Town s Zoning Board of Appeals ( ZBA ). The matter was scheduled to be on the ZBA s agenda for its regularly scheduled June 6, 2013 meeting. Approximately one week prior to the meeting, the Town informed Mr. Sipperly that the matter was being removed from the June 6, 2013 agenda based upon a paperwork mix-up in the Town Attorney s office pertaining to the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The matter was rescheduled for the August 15, 2013 ZBA meeting. 31. On June 12, 2013, less than one week after the LifeChurch matter was removed from the ZBA agenda, one or more Town Officials informed Mr. Sipperly that the Town would not accept the plans showing access to the Property by means of the access easement across Moffat Lane. The Town took the position that the Property was landlocked and, in order to utilize the easement across Moffat Lane, application must be made for an Open Development Area ( ODA ) approval pursuant to NYS Town Law 280-a. 32. In response, on August 15, 2013, LifeChurch submitted a request for an ODA. On August 8, 2013, LifeChurch also filed a complete application for site plan and subdivision approval with the Town. 33. Shortly after this submittal, the Town Attorney questioned whether an ODA would be required because the Property had frontage on a public street, Watervliet-Shaker Road. The matter was then placed upon the September 10, 2013 Planning Board agenda for sketch review. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 8

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 9 of 30 34. Soon thereafter, the Town Attorney informed LifeChurch that the Town Planning Board would not consider an ODA for the Property. On October 13, 2013, a meeting was held with NYS DOT to discuss access from the parcel directly to Watervliet-Shaker Road. A revised site plan was submitted showing access directly from Watervliet-Shaker Road. The request for a two lot subdivision was withdrawn. 35. At the ZBA s December 19, 2013 meeting, the ZBA granted the area variance to allow for a 36,601 square foot building. Mr. Sipperly immediately requested that the site plan application be placed upon the Town Planning Board s January 21, 2014 agenda. However, on January 3, 2014, Mr. Sipperly was informed that the resubmitted site plan application, previously filed back on November 6, 2013, was incomplete. The Town s Planning staff also requested a meeting to discuss the proposed access via Watervliet-Shaker Road. 36. At a meeting held on January 8, 2014, Town Planning staff informed LifeChurch that they preferred access from Moffat Lane rather than access from Watervliet-Shaker Road. LifeChurch requested that the matter be placed upon the January 21, 2014 Planning Board agenda and that it would submit a revised plan showing Moffat Lane access for discussion at that meeting. On January 13, 2014, Mr. Sipperly submitted revised plans showing Moffat Lane as the access point. 37. On January 17, 2014, in response to LifeChurch s email to the Town confirming that the Project was on the January 21, 2014 Planning Board agenda, the Town s Planning Director, Joseph LaCivita, informed LifeChurch that the Town Attorney pulled the matter from the agenda. In response, LifeChurch contacted the Town Attorney who stated that he had questions as to whether the proposed use constituted a church because, to him, it appeared to be a PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 9

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 10 of 30 commercial television broadcast studio. LifeChurch provided documentation to the Town Attorney proving that the proposed use was a place of worship. 38. On March 10, 2014, upon completion of additional traffic analysis, an updated complete application package was submitted to the Town. Mr. Sipperly requested the matter be placed on the next Town Planning Board agenda. However, Mr. Sipperly was informed that the application was rejected because the title block on the plan merely stated a wrong location for the Project. 39. On March 31, 2014, Mr. Sipperly received correspondence from the Town Planner, Mike Lyons, that the application was complete and being placed upon the Town Planning Board s meeting agenda for May 6, 2014. 40. On May 1, 2014, Mr. Sipperly was informed that the matter was being rescheduled to the May 20, 2014 agenda because the Town had insufficient time to review recently submitted traffic data. However, on May 15, 2014, LifeChurch was again informed that the matter was being pulled from the May 20th agenda and not being rescheduled based upon Town discussions with DOT personnel who preferred access from Moffat Lane instead of the proposed new curb cut. At approximately this same time, the Town Designated Engineer issued a memo stating their recommendation that the Project be accessed via Moffat Lane. As a result, LifeChurch requested an immediate meeting with all parties to resolve the conflicting messages being received from the Town s officials. 41. On May 22, 2014, LifeChurch attended a meeting along with the Project engineers Lynn and Brian Sipperly. In attendance was the Assistant Town Attorney, the Planning Director, and Mike Lyons, the Town Planner. At this meeting, Mr. Lyons and the Assistant Town Attorney advised LifeChurch to submit another request for an ODA to utilize Moffat PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 10

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 11 of 30 Lane. One or more Town Officials agreed to make the request for the ODA. The Town had in effect backtracked back to where the Project had been in August 2013 wherein they made the same recommendation (which was ignored by the Town). LifeChurch requested that, in the event that the ODA was again refused, then the matter would be placed upon the next available Town Planning Board agenda for review showing direct access to the public street. Town Officials present at the meeting agreed to this alternative course of action in the event the ODA was again refused. 42. On June 19, 2014, the Assistant Town Attorney informed the project engineers by email that the Town Planning Board would not hear the ODA request. As a result, LifeChurch sought clarification as to the reason and received no response. LifeChurch informed the Town s Planning Director that it was being forced to resort to litigation to compel the Town to place the matter on an agenda to be heard. LifeChurch sent a chronology of the above referenced events to the Planning Director to demonstrate how egregiously it had been treated. On July 23, 2014, LifeChurch contacted the Town s Planning Department and was informed that the matter was being placed on the August 12, 2014 Town Planning Board agenda. 43. On August 12, 2014, LifeChurch was before the Town s Planning Board for a sketch review for the second time, the first of which took place nearly one year before. At this meeting, LifeChurch s engineers demonstrated that LifeChurch s proposed driveway location fully complied with New York State Department of Transportation regulations and standards pertaining to separation distances between driveways and intersections. At this meeting, the Town s Planning Board raised three items for the first time in again delaying the process in denying the sketch plan submitted on behalf of LifeChurch. Each of these three new items could have and should have been raised well before now, if they should have been raised at all. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 11

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 12 of 30 44. The Town then advised LifeChurch that it would be on the Town Planning Board s agenda on September 23, 2014. However, on September 17, 2014, the Planning Director advised LifeChurch that its matter could be placed on the Town Planning Board s October 7, 2014 agenda but not the September 23, 2014. In response, on September 22, 2014, LifeChurch sent a demand letter to the Town advising the Town and Town Officials that their continual, unjustifiable delays were violating LifeChurch s constitutional rights and substantially burdening its religious exercise. Additionally, LifeChurch advised the Town that if it was not placed on the October 7, 2014 agenda and if all of its requests were not approved at that time, then it would consider any further efforts as futile and it would proceed accordingly. Moreover, LifeChurch stated that any further delays or requests for additional information would further illustrate that the Town was merely seeking to delay LifeChurch s approvals indefinitely and that LifeChurch would treat such action as a denial of its requests. 45. Even after LifeChurch provided the Town with notice of its unconstitutional deprivations and violations of RLUIPA, the Town did not place LifeChurch on the Town Planning Board s agenda for October 7, 2014. 46. Subsequent to the Town s receipt of the letter setting forth the Town s and Town Officials RLUIPA violations, LifeChurch s application was placed upon the Planning Board s October 21, 2014 agenda for continued sketch review. At this meeting, LifeChurch s attorneys and engineers presented its application. Numerous attendees of LifeChurch also addressed the Planning Board explaining the role of LifeChurch in their lives as well as its role in the local community. 47. As a result of the testimony provided to the Planning Board at this meeting, Planning Board members requested that Town staff and the Town s outside engineer meet with PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 12

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 13 of 30 LifeChurch s representatives so that any outstanding issues could be addressed and the matter brought back to the Planning Board for concept acceptance of the site plan. 48. On October 23, 2014, a meeting was held between LifeChurch s representatives and the Planning Director along with representatives from the Town s outside engineering firm. LifeChurch was informed by the Town s outside engineers that the purpose of the meeting was to gather information because the outside engineers were meeting that evening with members of the Town Planning Board. 49. LifeChurch received no word on the discussion held or outcome of the meeting held with the elected officials. 50. When LifeChurch s representatives inquired as to the status of being placed upon the Planning Board s agenda, they were informed that the Town s outside engineers had not been working on the Project because the escrow account that LifeChurch had provided to the Town to pay for the costs of the outside engineer needed to be replenished. LifeChurch immediately rectified this situation but was told by the Town that it was too late to be placed upon the December 2, 2014 Planning Board agenda. LifeChurch was informed by the Town that it could possibly be on the December 16, 2014 meeting agenda provided that the Planning Board s comments had been addressed. 51. LifeChurch s attorneys then contacted the Town s engineer and inquired if anything further was required from LifeChurch in order for the outside engineer to complete their review in time for the December 16, 2014 agenda. They were informed that only an environmental assessment form needed to be submitted, however, the requested document had already been provided to the Town by LifeChurch a week before the request from the Town s outside engineer. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 13

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 14 of 30 52. On November 20, 2014, LifeChurch s attorneys received a memo from the Town s outside engineer stating that approval of the project will hinge on ODA approval by the Town Planning Board; a concept recommended and supported by the outside engineers. This is the same type of approval that LifeChurch had twice sought from the Town Planning Board to no avail. 53. When seeking clarification on the memo, the Town s outside engineer offered to meet to explain their position. This meeting occurred on November 25, 2014. 54. At this meeting, LifeChurch was given a list of approval conditions that the outside engineer stated he was going to recommend to the Town be conditions of any ODA approval. These conditions attempted to regulate critical aspects of LifeChurch s worship services and religious activities, including the number of worship services and the time for those worship services. A true and correct copy of the memo setting forth the conditions is attached hereto as Exhibit A. LifeChurch informed the outside engineer that a number of the conditions appeared to be unacceptable and would likely be rejected by LifeChurch leadership. 55. When Town Officials were informed that the proposed conditions were not acceptable to LifeChurch, LifeChurch was told that it would not be placed upon the December 16, 2014 agenda without accepting the conditions set out by the Town's outside engineer. See Exhibit B. On December 15, 2014, LifeChurch confirmed from the Town s website that LifeChurch s application was not on the Town Planning Board s December 16, 2014 meeting agenda. On December 16, 2014, one or more of LifeChurch s attorneys or representatives attended the Town Planning Board meeting and LifeChurch s zoning request was not on the agenda. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 14

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 15 of 30 56. As a result of the Town s continual delay tactics, LifeChurch had no other option but to seek the Court s intervention. 57. LifeChurch has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress these violations of its constitutional rights, and this suit for injunction, declaratory judgment and damages is its only means of securing complete and adequate relief. No other remedy would offer LifeChurch substantial and complete protection from the continuation of the Town s and Town Officials unlawful and unconstitutional acts, policies, and practices. By their longstanding hostility and bias against LifeChurch and its pending application, the Town and Town Officials have demonstrated that, without the imposition of preliminary injunctive relief, the continuation of proceedings before the Town Planning Board will be interminable and futile. 58. LifeChurch has sustained an immediate, irreparable injury because of the Town s and Town Officials delays and unlawful burden they have placed on LifeChurch s exercise of religion. The Town s and Town Officials continual delay, hostility, and obstruction has caused LifeChurch to incur damages including unnecessary engineering and attorney s fees and expenses caused by the Town and Town Officials. LifeChurch will also continue to incur significant expenses for repairs and maintenance to its current facility that would not be necessary if it was allowed to timely begin the Project. As such, in addition to the substantial burden being placed on LifeChurch s religious exercise, it has and will continue to incur damages as the result of the Town s and Town Officials actions. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 15

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 16 of 30 V. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I Violation of RLUIPA Substantial Burden (42. U.S.C. 2000cc(a)) 59. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 58. 60. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to the free exercise of religion, as secured by RLUIPA, by imposing and implementing land use regulations that place a substantial burden on LifeChurch s religious exercise without a compelling governmental interest. This substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, interstate commerce. COUNT II Violation of RLUIPA Nondiscrimination (42. U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(2)) 61. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 60. 62. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to the free exercise of religion, as secured by RLUIPA, by imposing and implementing land use regulations that discriminate against LifeChurch on the basis of religion or religious denomination. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 16

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 17 of 30 COUNT III Violation of RLUIPA Equal Terms (42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(1)) 63. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 62. 64. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to the free exercise of religion, as secured by RLUIPA, by imposing and implementing land use regulations that treat a religious assembly and institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly and institution. COUNT IV Violation of RLUIPA Unreasonable Limitation (42 U.S.C. 2000cc(b)(3)(b)) 65. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 64. 66. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to the free exercise of religion, as secured by RLUIPA, by imposing and implementing land use regulations that unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction. COUNT V Violation of the United States Constitution Free Exercise of Religion: First and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. 1983) 67. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 66. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 17

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 18 of 30 68. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its free exercise of religion, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by substantially burdening LifeChurch s religious exercise without a compelling governmental interest, by discriminating against LifeChurch, and by intentionally and unreasonably inhibiting its right to construct a place of worship on its Property. COUNT VI Violation of the United States Constitution Freedom of Association: First and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. 1983) 69. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 68. 70. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to freely associate for the purposes of religious exercise and for intimate association as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by prohibiting LifeChurch from associating on its Property. COUNT VII Violation of the United States Constitution Freedom of Speech: First and Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. 1983) 71. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 70. 72. By intent and design, churches are expressive in nature. Among other things, they are architectural statements to the surrounding community of the church s belief in God and in PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 18

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 19 of 30 the necessity of looking to God for inspiration, guidance and salvation. The interior of a church is used for the expression of religious messages to church members, guests and casual visitors alike. 73. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right, secured by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, to express itself on matters of religion by, inter alia, discriminating against LifeChurch based on the religious nature of its expression, by unreasonably inhibiting its right to freely express its faith to its worshipers and the community, and by applying various land use regulations so as to delay, obstruct and unreasonably deny LifeChurch the ability to use its Property for expressive purposes. COUNT VIII Violation of the United States Constitution Freedom of Assembly: First and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. 1983) 74. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 73. 75. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to free assembly for the purpose of worship, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by prohibiting LifeChurch from peaceably worshiping in a location where similar groups would be (and are) permitted to peaceably assemble. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 19

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 20 of 30 COUNT IX Violation of the United States Constitution Equal Protection: Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. 1983) 76. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 74. 77. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to equal protection of the laws, as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by discriminating against LifeChurch and treating it differently from other similarly situated individuals or entities without a rational basis for the distinction. COUNT X Violation of the United States Constitution Due Process: Fourteenth Amendment (42 U.S.C. 1983) 78. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 77. 79. LifeChurch has the right, secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to a fair decision-making process and an impartial decision-maker before being deprived of the right to use its property for religious purposes. Specifically, LifeChurch has a procedural due process right to a land use review process that is non-discriminatory, unbiased, not unduly burdensome, and proceeds in a reasonably expeditious and fair fashion. 80. By intentionally manipulating the land use approval process to create patently unreasonable delays, and by the other conduct alleged above, the Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to procedural due process. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 20

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 21 of 30 81. Additionally, LifeChurch has a substantive due process right, secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, not to be deprived of the use of its property except by laws, regulations, or government actions that are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. LifeChurch also has a substantive due process right not to be subjected to arbitrary and capricious zoning decisions. 82. By conducting the land use review process in a discriminatory, unauthorized and illegal manner, and by the other conduct alleged above, including conditioning LifeChurch s inclusion on the Town Planning Board s agenda on its acceptance of arbitrary and capricious conditions that regulate and restrict critical aspects of LifeChurch s worship services and religious activities, including the number of worship services and the time for those worship services, the Town and Town Officials have violated LifeChurch s substantive due process rights. COUNT XI Violation of New York State Constitution Free Exercise of Religion: Article I, Section 3 83. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 82. 84. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of the right to free exercise of religion as secured by Article I, Section 3 of the New York State Constitution, by inter alia, discriminating against LifeChurch on the basis of religion by intentionally and unreasonably inhibiting its right to construct a place of worship on its Property. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 21

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 22 of 30 COUNT XII Violation of New York State Constitution Freedom of Speech: Article I, Section 8 85. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 84. 86. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right, secured by Article I, Section 8 of the New York State Constitution, to express itself on matter of religion by, inter alia, discriminating against LifeChurch based on the religious nature of its expression, by unreasonably inhibiting its right to freely express its faith and to its worshipers and the community, and by applying various land use regulations so as to delay, obstruct and unreasonably deny LifeChurch the ability to use its Property for expressive purposes. COUNT XIII Violation of the New York State Constitution Freedom of Assembly: Article I, Section 9 87. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 86. 88. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to free assembly for the purpose of worship, as secured by Article I, Section 9 of the New York State Constitution, by prohibiting LifeChurch from peaceably worshiping in a location where similar groups would be (and are) permitted to peaceably assemble. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 22

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 23 of 30 COUNT XIV Violation of the New York State Constitution Equal Protection: Article I, Section 11 89. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 88. 90. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to equal protection of laws, as secured by Article I, Section 11 of the New York State Constitution, by purposefully and systematically discriminating against LifeChurch on the basis of religion in the Town s and Town Officials application of various land use regulations, which discrimination has resulted in the abridgement of LifeChurch s rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and due process. 91. The Town and Town Officials have subjected LifeChurch to a degree and duration of scrutiny which far exceeds that to which they have subjected similarly situated institutions. By imposing, implementing, and manipulating land use regulations in the manner described above, and by the conduct described above, the Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of its right to equal protection of laws through their irrational and wholly arbitrary conduct. COUNT XV Violation of the New York State Constitution Due Process: Article I, Section 6 92. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 91. 93. LifeChurch, as a religious institution, is entitled under law to the benefit of a presumption that its religious use is beneficial to the community at large and that any approvals, permits and/or variances it seeks in connection with its development of its Property will be PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 23

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 24 of 30 granted, subject only to reasonably conditions imposed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. 94. LifeChurch is further entitled to a land use review process that is nondiscriminatory, is unbiased, is not unduly burdensome, and proceeds in a reasonably expeditious and fair fashion. 95. The Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of due process of law, as secured by Article I, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution, by intentionally delaying and manipulating the land use approval process to deny LifeChurch the use of its Property, and by conducting the land use approval process in an arbitrary, biased, unauthorized, and illegal manner which is discriminatory, unduly burdensome, and anything but expeditious and fair. 96. Furthermore, the Town and Town Officials have deprived and continue to deprive LifeChurch of due process of law, as secured by Article I, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution, by intentionally delaying and denying to LifeChurch a fundamental liberty interest by conducting the land use approval process in an arbitrary, unauthorized and illegal manner which is discriminatory, unduly burdensome, and anything but expeditious and fair. COUNT XVI Petition for Writ of Mandamus 97. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 96. 98. LifeChurch has been adversely affected by the Town s and Town Officials unreasonable delays. The Town and Town Officials have failed to perform duties enjoined upon them by law. The Town and Town Officials, rather, seek to impose conditions on LifeChurch s PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 24

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 25 of 30 zoning request that regulate critical aspects of LifeChurch s worship services and religious activities, including the number of worship services and the time for those worship services. See Exhibit A. The Town has communicated that those conditions, as more fully set forth in Exhibit A, must be satisfied before the Town will consider LifeChurch s site plan application. 99. LifeChurch has satisfied all of the Town s and Town Officials reasonable requests. The conditions set forth in Exhibit A, however, are arbitrary and capricious. 100. There is no discretion available to the Town and Town Officials not to place and keep LifeChurch on the Planning Board s agenda, and all that is left for the Town and Town Officials to perform is a ministerial act. The Town and Town Officials have refused to perform this ministerial act. In the alternative, in the event that the Town and Town Officials have discretion to place LifeChurch on the Planning Board s agenda, their failure to place and keep LifeChurch on the Planning Board s agenda is an arbitrary abuse of their power. 101. LifeChurch requests that the Town s conditions set forth in Exhibit A be annulled and LifeChurch s site plan application be approved. In the alternative, LifeChurch requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Town and Town Officials to place and keep LifeChurch s site plan application on the Planning Board s agenda and the Court further order the Town Planning Board vote as to whether LifeChurch s site plan application be approved or denied. COUNT XVII Declaratory Relief 102. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 101. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 25

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 26 of 30 103. For more than twenty (20) months, the Town and Town Officials have unlawfully delayed and frustrated LifeChurch s efforts to gain the requisite approvals to develop its Property and begin its Project. 104. An actual controversy exists between the parties involving substantial constitutional and statutory issues, in that the Town and Town Officials actions, both on their face and as applied, violate LifeChurch s rights under, inter alia, RLUIPA, the United States Constitution, and the Constitution of the State of New York. 105. The foregoing dispute presents a real controversy which is now ripe for adjudication. Accordingly, LifeChurch seeks a declaratory judgment against the Town and Town Officials as follows: (a) A declaration that the Town s and Town Officials actions related to LifeChurch violate RLUIPA; violate LifeChurch s freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, equal protection and due process rights under the United States Constitution; and violate LifeChurch s freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, equal protection and due process rights under the New York State Constitution. (b) A declaration that the Town s and Town Officials actions related to LifeChurch have unjustifiably substantially burdened LifeChurch s Christian practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1). (c) A declaration that the Town s arbitrary and capricious conditions set forth in Exhibit A shall by annulled and LifeChurch s site plan application be approved. 106. No prior application for the relief being sought herein has been made to this Court or to any other court. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 26

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 27 of 30 COUNT XVIII Preliminary and Permanent Injunction 107. LifeChurch incorporates herein by reference as if fully set forth below the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 108. 108. The Town and Town Officials have deprived LifeChurch of the constitutional and statutory rights mentioned above by intentionally delaying, manipulating and thwarting the municipal approval process and by such other actions and inactions as alleged above. 109. LifeChurch has been irreparably injured as a result of the deprivation of its constitutional rights. 110. By reason of the foregoing, LifeChurch is entitled to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as set forth in its request for relief herein. VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, LifeChurch requests that this Court grant the following relief: 1. A declaration that the Town s and Town Officials actions related to LifeChurch violate RLUIPA; violate LifeChurch s freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, equal protection and due process rights under the United States Constitution; and violate LifeChurch s freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, equal protection and due process rights under the New York Constitution. 2. A declaration that the Town s and Town Officials actions related to LifeChurch have unjustifiably substantially burdened LifeChurch s Christian practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1). PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 27

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 28 of 30 3. A declaration that the Town s arbitrary and capricious conditions set forth in Exhibit A shall by annulled and LifeChurch s site plan application be approved. 4. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining and restraining the Town and Town Officials and ordering prohibitory and mandatory relief as follows: (a) enjoining the Town and Town Officials from applying their laws in a manner that substantially burden LifeChurch s religious exercise; (b) enjoining the Town and Town Officials from imposing or implementing State and local land use regulations in a manner which treats LifeChurch on less than equal terms with other similarly situated assembles, institutions, or entities; (c) enjoining the Town and Town Officials from applying State and local land use laws in a manner that prevent LifeChurch from associating for purposes of expressive religious activity; (d) enjoining the Town and Town Officials from applying State and local land use laws in a discriminatory manner, and otherwise enjoin the Town and Town Officials from preventing LifeChurch s exercise of its constitutional rights; (e) compelling and directing the Town s Planning Board to issue all necessary approvals and permits to allow LifeChurch to develop the Project; (f) prohibiting the Town and Town Officials from impeding or interfering in any way with LifeChurch s actual development and construction of the Project; and (g) annulling the conditions set forth in Exhibit A that the Town seeks to impose on LifeChurch, or in the alternative, issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Town and Town Officials to place and keep LifeChurch s site plan application on the Planning Board s agenda and to vote on LifeChurch s site plan application. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 28

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 29 of 30 5. Awarding compensatory damages in favor of LifeChurch and against the Town and Town Officials in such amount as the Court deems just and proper to compensate LifeChurch for the deprivation of its constitutional and statutory rights, and to compensate LifeChurch for its expenditures and fees caused by the Town s and Town Officials intentional and wrongful course of conduct which has delayed, obstructed and unreasonably denied LifeChurch the ability to develop its Property in an efficient and expeditious manner. 6. Awarding LifeChurch the recovery its reasonable and necessary attorney s fees, expert fees, costs, and expenses from the Town and Town Officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. 7. Awarding LifeChurch the recovery of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum applicable legal rates from the Town and Town Officials. 8. Awarding LifeChurch the recovery of such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, to which it may show itself to be justly entitled. VII. DEMAND FOR JURY Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, LifeChurch hereby demands a trial by jury of this action of all issues that may be tried by a jury. LifeChurch respectfully submitted this 17th day of December, 2014. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 29

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 30 of 30 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christopher A. Priore CHRISTOPHER A. PRIORE State Bar No. 5054960 DONALD ZEE, P.C. 1 Winners Cir Ste 140 Albany, NY 12205 Phone: (518) 489-9423 Fax: (518) 489-9428 Email: donaldzeepc@msn.com MICHAEL L. KNAPEK (pending pro hac vice) Texas State Bar No. 11579500 mknapek@jw.com STEVEN W. DIMITT (pending pro hac vice) Texas State Bar No. 24068883 sdimitt@jw.com JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 6000 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 953-6000 (telephone) (214) 661-6882 (facsimile) 11847771v.1 141947/00002 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LIFE COVENANT CHURCH, INC. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 30

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1-1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 3 December 8, 2014 Mr. Joseph LaCivita, Director Town of Colonie Planning & Economic Development Department Public Operations Center 347 Old Niskayuna Road Latham, NY 12110-2289 Re: Life Covenant Church 685 Watervliet Shaker Road Concept Site Plan Review CHA File: 19318.1059 Dear Mr. LaCivita: On behalf of the Town of Colonie Planning Board, CHA has continued its review of the above application. On December 4, 2014 we received communication via e-mail from the applicant's counsel together with an updated Conceptual Site Plan dated November 5, 2014. In addition, we are in receipt of a Full Environmental Assessment Form date stamped by the Town of Colonie on October 28, 2014. We offer the following comments: In general many of the comments we raised in our May 15, 2014 and October 3, 2014 concept review letters remain. These comments generally include the following areas of concern: Access to the site and its associated impacts Traffic generation from the proposed project and its associated impacts The ability to have traffic control personnel assigned the facility to direct traffic to and from the facility Visibility of the project from the Northway corridor 2. The concept site plan shows a new primary access drive from Watervliet Shaker Road approximately ninety feet west of Moffat Lane, and a second access drive that extends off the end of Moffat Lane. We assume this second access is in response to previous concerns raised relative to lack of a second means of access that could be used in the event of blocked primary access to or from the site. As previously stated, we continue to recommend the use of Moffat Lane for primary access. We believe the development of a primary access drive in the location shown may result in significant environmental impacts including traffic delays and safety related impacts. In addition, the development of a new access drive separate from Moffat Lane has not been supported by NYSDOT or the Colonie Planning Department. The original Project Narrative dated June 3, 2013 stated "The subject property has a deeded right-of-way to use Moffatt Lane for ingress and egress". This is also supported in the transcript of the Sketch Plan Review Satis;ying Our ClieTts wan I III Winners Circle, P.O. Box 5269, Albany, NY 12205-0269 Dedicated People Committed to Total Quality" I 1 518.453.4500 r 518.458.1735 www.chacompanies.com

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1-1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Joseph LaCivita, Director Page 2 December 8, 2014 meeting held September 10, 2013 where it was stated by Mr. Sipperly "The deed to this particular property does have egress/ingress and utility right of way and easement across that Moffat Lane to access their property". We would be supportive of the access arrangement if the plan were to be revised to show primary access from Moffat Lane, as we do not believe there would be as significant environmental impacts, subject to certain conditions elaborated upon below. 4. Regarding the secondary access from Moffat Lane, we do not support that approach for emergency access. If Moffat Lane is used for primary access, in the event the Moffatt Lane/Watervliet Shaker Road access is ever blocked and a second means of access to or from the site is required for emergency access purposes, we access to or from the site. believe it is likely the easternmost curb cut for the Post Office could be used to gain We support such an arrangement and do not believe it needs to be memorialized by easement or access right arrangement. Use of Moffat Lane as the primary access point would require ODA approval by the Colonie Town Board, which we also support, subject to certain conditions. Because the traffic analysis provided thus far shows the potential for significant traffic impacts under certain scenarios, and because of the nature of the use and its associated high volume peak traffic periods, we recommend the following be conditions of concept acceptance by the Planning Board or approval of the ODA by the Town Board: 1) Primary access shall only be through the use of Moffatt Lane, and development of no new curb cuts shall be permitted between Moffatt Lane and the Exit 5 Interchange ramp. 2) Any additional building development on the site shall be subject to re-review of both the ODA by the Town Board and Site Plan by the Planning Board. This should not be construed as to limit reasonable expansion of the proposed house of worship, but to allow a thorough review if additional uses or expansions are planned for the site. 3) A traffic control officer shall not be used on Watervliet Shaker Road without Town Board approval. The traffic analysis demonstrates certain traffic related and safety impacts may be caused by use of a traffic control officer at any primary access point location, so we currently don't recommend their use until the site is placed into service and additional study is performed. 4) Service times shall be a minimum of 2 hours apart from start to start. Typical service times were currently described as being 90 minutes apart from start to start, with service times approximately 60 minutes in length. Due to the potential traffic impacts associated with incoming and exiting traffic at the same time, we recommend service times be separated by approximately one hour to reduce the potential traffic related impacts of having service times too close together. 5) Sunday service times shall be limited to up to three services without additional Planning Board review. The current application and traffic analysis is based on two Sunday service times, and having more than three services may cause traffic impacts not currently evaluated. 6) Weekday service times shall start no earlier than 6:30 PM. The current application materials indicate a typical Youth Service occurring Wednesday evenings beginning at 6:30 PM. This will result in traffic just past PM peak traffic periods, and an earlier service start on weekdays may cause significant traffic related impacts not currently evaluated.

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1-1 Filed 12/17/14 Page 3 of 3 Mr. Joseph LaCivita, Director Page 3 December 8, 2014 6. Regarding visibility of the site from the Northway, the plan does not indicate any landscape buffering which we believe is appropriate given the high visibility of the site from the Northway corridor and significant change in context of the site. The plan should be revised accordingly. Sincerely, Joseph S. Grasso, R.L.A. Vice President, Project Manager cc: Planning Board, Kathleen Marinelli, Michael Lyons, Rebekah Kennedy, John Frazer, Dan Seaver, Chretein Voerg, John Cunningham, Steve Brustle, John Dzialo, Lynn Sipperly (via email) 19318 corres\ 1059-new life covenant church 193 18_1059_03 doc

OUt1ook.Q44141PWAVW35-Wrkg1(-RFT Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1399. gc 1 of 3 Print Close RE: LifeChurch From: LaCivita, Joseph (LaCivitaJ@colonie.org) Sent: Fri 12/05/14 11:24 AM To: Cc: 'Donald Zee' (donaldzeepc@msn.com); Brian Sipperly (brian@lsipperly.com) Lyons, Michael (LyonsM@colonie.org); Joe Grasso (CHA) (jgrasso@cha-11p.com); Magguilli, Michael C (MagguilliM@colonie.org) Andy Based on our conversation yesterday afternoon, I am unable to place Life Church from the December 16th Planning Board Agenda at this time due to the unwillingness of your client to address the planning recommendations for their project. As mentioned by you, Life Church is try to seek an open ended Concept Approval that will allow them to site the road access where they would prefer and not base a submission where a potential action by the Town Board is required. As you stated, Life Church does not have the confidence in the Town Board that an Open Development Area would be granted so they are seeking direct access to the Watervliet Shaker Road and they additionally do not accept any of the Town Designated Engineers recommendations at this time. With these developments, I feel that we are at an impasse and my ability to place you on the upcoming December 16th Planning Board Agenda has been compromised. Access to the site is an important component to the sites development. I look forward to working thru these important details in order to move forward with the project. Joe https://snt151.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvc/printmessages?mkt=e... 12/15/2014

Outlook.Qm MURROK-RFT Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/14 Page?3, nf age 2 of 3 From: Lyons, Michael Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 4:43 PM To: LaCivita, Joseph; Joe Grasso (CHA) Subject: FW: LifeChurch Joe/Joe: I just spoke to Brian Sipperly and told him this approach is unacceptable and that in no way would the Planning Board grant concept acceptance to any plan other than one that shows shared access. Wouldn't you agree? I have a call into Andy Brick to discuss. Mike From: Donald Zee fmailto:donaldzeepc(amsn.coml Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:51 PM To: LaCivita, Joseph; jcwasso@chacompanies.com; brian(alsipperly.com; Lyons, Michael Subject: LifeChurch Joe/Joe/Mike Attached is Lifechurch's revised plan based upon comments received at the last Planning Board meeting. The plan has been revised to show an emergency access from Moffat Rd., a reconfigured parking lot to allow for snow storage areas, and relocation of the driveway to provide room for the emergency access way and provide separation from the Moffat Lane intersection with Watervliet- Shaker Rd. This plan still shows a direct access driveway to Watervliet-Shaker Rd. As you know, not only was a direct access driveway approved as part of the Zoning Verification, we were told by the Building Department that we had to show access in this manner. This is the plan upon which our client would like a concept acceptance vote at the December16, 2014 Planning Board meeting. I would state again that our client would have no objection to utilizing Moffat Lane as a single access point in the event that an Open Development Area permit is granted by the Town Board. Our client would have no objection to concept approval containing a condition that states: "In the event that the Town Board grants an Open Development Area permit, the access point from Watervliet-Shaker Rd would be abandoned and the sole access point would be from Moffat Lane." https://snt151.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvc/printmessages?mkt=e... 12/15/2014

Out1ook.Qmai VIfilvIsgtragROK-RFT Document 1-2 Filed 12/17/14 Page pe 3 of 3 This course of action protects our client's right to develop its property while at the same time provides a mechanism by which Moffat Lane could still become the access point which seems to be the Town's preferred means of access. Andy Brick https://snt151.mail.live.com/ol/mail.mvc/printmessages?mkt e... 12/15/2014

Case 1:14-cv-01530-LEK-RFT Document 1-3 Filed 12/17/14 Page 1 of 1 0206-3140310 $400.00 LEK RFT Case No. 1:14-CV-1530