IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA THAI MEDITATION ASSOCIATION OF ALABAMA, INC., An Alabama Domestic Not- For-Profit Corporation, SIVAPORN NIMITYONGSKUL, VARIN Civil No. 1:16-ev-00395 (TM) (MU) NIMITYONGSKUL, SERENA NIMITYONGSKUL, and PRASIT NIMITYONGSKUL, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF MOBILE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF MOBILE CITY COUNCIL and the CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, Defendants. PLAINTIFF SIVAPORN NIMITYONGSKUL’S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SUBMIT SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND REQUEST THAT THE COURT DELAY ENTRY OF IT’S FINAL JUDGMENT Plaintiff moves the Court for permission to submit suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for inclusion in the Court’s final judgment and requests that the Court delay entry of its final judgment for a period of sixty (60) days beyond the date the Court finds its judgment is in acceptable form for filing and as grounds assigns: That 1, Sivaporn Nimityoungskul, began my efforts to establish a Buddhist meditation center on property that I was going to purchase on Eloong Drive in the Spring of 2015. My realtor, Bill Youngblood and I attended a pre-development meeting with the City's zoning officials and department heads to discuss what I must do to meet the City’s requirements for the establishment of the meditation center. I was advised by Planner Bert Hoffman that the zoning for my proposed meditation center was ok, but that I would need to have planning approval. Mr. Youngblood and I then met with City department heads to determine what the requirements would be for planning approval. We submitted plans that met the concerns that the City had with regard to planning. I then closed on the purchase of the property and filed an application for planning approval. At the first meeting of the Planning Commission to consider my applicationfor planning approval, the Planning Commission’s attomey advised me and Mr. Youngblood that We would have to prove that we were a church in order to construct a meditation center on my Property. I now understand Mr. Hoffiman’s administrative decision that a meditation center was an allowed use in an R-1 single family residential district was final, unless appealed by the City or an aggrieved neighbor and that no one had appealed within the time allowed for such appeals to the City’s Board of Adjustment. Mr. Youngblood and I, nevertheless, complied with the Planning Commission’s attorney's request. We provided a copy of the IRS” approval of our operation as a non-profit corporation organized to promote the understanding of Buddhism and statements and materials gathered from Buddhist monks and a letter from a professor at South Alabama indicating that meditation is essential and one of the main tenants of the Buddhist religion. This information was provided to the Planning Commission and its” attomey, prior to the second Planning Commission meeting on December 3". At that hearing, the Planning Commission's attomey announced that our evidence was inadequate to prove Buddhism is a religion. He then advised that I would have to go to the Board of Adjustment to get a use variance, because the use was not allowed, as I had been told by Mr. Hoffman, I now understand that he had no authority to reverse Mr. Hoffman's decision and that he could have, had he ‘wanted to, asked the Board of Adjustment to help him understand whether or not the use that I proposed was indeed one allowed on my property. My attorneys have advised that to obtain a use variance I would need to prove my house could not be used because of a hardship caused by my land. Of course, this would have been impossible. Finally, toward the end of the hearing, the Planning Commission's attomey apparently changed his mind and decided that the Planning Commission could hear my application as if it were one of several uses that are allowed in my zoning district, but even if approved, | would still have had to get a use variance. | understand that planning approval is site plan specific and we did not discuss other uses that may have been allowed. What I could not understand was the refusal of the Planning Commission to tell me what I could do to get planning approval. Mr. Dagley, my engineer for the project, had asked the Planning Commission. He said we have either done or will do all that the Staff has asked. Is there any condition that the Planning Commission wants to add? The Planning Commission did not offer any conditions as it had in cases like St. Ignatius School on Springhill Avenue and the Mosque School addition on West Street. I understand the Mosque Schoo! was tumed down by the Planning Commission twice but later approved by the Planning Commission when its attomey told them that to continue with objections based on traffic would be perceived by the Justice Department as religious prejudice. They worked the traffic problems out. All of this has been very confusing to me. I then filed an appeal to the City Council. At the City Council hearing, the Planning Commission’s attomey continued to advance the argument that because we did not have some special approval from the IRS, we could not claim to be religious, The discussion at the City Council was all about religion and very little about planning approval, At the end, the Council denied my application. It also made no suggestion of anything that I could do to be treated like other religious groups had been treated in the City. | then filed a claim against the City. I filed this claim based on religious discrimination and damages that I had suffered for having purchased property that I thought I could use and then later leamed I could not. As I understand the City’s position to this day, itis certain that my proposed use, a Buddhist meditation center, is not a church or religious acility, but the City does not know in which district my Buddhist meditation center can be located. As I understand this there is nowhere in the City where I can locate a Buddhist meditation center. ‘This they say, although I understand from my attorney, the method for determining where a use can be located is clearly set out in theOrdinance itself and that the City Planner, Hoffinan, had followed the proper procedure to approve my zoning. My next door neighbor on Eloong has been the primary opponent of the establishment of my Buddhist meditation center. She described my proposed meditation center as a “business” at trial and in her appearance before the Planning Commission and City Council, To counter her arguments that this is about money, I voluntarily gave up my damage claim against the City under my State claim, Since I began my efforts to establish my Buddhist meditation center, I have paid over $300,000 in fees and expenses associated with my case. My lawyers estimate that the City has spent as much as a half a million dollars fighting my request to establish the center. The City has made accommodations for churches and business uses concerning access and traffic many times. In fact, the City Couneil could not point to a single case where a church or business had been denied out right planning approval. They always seemed to work things out. As I understand, the Court cannot consider all of these cases where the City allowed similar uses to mine and worked things out with them because of an 11" Circuit Court of Appeals case that provides in religious discrimination cases, when comparing one use to another, the properties must be identical. However, as I understand it, the City is not bound by such a rule and it could, if it wanted to, meet with me and tell me what I must do to use my property for a Buddhist meditation center. I ask the Court to include in its judgment for the Defendant a finding with all the facts surrounding my efforts to build my Buddhist meditation center. I must admit that | am confused by the City’s position in this matter. All [ want is to be treated as others have been treated and do not understand how a Muslim mosque and Catholic school have been entitled to accommodations concerning traffic problems and I have been denied by the City because of this, even though the City’s Staff has indicated that there are no traffic problems associated with my use. What I want to do is have all of the facts set out in the Court's Order, and then before it is entered, I will ask the Mayor and the City Couneil to review the Order. I will ask that they poll their constituents and that they talk among themselves and decide whether or not they want me to be treated as others have been treated or whether they ‘want to continue to deny me the right to use my property for a religious use. Other facilities, such as the Salvation Army on Dauphin Street, the Mobile Rescue Mission and many half-way houses scattered throughout the City are located in single family districts and are allowed with planning approval, but I have not been offered the same right, If the City, after being made aware of everything that I have done and what the City has done in similar situations, still refuses to allow me to construct my Buddhist meditation center, I have instructed my lawyer to appeal My lawyer estimates it will cost me probably $50,000 to $100,000 for the appeal. The City will probably have a like sum to pay. I will also ask the Mayor and Council to tell me why they have been willing to spend a half a million dollars on lawyers’ fees and risk having to pay a similar sum to me, to fight my establishment of a Buddhist mediation center, which, although not identical to the Catholic school and Muslim mosque, is very similar. I don’t want to believe it, but cannot help but believe it is because of my Buddhist religion. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Sivaporn Nimityongskul, prays the Court will allow Plaintiff until Friday, March 29", to submit for the Court’s consideration, suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and I pray for such other, further and different relief to which I may be entitled.STATE OF ALABAMA) COUNTY OF MOBILE) Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authority, Sivapom Nimityongskul, who, being known to me and being by me first duly sworn, does depose and say that she is a Plaintiff in the above and that the facts averred in the foregoing Motion are true and correct, Si vepan [bi mily enyatoe SIVAPORN NIMITYONGSKUP ‘Swom to and subscribed before me this the26" day of March, 2019. [Affix TARY PUBLIC, STATE OF ALABAMA. = Nalariak: AWARGE sel} = My commission expires January 8, 2022. By. Jahr K lobe John L: Lawler 804 Commerce Building Post Office Box 47 Mobile, Alabama 36601 251/432-8861 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document by Notice of Flectronic Filing, or, if the party served does not participate in Notice of Electronic Filing, by U.S. First Class Mail, hand delivery, fax or email on this the 26" day of March, 2019: Roman P. Storzer, Esq. Douglas L. Anderson, Esq. Blair Lazarus Storzer, Esq. Michael D. Strasavich, Esq. John G. Stepanovich, Esq. ‘Taylor Barr Johnson, Esq. Storzet & Associates, P.C. Burr & Forman, LLP 1025 Connecticut Ave., N. W., Suite 1000 Post Office Box 2287 Washington, D.C. 20036 Mobile, Alabama 36652 loth, K Line he