Federal judge dismisses counts in church lawsuit
A federal judge in Pittsburgh dismissed some counts of a lawsuit filed against Fayette County by the founder of a Bullskin Township church that bases its worship in music, but maintained allegations that county officials hindered congregants of the Church of Universal Love and Music from freely practicing their religion. In the ruling Tuesday, Chief U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose found that the county was entitled to have two counts of the suit dismissed because the church and its founder, William “Willie” Pritts, were unable to make a case. However, Ambrose found that a jury may have to sort out the legitimacy of the church’s beliefs.
Pritts’ attorney, Gregory Koerner, said that if the case goes to trial, he is “confident that we will be vindicated.
“The church remains eager to settle this reasonably, and in accordance with their religious rights,” Koerner said. “It is the county that has refused our efforts to engage in any reasonable discussion, and who has insisted on wasting considerable taxpayer money in an attempt to violate the church’s religious rights.”
The church, located on Pritts’ nearly 150 acres of land in Acme, advances a mission of religious worship through music. As part of the worship, the church has concerts that sometimes last more than a day.
Those concerts have irked neighbors, who have said before that the music and crowds are loud, and hinder their peaceful country life.
The land is not zoned for concerts, and the county’s zoning hearing board declined previous requests to rezone the land. In January, however, the Fayette County Planning Commission gave the nod for Pritts to have the land rezoned from agricultural to business.
The commissioners have yet to vote on whether to accept that recommendation, prompting Koerner to call the delay “egregious.”
“Despite recommendations that the request be granted, the commissioners have tabled it,” he said, noting that doing so would resolve some of the issues in the suit.
“We’re eager to settle this, and hope we can,” Koerner said.
Commissioner Angela M. Zimmerlink said the attorney representing the county in the civil suit provided a legal opinion to the commissioners about making that rezoning decision before the outcome of the civil case. The opinion outlines the pros and cons, but Zimmerlink said that she will evaluate the opinion and Ambrose’s ruling.
“Any commissioner can move to place the rezoning case on our next commissioner agenda and subsequently make a motion to approve or deny the rezoning application,” she said.
Commissioners Chairman Vincent Zapotosky said that he feels additional legal consultation is necessary before making any decision about the zoning issue. He said he would follow any instructions from the county’s attorneys.
Zapotosky also said he believes in religious rights and freedoms, “but I also believe that they should not conflict with a neighbor’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well.”
He added, “We have to ensure that we’re not infringing on other people constitutional rights.”
Pritts sued the county, the office of Planning, Zoning and Community Development, office employee Lloyd Eicher and former director Tammy Shell-Stenson, the zoning hearing board, former board members Dennis Nurkiewicz and Mark Morrison, and board solicitor Sheryl Heid.
Ambrose’s ruling dismissed Nurkiewicz, Morrison, Heid and Shell-Stenson as defendants in the lawsuit.
Her ruling also noted that it was “clear” that the county imposed a substantial burden on Pritts and the church because the denials caused church members to “substantially modify their religious behavior in violation of their beliefs – if holding music events in, in fact, a religious exercise.”
After examining the record in the case, Ambrose wrote that she “found evidence which tends to support the sincerity of plaintiffs’ beliefs, as well as evidence implying that plaintiffs are not sincere in their beliefs.”
The judge declined to decide if holding musical events is central to their set of religious beliefs. Ambrose instead looked to the sincerity of Pritts’ beliefs as the church’s founder.
A county attorney argued that denying a special exception didn’t prohibit the church from engaging in religious exercise because they could hold concerts anywhere else in the county where they are permitted to do so.
Ambrose found that arguments failed, in part because the zoning board resolution barred Pritts from any religious activity on his property, not just religious exercise that involved music. That, she found, violated a federal act meant to protect religions.
She found that the burden could have been overcome if the county could prove denying Pritts’ request for an exception served various other public interests such as safety, health and welfare.
But Ambrose said the defendants as a whole cast doubt on their belief that the public interests were their top priority.
Nurkiewicz, she indicated, said he never weighed the public safety issues when he voted to deny the exception. Eicher, Ambrose wrote, had a run-in with members of the church on Pritts’ property.
“This evidence raises serious questions as to whether the Fayette ZHB denied plaintiffs’ religious use, special exception petition to further a compelling state interest or because of a general animus or distrust,” she wrote. “In addition, completely denying Pritts the ability to use the Pritts property for any religious purpose hardly seems to be the least restrictive means to further any real compelling state interest.”
In entering her order, Ambrose scheduled a settlement conference with both sides on Sept. 10.