Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1993-005 In The united states District CourtIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:;- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t f WESTERN DIVISION EVELYN DUFFEY AND_- ALISON PATTON PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-94-344 CITY OF 'LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AND THE QUAPAW QUARTER ASSOCIATION DEFENDANTS ANSWER OF SEPARATE DEFENDANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK,. ARKANSAS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT The separate Defendant City of Little Rock, Arkansas ("City"), by the City Attorney, answers the Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs as follows: JURISDICTION 1. The City admits the allegattions contained in Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint. 2. The City is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint. J 3. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint. 4. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint. COUNT ONE- 5. The City denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint. 6. The City admits the allegations contained -in Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint. 7. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint. 8. The City admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint. 9. The City is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint. 10. The City is without sufficient information to admit or deny that the Plaintiffs determined that repair of the dwelling would not be an economically beneficial use of 815 South Rock Street as alleged in paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint. 11. The City admits that the Plaintiffs sought a permit to demolish the historic structure. The City denies that demolition of the structure is the only other method remaining available to Plaintiffs for compliance with the City's regulations. The City affirmatively states that the property should be boarded up and kept secured by the owners until the structure is brought into compliance with the housing code and the historic district guidelines of the City. 12. The City admits the allegations contained in paragraph - 12 of the Amended Complaint. 13. The City admits that --the -Commission denied the Certificate of Appropriateness. The City denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint. 14. The City denies the allegations_ contained in paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint. _ 15. The City is without sufficient -information to admit or deny the _ allegations contained_. in paragraph 15_ of the Amended____ Complaint. 16. The City admits the allegations contained in paragraph _ 16 of the Amended Complaint. _ 2 17. The City admits that the rulings of the Commission are final as to the City and that the Commission is charged with the responsibility of the protection and enhancement of the historic district, and that the Commission has authority to enforce the policies by the issuance or denial of certificates of appropriateness to demolish historic buildings. The City denies that the Plaintiffs were deprived of their constitutional right to due process alleged in paragraph 17(a) of the Amended Complaint, and further denies that the allegations of the subparagraphs of paragraph 17 are indicators of the deprivation of due process rights of the Plaintiffs. The City denies that the Commission is a bias tribunal alleged in paragraph 17(a). The City denies the allegations of paragraph 17(b) of the Amended Complaint and affirmatively asserts that the Commission hearings are open to the public as required by law, that the public hearings are conducted informally and that the Chairman of the Commission makes determinations and rulings on the admissibility of evidence, the scope of inquiry and the order in which evidence, objections and arguments are heard. The City affirmatively states that the hearings _on the Plaintiffs' request to demolish the historic structure provided substantial justice to the Plaintiffs and to all concerned citizens. The Defendant City admits the language quoted from the opinion of the Arkansas Supreme Court in which the Commission's decision to deny a certificate of appropriateness was upheld in the opinion. The City denies the remaining—al-legations--in— paragraph 17(c) of the Amended Complaint and affirmatively asserts that an adequate and exclusive remedy to redress the grievances of the Plaintiffs is provided by state law under Ark. - - 3 Code Ann. §14-172-212 and City ordinance under LRO now codified in Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code §23-130 (198t4,0,2, );&idin g that the "court shall hear all pertinent evidence and shall annul the determination of the commission if it finds the reasons given for such determination to be unsupported by the evidence or to be insufficient in law, and may make such other decree as justice and equity may require. The remedy provided by this section shall be exclusive; but the applicant shall have all rights of appeal as in other equity cases." Id. The City admits that it complies with the provisiC6�f Ark. Code Ann. §§14-56-416 and 14-56-425 and the cases interpreting these statutes. The City further admits that the appeals authorized thereunder have been allowed for variances from the literal provisions of the City's zoning and subdivision ordinances since prior to the creation of the Commission. The City denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 17(d) of the Amended Complaint and affirmatively_. states there is a constitutionally sufficient due process remedy available to the PlaintiIN under the state law appellate procedure described above. COUNT TWO 18. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint. 19. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint. 20. The City admits that the Commission receives recommendations from the Association and the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program on each -certificate of appropriateness within the Historic District. The City admits the language quoted from Little Rock Ordinance No. 13,290. The City denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint. COUNT THREE 21. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint. The City affirmative asserts that anX economic deprivation alleged by the Plaintiffs is due to the failure and neglect of the owners .of the property to have secured and maintained the structure in;accordance with the housing code of the City. 22. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint. 23. The City is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint. ; 24. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint. 25. The City admits that the Chairman of the Commission asked the Plaintiffs if they had considered donating 815 South Rock Street to a qualified charitable organization at the hearing on December 2, 1993. The -City denies that the statement indicates an awareness of the property's lack of economically beneficial use. The City denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint. 26. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of,the Amended Complaint. The City affirmatively states that had the owners of. -the property fulfilled their responsibility to provide housing code maintenance of 815 South Rock Street, it would not be in the substandard condition at present. 5 - T 1� COUNT FOUR 27. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint. 28. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint. 29. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint and affirmatively asserts that the Plaintiffs had an adequate state law remedy, but chose to waive their right to appeal the decision to:Chancery Court. 30. The City is without sufficient information to admit or deny allegations contained in paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint. 31. The City denies the -allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint and affirmatively pleads that the Plaintiff should be estopped to argue that the City's refusal to grant permission to destroy a designated historic structure within the historic district is a denial of the "only economically beneficial course available to them". The City affirmatively states that any "dilemma" alleged by the Plaintiffs is due to the owner's failure and refusal to provide ordinary maintenance of the historic structure at 815 South Rock Street. 32. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint. 33. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint. 34. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint. 35. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint and affirmatively states that the Plaintiffs have an adequate state law remedy. 36. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint. 37. The City denies the allegations contained in paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint. 38,p The City denies each and every allegation of the Amended Complaint not specifically admitted herein. 39. The City reserves its right to amend its Answer and plead further upon discovery of additional information. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the Court dismiss the Amended Complaint herein; that the Court declare constitutional the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. §14-172-201 et sea. and Little Rock Ordinance Nos. 13,154, 13,290 and 14,042, as amended and codified in LRC §23-96--133; for its costs, attorneys fees and all other costs to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, Thomas M. Carpenter City orney By: Y Stephen Giles, No. Deputy ty Attorney City Hall - Room 310 500 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4527 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon William W. Hylton, III, Attorney at Law, 1501 South Elm Street, Little Rock, AR 72204, by placing same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid-, on this day of June, 1994. Stephen .1es 4 - 8