Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1993-005 The united states District Court 1UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EVELYN DUFFEY AND ALLISON PATTON PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-94-344 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AND THE QUAPAW QUARTER ASSOCIATION DEFENDANTS SEPARATE DEFENDANT CITY OF LITTLE ROCK'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Separate Defendant City of Little Rock (the "City"), by and through Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney and Patricia J. Hays, Deputy City Attorney, for its Response to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories states: INTERROGATORY NO. is How many appeals from rulings of the Little Rock Historic District Commission have been filed with the Clerk of a court of general legal or equitable jurisdiction? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: The City does not keep or have records which would permit it to fashion a response to this Interrogatory. The only way the City could determine the requested information would be to survey all of the filings in the public record to determine those which meet the Plaintiffs' criteria. This method of determining the requested information is equally available to the Plaintiffs and would place no greater burden on the Plaintiffs to determine. The only case that has been so appealed that the City is aware of without making a search of the public records is the case of Second Baptist Church v. Little Rock Historic District Commission. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: What is the style of each case so appealed, including the name of the court, the names of the parties, and the docket number? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: See response to Interrogatory No. 1. The Second Baptist Church case was appealed to the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Third Division, Case No. 86-308. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Of the cases so appealed, how many were tried de novo in the court of general jurisdiction? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3: See response to Interrogatory No. 1. See Second Baptist Church v. Little Rock Historic Dist. Comm., 293 Ark. 483, 732 S.W.2d 483, 487 (1987) was tried de novo in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. g 14-172-212 (a) (2) . INTERROGATORY NO. 4: What is the style of each case so tried, including the name of the court, the names of the parties, and the docket number: RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: See responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 3. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Of the cases so appealed, and not tried de novo in the court of general jurisdiction, how many were disposed of solely on the basis of a review of the record before the Little Rock Historic District Commission? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5: See response to Interrogatory No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: What is the style of each case so -2- disposed of, including the name of the court, the names of the parties, and the docket number? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: See response to Interrogatory No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Has any case appealed from a decision of the Little Rock Historic`District Commission been tried before a jury? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7: See response to Interrogatory No. 1. In accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 14-172-212, appeals of the decisions of the Little Rock Historic District Commission are appealed to chancery court which normally sits without a jury. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: If so, what is the style of each case disposed of, including the name of the court, the names of the parties, and the docket number: RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: None are known to the City. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: In Paragraph 17 of its Answer, the City admits "that it complies with the provisions of 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." When a petition or request is denied by the Little Rock Planning Commission, what are the denied -3- i_ ---- - petitioner's rights regarding appeal of the denial? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: It depends upon the type of appeal. Different procedures are used depending upon the type of appeal. For rezoning matters, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Board of Directors. For conditional use permits, the decision is final with the Planning Commission and can be appealed to the City Board of Directors, and ultimately to Chancery Court. Petitions for variances from the provisions of zoning ordinances are heard before the Board of Zoning Adjustment and appeals are made to the Circuit Court. This statutory scheme has no application to appeals from decisions of the Historic District Commission which are governed by Ark. Code Ann. § 14-172-201 et sect. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: In such appeals, does the appellate court allow trial de novo? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-425, appeals from the Board of Zoning Adjustment are tried de novo in Circuit Court. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Also, in such appeals, does the appellate court allow trial by jury? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Pursuant to the statute, the right to trial by jury is preserved for appeals from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Appeals from the decisions of the Planning Commission are heard in Chancery Court where juries are not usually used. -4- A INTERROGATORY NO. 12: How many such cases have been appealed to date this calendar year? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12: See response to Interrogatory No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: How many such cases were appealed in each of the calendar years 1990, 1992, 1992, and 1993? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13: See response to Interrogatory No. 1. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Despite the admissions quoted in Interrogatory 9 above, the City denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 17d of the Amended Complaint wherein Plaintiffs allege that the differences in procedure that have been written into state law - differences between the appeals referred to in Interrogatory 9 above and the appeals of rulings of the Little Rock Historic District Commission - deny to property owners within the MacArthur Park Historic District the opportunity for the enjoyment of equal procedural protection, a procedural discrimination with no rational basis and therefore constituting a violation of the property owner's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. What is the rational basis for the procedural differences? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14: The City is merely following state law which was enacted by the state legislature. To determine the rational basis for the procedural differences, the Plaintiffs would have to inquire -5- of the state legislature which made the law. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, in hearings upon petitions for certificates of appropriateness, did the Little Rock Historic District Commission follow a formal set of procedures for the governance of the hearings? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15: The Historic District Commission follows the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Revised and Commission By-laws with respect to the conducting of hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: If the answer to Interrogatory 15 is yes, what is the name of the reference publication that the Little Rock Historic District Commission uses in following the procedures? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16: See response to Interrogatory No. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, in hearings upon petitions for certificates of appropriateness, did the Little Rock Historic District Commission ever use or follow the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure as prescribed by the Arkansas Supreme Court? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17: No and there is no requirement that the Commission do so. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, in hearing upon petitions for certificate of appropriateness, did the Little Rock Historic District :ti' y Commission follow the Rules of Evidence as prescribed by the Arkansas Supreme Court? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: No and there is no requirement that the Commission do so. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: If the answer to Interrogatory 18 is no, what rules are used by the Little Rock Historic District Commission to determine who may speak in such hearings? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19: See response to Interrogatory No. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: If the answer to Interrogatory 18 is no, what rules are used by the Little Rock Historic District Commission to determine the qualifications of speakers or witnesses? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: See response to Interrogatory No. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: If the answer to Interrogatory 18 is no, what rules are used by the Little Rock Historic District Commission to determine what documentary or physical evidence will be considered by the Commission? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: See response to Interrogatory No. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, had any speakers or witnesses speaking before or to the Little Rock Historic District Commission been required to swear or affirm to tell the truth? -7- RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, in hearings upon petitions for certificates of appropriateness, did the Little Rock Historic District Commission allow petitioners to question speakers who expressed opposition to the petition? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23: There are no formal rules providing for the cross examination of speakers. However, in the instant case, counsel for Petitioners did question some of the speakers although there are no formal rules permitting such. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: If the answer to Interrogatory 23 is yes, who was allowed to object to questions? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Interrogatory No. 23 did not inquire as to whether Petitioners were allowed to object to questions. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: If the answer to Interrogatory 23 is yes, who ruled on such objections. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: See response to Interrogatory No. 24. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: If the answer to Interrogatory 23 is yes, did the person ruling on such objections follow the Arkansas Rules of Evidence as prescribed by the Arkansas Supreme Court? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26: See response to Interrogatory No. 24. -8- INTERROGATORY NO. 27: In the December 2, 1993 hearing on Plaintiffs' petition did the Little Rock Historic District Commission allow one speaker to state that he could restore the building requested in the petition to be demolished? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27: One person who spoke at the hearing indicated it would be economically feasible to restore this property. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: If the answer to Interrogatory 27 is yes, did petitioners attempt to question the speaker about the basis for the speaker's assertion? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28: The attorney for the Petitioners questioned this speaker. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: If the answer to Interrogatory 27 is yes, did anyone object to such questioning? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29: No. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: If the answer to Interrogatory 27 is yes, who objected? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30: N/A. INTERROGATORY NO. 31: If the answer to Interrogatory 27 yes, what was the ruling on such questioning? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31: N/A. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: If the answer to Interrogatory 27 is yes, what was the stated basis for such ruling? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32: N/A. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: In the said December 2, 1993 hearing did the Little Rock Historic District Commission QM Chairman state at the beginning of l-he hearing that speakers would be limited to three minutes? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33: Yes, except petitioners were allowed all the time they needed to present their appeal. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Did the Little Rock Historic District Commission in 1991, approve a resolution urging the Little Rock City Council (Board of Directors) to impose a six-month moratorium on issuing demolition permits in all of Little Rock's Historic Districts - including the MacArthur Park Historic District - as reported in the Arkansas Gazette on July 12, 1991? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: Did members of the Little Rock Historic District Commission sign a letter, dated January 12, 1994, addressed to Sharon Priest, objecting to the Little Rock City Council (Board of Directors) considering demolition of Kramer School? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35: No. The members of the Historic District Commission signed a letter dated January 12, 1994, addressed to Sharon Priest. However, the letter was not an objection to the Board considering demolition of Kramer School. Instead, the letter set forth four issues of impropriety and conflict of interest which appeared to it. INTERROGATORY NO. 36: If the answer to Interrogatory 35 -10- is yes, ghat was the basis or bases for such objection? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36: N/A. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: In paragraph 17 of its Answer, the City affirmatively asserts that "...an adequate remedy to redress the grievance of the Plaintiffs is provided by state law under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-172-212 and City ordinance under LRO 14,402, now codified in Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code § 23-1130 (1988), providing 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." Does the City contend that this quoted statutory language gives those who appeal rulings of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to the appropriate court a right to trial de novo? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: If the answer to Interrogatory 37 is yes, does the City rely upon the opinion of a court or upon its own interpretation of the quoted statutory language? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38: See Ark. Code Ann. § 14-172-212(a)(2). INTERROGATORY NO. 39: If the answer to Interrogatory 37 is yes, and, if the City relies upon the opinion of a court, -11- what is the citation to the case or cases upon which the City relies? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39: See response to Interrogatory No. 38. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Upon what specific facts does the City rely to substantiate its assertion in paragraph 17 of its Answer that "...the hearings on the Plaintiff's request to demolish the historic structure provided substantial justice to the Plaintiffs..."? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40: Plaintiffs were provided the opportunity to present evidence in support of their application and their attorney was allowed to question individuals objecting to the application. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: In paragraph 21 of its Answer the City "affirmatively asserts that the any [sic) 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." What are the specific provisions, including section number(s), subsection number(s)), paragraph number(s), or subparagraph number(s), of the City code that the City contends were violated by the Plaintiffs? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41: Plaintiffs violated the Housing Code Section of the Little Rock Code, contained in Article V of the Code. Specifically, Plaintiffs violated the following sections of the Housing Code: 8-333 Maintenance -12- 8-403 Required facilities (all subparagraphs) 8-405 Electrical systems (all subparagraphs) 8-407 Sanitary requirements (all subparagraphs, except "g") 8-421 Foundation and Underpinning (all subparagraphs) 8-422 Exterior Walls 8-423 Roofs 8-425 Stairs, porches and appurtenances 8-426 Protective railings 8-427 Windows and doors 8-428 Windows 8-429 Windows to be Operable 8-430 Door frames 8-431 Screens 8-432 Protective treatment 8-433 Interior floors, walls, and ceilings 8-434 Structural support 8-435 Protective railings for interior stairs. The Plaintiffs also violated Article II of the Little Rock Code - Unsafe Buildings or Structures, beginning with Section 20-24. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Has the City's Council (Board of Directors) had before it a proposed ordinance entitled "An ordinance to establish minimum maintenance requirements for buildings and structures within an officially designated historic district; declaring an emergency; and for other purposes"? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: If the answer to Interrogatory 42 is yes, what is the present status of that proposed ordinance? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43: The ordinance has been tabled by the City Board of Directors. INTERROGATORY NO. 44: If the answer to Interrogatory 42 -13- is yes, what is the legislative history of that proposed ordinance? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44: Objection. The City cannot properly respond to this question without a definition of "legislative history." INTERROGATORY NO. 45: If the answer to Interrogatory 42 is yes, and if passed by the City's Council in its latest draft form, what would that proposed ordinance add to Plaintiffs' duty to secure and maintain the structure at 815 S. Rock St. that is not encompassed within the code provisions referred to above in Interrogatory 41? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45: The ordinance will not be passed in its present form because a provision concerning economic hardship needs to be added. Additionally, there have been discussions about the creation of a funding mechanism to assist landowners with preservation and maintenance of historic structures. In any event, there have been public discussions that the minimum maintenance standards would not impact the property at 815 S. Rock St., Kramer School and certain other property within the District. INTERROGATORY NO. 46: In paragraph 26 of its Answer 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." What specific acts did the Plaintiffs fail to perform that if they had been -14- performed would have fulfilled Ilaintiffs' responsibility to provide housing code maintenance of 815 South Rock Street? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46? It is evident from the current condition of the house that Plaintiffs failed to undertake even minimal routine maintenance of the property to prevent it from deteriorating. INTERROGATORY NO. 47: As to each such possible act referred to in Interrogatory 46, when, under the housing code, should the Plaintiffs have performed such act? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47: Routine maintenance should be undertaken as conditions require. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: In paragraph 31 of its Answer the City "affirmatively pleads that the Plaintiffs 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'". Has anyone relied to their detriment upon the previous statements of conduct of the Plaintiffs regarding 815 South Rock Street? If so, what are their names, addresses, and phone numbers? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48: The City is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without some specific statements or conduct being identified. INTERROGATORY NO. 49: Also, as to estoppel, does the City contend that the Plaintiffs' alleged failure to secure or maintain the structure at 815 South Rock Street is -15- inconsistent with tAeir petition to the Commission for permission to demolish said structure, or with any other behavior of the Plaintiffs? If so what behavior of the Plaintiffs is inconsistent? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 49: The City is unable to respond to this Interrogatory without some clarification. INTERROGATORY NO. 50: What other facts support the City's defense of estoppel? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 50: See response to Interrogatory No. 49. INTERROGATORY NO. 51: The City admitted in paragraph 8 of its Answer that it had mailed to Plaintiffs Warning Notice No. 90 32842 which condemned 815 South Rock Street as unfit for human habitation, offensive to the neighborhood, dangerous to the lives, limbs and property of persons in its vicinity or lawfully passing thereby. What steps has the City taken to remove or lessen that danger? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 51: The City mailed warning notices to the Plaintiffs advising them to bring the structure into compliance with the Code. The City also condemned the structure. INTERROGATORY NO. 52: The City admitted in paragraph 8 of its Answer that it had mailed to Plaintiffs Warning Notice No. 90 32842 which condemned 815 South Rock Street as unfit for human habitation, offensive to the neighborhood, dangerous to the lives, limbs and property of persons in its -16- vicinity or lawfully passing thereby. What steps has the City taken to prevent Plaintiffs from removing or lessening that danger? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 52: None. Plaintiffs failed to appeal the decisions of the Historic District Commission to Chancery Court where they could have obtained relief. INTERROGATORY NO. 53: At the City Council (Board of Directors) meeting on May 31, 1994, did City Attorney Tom Carpenter inform the council members in writing that 815 South Rock Street had been boarded up for many years? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 53: Counsel does not recall doing so, but such a statement would be reflected in minutes of the meeting which are available to the public to review. The City will supplement this response if it discovers the response is other than is indicated. Please note that "boarded up" has nothing to do with securing the structure. INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Section 5, Subsection C of City ordinance 14,042 provides: If the application for a Certification of Appropriateness involves the demolition of a building which the Commission initially determines to be inappropriate demolition, then notwithstanding said determination the Commission may defer the matter until such time as the Commission has had an opportunity to consider the following alternatives to the demolition of subject property: "l. Sources of funding for preservation and restoration -17- activities, if lack of such funds is the reason for the request to demolish. "2. Adaptive use changes, if there are conditions under which the required preservation of a historic landmark would cause undue hardship to the owner or owners, so long as such changes are in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. "3. An attempt to find a purchaser for the property who would maintain the landmark in a suitable and acceptable manner within the limits of the Historic District Commission Ordinance. "4. The feasibility of moving the structure to another appropriate location. "5. Any such other solution as it may be deemed advisable and in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. "During the time the Commission is considering any one of the alternatives hereinabove set out, progress reports shall be made by the Commission and/or its staff at each regularly scheduled Commission meeting. If at the expiration of six calendar months from the date of the first public hearing of an application for demolition, the Commission has not found a viable alternative to the demolition of the property, the Commission shall reschedule the matter for public hearing requiring notices as aforesaid, and upon said public hearing, make its final determination as to the application. In such cases, the public hearing for final -18- determination shall be held within one calendar month after the expiration of the six months from the date of the first public hearing, and at the second public hearing, the Commission may hear such matters as are considered necessary or desirable to fully advise the Commission of all facts and circumstances as then exist as they pertain to the proposed demolition. At the second public hearing the Commission may immediately announce its decision or take the mater under advisement to its next regularly scheduled Commission meeting for the purpose of announcing its decision, but in no vent longer than two calendar months after the expiration of the six month period after the first public hearing. If the Commission has rendered no decision on the application for demolition within two calendar months after the expiration of the six months following the first public hearing, the Commission shall consider the application as having been approved and shall issue Certificate of Appropriateness." Was this procedure followed by the Commission on either of Plaintiffs' petitions for demolition? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 54: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 55: Has the Commission ever followed the procedure referred to in Interrogatory 54 on a petition for Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a structure? If so, who was the petitioner(s)? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 56: To the best of our knowledge, the Commission follows the procedures outlined in -19- the Ordinance. To our knowledge, Plaintiff's counsel has obtained minutes of previous Commission meetings through the Freedom of Information Act and can determine the names of specific petitioners from those minutes. INTERROGATORY NO. 56: Under what circumstances would the Commission consider the use of the procedure referred to in Interrogatory 54? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 57: See response to Interrogatory No. 56. INTERROGATORY NO. 57: In its first set of Interrogatories to the Plaintiffs the City asked for the assessed tax value of 815 South Rock Street and asked whether Plaintiffs had ever challenged the assessment. What defense or defenses will the city attempt to prove by the use of these facts? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 57: The City will use this information to refute Plaintiff's allegation that the property has no economic value. INTERROGATORY NO. 58: Has the City Attorney ever advised the City Council (Board of Directors) that the City might be exposed to liability as a result of injury to innocent parties caused by structures the City's code inspectors have determined to be a hazard to the public safety, which structures remain standing because of the Commission's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition? -20- RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY ND. 58: As the question is phrased, the answer is "no." There have been comments concerning municipal liability under a set of circumstances not described in this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 59: If the answer to Interrogatory 58 is yes, what are the date or dates upon which such advice was given? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 59: See response to Interrogatory No. 58. INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Has the City Council (Board of Directors) ever considered an ordinance that would require the demolition of the structure on 815 South Rock Street? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 60: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 61: If the answer to Interrogatory 60 is yes, what is the legislative history of such ordinance or proposed ordinance? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 61: Objection. The City cannot respond to this interrogatory without a definition of "legislative history." INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Does any state statute or case law, or any City ordinance, allow the City to take action to reduce or remove any hazards to the public presented by deteriorated buildings? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 62: Yes. INTERROGATORY NO. 63: If the answer to Interrogatory No. 62 is yes, what are the citations to such law or laws? -21- RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 63: There are code sections and statutes which counsel for Plaintiffs can research in the following publications. Ark. Code Ann., Ark. Reports, LR Revised Code, and Acts of General Assembly. INTERROGATORY NO. 64: If such law or laws referred to in Interrogatory 62 do exist, would they apply to buildings within the MacArthur Park Historic District? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 64: See response to Interrogatory No. 63. INTERROGATORY NO. 65: If the answer to Interrogatory 64 is yes, was any action ever taken to protect the public from the hazards presented by 815 South Rock Street as detailed in the Warning Notice alleged in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint (and admitted in the City's Answer)? RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 65: The City took action by issuing a warning notice and condemning the property. Plaintiffs request production of the following documents: REQUEST NO. 1: Please provide a copy of the letter referred to in Interrogatory No. 35 above. RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 1: See Exhibit No. 1 (attached). REQUEST NO. 2: Please provide a copy of the proposed ordinance referred to in Interrogatory 42 above in its latest draft form. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: See Exhibit No. 2 -22- (attached):` REQUEST NO. 3: Please provide a copy of the writing referred to in Interrogatory 53 above. RESPONSE T❑ RE VEST NO. 3: If such a document is discovered, it will be provided. REQUEST NO. 4: Please provide copies of any and all ordinance proposals referred to in Interrogatory No. 60. RESPONSET❑ REQUEST No. 4: See Exhibit No. 3 (attached). STATE OF ARKANSAS) )ss: VERIFICATION COUNTY OF PULASKI) The above and foregoing Responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. -23- 0 STATE OF ARKANSAS) )ss COUNTY OF PULASKI) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this day of , 1994. My Commission Expires: Notary u is Respectfully submitted, Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney By: row. a ricia s, 90006 Deputy City Attorney City Hall, Room 310 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4527 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon the following counsel in the U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 1104h/ day of September, 1994: William W. Hylton, III Nate Coulter Attorney at Law Attorney at Law 1501 South Elm Street Post Office Box 71 Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Patricia . Hays -24- LITTLE ROCK 91USTOBJC FDISTRICT January 12, 1994 Sharon Priest Greater LR Chamber of Commerce #1 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Director Priest, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. The Little Rock Historic District Commission is deeply concerned about a situation that has been created concerning historic Kramer School, owned by City Director Dr. Hampton Roy. Four main issues of impropriety and conflict of interest appear obvious. Dr. Roy applied to the Commission to have the structure demolished. In July 1993, the Commission held a public hearing to consider Dr. Roy's request. After hearing from neighbors adjacent to the structure, evaluating Dr. Roy's testimony, and considering all evidence before us on public safety , the financial burden to the applicant and the historic significance of the structure, the Commission properly exercised the authority vested in it by the Historic Districts Act to deny Dr. Roy's petition for demolition. Issue #1: Dr. Roy subsequently approached other City Staff about the property and an inspection insued, resulting in the issuance of a letter of condemnation on December 30, 1993, telling him he has 30 days to secure the building or have it demolished. There is a strong appearance of impropriety by Dr. Roy, a City Board member. He knew his demolition request had been denied after a fair hearing and all due consideration by the Historic District Commission. If he was dissatisfied with that decision, it was his right to appeal to the courts. Instead, he chose to use his influence as a City Director by seeking demolition authority elsewhere in city government. The Commission requests that the City Board of Directors immediately -%rithdraw its acquiesence and participation in this manipulation. Issue 42: The Code Enforcement office acted improperly by issuing a condemnation letter for property in the Historic District to Dr. Roy without contacting and deferring to the Commission or its staff. The letter did not contain the customary statement to the owner advising that any demolition would have to have the approval of the Commission first. The Code Enforcement office had no authority to issue such a letter after the Commission had already denied Dr. Roy's request. The Commission requests that the City Board of Directors investigate and admonish the Code Enforcement office in the improper issuance of this condemnation letter. 723 West Markham Street • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 • Phone (501) 371-4790 City of Little Rock Department of Neighborhoods & Planning Page Two January 12, 1994 Issue #3: Kramer School, located at 7th and Sherman, is an important historic asset to the McArthur Park Historic District. It was built in 1895 and is the oldest standing public school building in the state. The primary and oldest part of the structure is stone, and is still structurally sound, although Dr. Roy has allowed its continued deterioration since he bought it. After learning of the condemnation letter, the Commission approached the City Attorney and requested that he seek to enjoin demolition. The City Attorney refused to do so, ostensibly because he also represents the Board of Directors, Dr. Roy, and Code Enforcement. If demolition plans proceed, the Commission may be forced to seek an injunction through private counsel. Issue 94: Perhaps the most important problem arising out of this situation is not Kramer School itself, but the fact that if this manipulated demolition is allowed to proceed with the Board's support, the authority of the Little Rock Historic Commission will have been effectively gutted. The City established the Commission to protect the area around McArthur Park. Its success is obvious: just drive one block outside of the district boundaries and you will see a drastic drop in the quality of the neighborhood. If Dr. Roy is allowed to manipulate the demolition of the Kramer School property after the Commission voted to deny such a demolition, then there is nothing to prevent other applicants from doing the same thing. The Commission is not always popular, but we have been very effective so far in maintaining the historic character of an area that is vital to the city for attracting tourists, conventions and potential new residents and businesses. Additionally, the Historic District Commission has suggested numerous alternatives to demolition to Dr. Roy. After the passage of the recently enacted sales tax, it would seem feasible to use the building to house the Museum of Science and History, which is in need of new quarters. The structure is ideally suited to being a museum, and would have ample parking if the rear additions were torn down (to which the Commission would not object). By donating the building to the Museum, Dr. Roy would save the $40,000 he would have to spend for demolition, and the City of Little Rock would have a showplace for its museum, saving a historic structure in the process. Regardless of the use found for this particular building, the Commission hopes that you as City Directors can appreciate our concerns about the Historic District as a whole and our future ability to protect it, according to the statutory authority vested in us. Sincerely, John Bush, Chairman Carl Menyhart, Vice Chairma Jeanette Heinbockel Julie Wiedower Bob Roddey DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN AN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICT; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, the City_ has officially designated an area near MacArthur Park as the MacArthur Park Historic District and, pursuant to state law and local ordinances, has delegated certain authority to the Little Rock Historic District Commission to preserve the historical integrity of this area; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that it may be desirable to designate other areas of the City as historic districts; and WHEREAS, the City has become aware that, at times, property owners within an historic district do not maintain their properties and, as a result, the properties deteriorate to the point that constitutes a virtual demolition by neglect; and WHEREAS, an effective way to prevent this situation is to have maintenance criteria within an historic district and to aggressively enforce these criteria. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS: SECTION 1: This Ordinance shall be referred to as the Minimum Maintenance Requirements for Buildings and Structures Within Historic Districts. SECTION 2: It is the policy of the City of Little Rock (City) to require that all buildings and structures within a designated historic district, as defined and implemented pursuant to Act 484 of 1963 and Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code 5 23-96 to -133 ( 1988) ("LRC"), as either are amended, shall be preserved against decay and deterioration and be free from certain structural defects in the following manner by the owner 1 of the f property, as defined in LRC §20-26. In addition to 2 complying with all other code provisions governing occupiable 3 structures, the owner shall repair and maintain such building or 4 structure if it is found to have any of the following defects or 5 deterioration: 6 (a) The deterioration of any feature so as to create or 7 permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe 8 condition or conditions that may injure members of 9 the public or property; 10 (b) Deteriorated or inadequate foundation; 11 (c) Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports 12 or flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to 13 carry imposed loads with safety; 14 (d) Members of walls, partitions or other vertical 15 supports that split, lean, list or buckle due to 16 defective material, neglect or deterioration; 17 (e) Members of walls, partitions or other vertical 1s supports that are of insufficient size to carry 19 imposed loads with safety; 20 (f) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports 21 or other horizontal members which sag, split or 22 buckle due to defective materials, neglect or 23 deterioration; 24 (g) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports 25 or other horizontal members that are of insufficient 26 size to carry imposed loads with safety; 27 (h) Fireplaces or chimneys which list, bulge or settle 28 due to defective materials or deterioration; 29 (i) Fireplace or chimneys which are of insufficient size 30 or strength to carry imposed loads with safety; 31 (j) Deteriorated, crumbling or loose plaster or mortar; 32 (k) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior 33 walls, roofs, foundations or floors, including broken 34 windows or doors; 35 (1) Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior 36 [2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 wall coverings, including lack of paint, or 0 weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering, peeling of paint, rotting, holes and other forms of decay; (m) Any fault or defect in the building which renders the same structurally unsafe or not properly watertight. SECTION 3: Failure of the owner to correct the defects or deterioration as outlined in Section 2 after knowledge of the existence of such defects or deterioration has been brought to his attention, shall constitute a violation of this article and shall be punishable as provided in LRC § 1-9. SECTION 4: At the direction of the Little Rock Historic District Commission, or upon the initiative of any other person, the appropriate City department shall make all necessary inspections in connection with the enforcement of this article and furnish the Little Rock Historic District Commission with copies of the reports of its inspections to aid in such enforcement. Inspectors shall have the same right to inspect premises in connection with the enforcement of this article as they now have in relation to zoning and other violations under the jurisdiction of such department. SECTION 5: (a) Pursuant to the enforcement of the requirements of this ordinance, the City Manager is hereby authorized to grant enforcement and citation powers to the inspectors of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning for the purposes of obtaining compliance with this ordinance only. Such powers of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning inspectors shall be in addition to the normal enforcement and citation powers of the Department of Neighborhoods and Planning. (b) Notwithstanding any other enforcement authority granted to the City, the City shall not independently order a building or structure in the historic district to be demolished without first notifying the Little Rock Historic District Commission. If the City gives notice of intent to seek demolition approval from the Board of Directors, the building official shall provide, in accordance with LRC §20-28, certification that despite boarding [3] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 and securing, the condition presents an unsafe building or structure as defined in LRC §20-26. SECTION 6: Repealer. This article shall not be construed to repeal the provisions of any existing laws and ordinances establishing building and zoning requirements for the city generally or any other section of this chapter, except such as may directly conflict herewith. SECTION 7. Severability. In the event any title, subtitle, section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, subparagraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of this ordinance. SECTION 8. Emergency. The Board of Directors hereby finds and declares that as a result of rapid deterioration of buildings and structures in an historic district, and desiring to immediately pursue aggressive enforcement of these minimum maintenance standards for buildings and structures within an historic district, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in effect immediately upon its passage. PASSED: ATTEST: WOMBIE CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: THOMAS M. CARPENTER CITY ATTORNEY 36 1 [4] APPROVED: •• DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 `2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 f 30 31 32 33 34 35 + 36 NO. AN ORDINANCE CONDEMNING THE STRUCTURE AT 815 SOUTH ROCK STREET IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK AS A STRUCTURAL, FIRE AND HEALTH HAZARD; PROVIDING FOR SUMMARY ABATE [ENT PROCEDURES; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY- TO TARE SUCH ACTION AS IS NECESSARY TO RAZE AND REMOVE SAID STRUCTURE; DECLARING AN EKERGENCY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. WHEREAS, said structure in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, has become run-down, dilapidated, unsightly, dangerous, obnoxious and detrimental to the public welfare of the citizens of Little Rock; and WHEREAS. conditions of this structure constitutes a serious structural, fire and health hazard; and WHEREAS, said structure is a public nuisance and is dangerous to the health and safety of the occupants or other persons and, further, are in such condition as to be dangerous to the lives, limbs and property of people in its vicinity or those lawfully passing thereby; and WHEREAS, said structure is declared a nuisance and immediate action is necessary to remedy these situations and said building should be rehabilitated by the owners or razed either by the owners or the City of Little Rock. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. The Board of Directors hereby declare that the following structure constitute public nuisances. The owners of the following described property is hereby ordered either to begin rehabilitation by immediately contacting the Neighborhood Programs Division and entering into an agreement providing for the immediate rehabilitation of the structure or to raze and remove said structure within twenty-four (24) hours and to complete such removal within seventy-two (72) hours of the effective date of this Ordinance. While not required by law to do so, the Neighborhood Programs Division will immediately attempt to notify the owners of the property listed below of the 1 2 j 3 4 5 i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ; 24 i 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 W. passage of this ordinance by certified mail or personal service. The property on which the condemned structure is located by street address and legal description is hereafter set forth with the name of the owners of records, as follows: UNIT NO. ADDRESS LEGAL OWNER DESCRIPTION 15195 815 S. Rock Original City Alison D. Patton & H.P.H.D. Blk. 60, S. & Evelyn S. Duffey 35 feet of c/o Ms. Arnold Duffey Lot 4 and W. 809 South Rock 80 feet of Little Rock, AR 72202 Lot 5 SECTION 2. The conditions of this structure on the above -described property has been found to present structural, fire and health hazards and is dangerous to the health and safety of the occupants or other persons, and further, the structure is in such condition as to be dangerous to the lives, limbs and property of people in its vicinity or those lawfully passing thereby. SECTION 3. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to institute such proceedings against such persons as may be necessary in order to enforce the provisions of this ordinance so as to remedy the unsightly and dangerous conditions brought about as a result of the failure of the owners thereof to maintain this property. SECTION 4. The Neighborhood Programs Division of the City of Little Rock is also authorized to raze and remove said building and file and enforce a lien against said property for the cost of razing and removing said structure pursuant to Section 20-32 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances. SECTION 5. Unless the provisions of this Ordinance are put into effect immediately, the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Little Rock will be adversely affected; therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 PASSED: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORK: OAS CARPENTER, CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NO. LR-C-94-344 EVELYN DUFFEY AND ALISON PATTON PLAINTIFFS u CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AND THE QUAPAW QUARTER ASSOCIATION DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK Plaintiffs propound their first set of interrogatories to the separate defendant City of Little Rock as follows: INTERROGATORY 1: How many appeals from rulings of the Little Rock Historic District Commission have been filed with the Clerk of a court of general legal of equitable jurisdiction? INTERROGATORY 2: What is the style of each case so appealed, including the name of the court, the names of the parties, and the docket number? INTERROGATORY 3: Of the cases so appealed how many were tried de novo in the court of general jurisdiction? INTERROGATORY 4: What is the style of each case so tried, including the name of the court, the names of the parties, and the docket number? INTERROGATORY 5: Of the cases so appealed, and not tried de novo in the court of general jurisdiction, how many were disposed of solely on the basis of a review 4 of the record before the Little Rock Historic District Commission? INTERROGATORY 6: What is the style of each case so disposed of, including the name of the court, the names of the parties, and the docket number? INTERROGATORY 7: Has any case appealed from a decision of the Little Rock Historic District Commission been tried before a jury? INTERROGATORY 8: If so what is the style of each case so tried, including the name of the court, the names of the parties, and the docket number? INTERROGATORY 9: In paragraph 17 of its Answer, the City admits "that it complies with the provisions of 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." When a petition or request is denied by the Little Rock Planning Commission, what are the denied petitioner`s rights regarding appeal of the denial? INTERROGATORY 10: In such appeals, does the appellate court allow trial de novo? INTERROGATORY 11: Also, in such appeals, does the appellate court allow trial by jury? INTERROGATORY 12: How many such cases have been appealed to date this calendar year? INTERROGATORY 13: How many such cases were appealed in each of the calendar years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993? INTERROGATORY 14: Despite the admissions quoted in Interrogatory 9 above, the City denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 17d of the Amended Complaint wherein Plaintiffs allege that the differences in procedure that have been written into state law —differences between the appeals referred to in Interrogatory 9 above and the appeals of rulings of the Little Rock Historic District Commission —deny to property owners within the McArthur Park Historic 2 District the opportunity for the enjoyment of equal procedural protection, a procedural discrimination with no rational basis and therefore constituting a violation of the property owner's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. What is the rational basis for the procedural differences? INTERROGATORY 15: Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, in hearings upon petitions for certificates of appropriateness, did the Little Rock Historic District Commission follow a formal set of procedures for the governance of the hearings? INTERROGATORY 16: If the answer to Interrogatory 15 is yes, what is the name of the reference publication that the Little Rock Historic District Commission uses in following the procedures? INTERROGATORY 17: Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, in hearings upon petitions for certificates of appropriateness, did the Little Rock Historic District Commission ever use or follow the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure as prescribed by the Arkansas Supreme Court? INTERROGATORY 18: Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, in hearings upon petitions for certificates of appropriateness, did the Little Rock Historic District Commission follow the Rules of Evidence as prescribed by the Arkansas Supreme Court? INTERROGATORY 19: If the answer to Interrogatory 18 is no, what rules are used by the Little Rock Historic District Commission to determine who may speak in such hearings? INTERROGATORY 20: If the answer to Interrogatory 18 is no, what rules are used by the Little Rock Historic District Commission to determine the qualifications of speakers or witnesses? INTERROGATORY 21: If the answer to Interrogatory 18 is no, what rules are used by the Little Rock Historic District Commission to determine what documentary or physical evidence will be considered by the Commission? ki INTERROGATORY 22: Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, had any speakers or witnesses speaking before or to the Little Rock Historic District Commission been required to swear or affirm to tell the truth? INTERROGATORY 23: Prior to the filing of the complaint herein, in hearings upon petitions for certificates of appropriateness, did the Little Rock Historic District Commission allow petitioners to question speakers who expressed opposition to the petition? INTERROGATORY- 24: If the answer to Interrogatory 23 is yes, who was allowed to object to questions? INTERROGATORY 25: If the answer to Interrogatory 23 is yes, who ruled on such objections. INTERROGATORY 26: If the answer to Interrogatory 23 is yes, did the person ruling on such objections follow the Arkansas Rules of Evidence as prescribed by the Arkansas Supreme Court? INTERROGATORY 27: In the December 2, 1993 hearing on Plaintiffs' petition did the Little Rock Historic District Commission allow one speaker to state that he could restore the building requested in the petition to be demolished? INTERROGATORY 28: If the answer to Interrogatory 27 is yes, did petitioners attempt to question the speaker about the basis for the speaker's assertion? INTERROGATORY 29: If the answer to Interrogatory 27 is yes, did anyone object to such questioning? INTERROGATORY 30: If the answer to Interrogatory 27 is yes, who objected? INTERROGATORY 31: If the answer to Interrogatory 27 is yes, what was the ruling on such objection? INTERROGATORY 32: If the answer to Interrogatory 27 is yes, what was the stated basis for such ruling? 4 4 INTERROGATORY 33: In the said December 2, 1993 hearing did the Little Rock Historic District Commission Chairman state at the beginning of the hearing that speakers would be limited to three minutes? INTERROGATORY 34: Did the Little Rock Historic District Commission in 1991, approve a resolution urging the Little Rock City Council (Board of Directors) to impose a six- month moratorium on issuing demolition permits in all of Little Rock's Historic Districts —including the McArthur Park Historic District —as reported in the Arkansas Gazette k. on July 12, 1991? INTERROGATORY 35: Did members of the Little Rock Historic District Commission sign a letter, dated January 12, 1994, addressed to Sharon Priest, objecting to the Little Rock City Council (Board of Directors) considering demolition of Kramer School? INTERROGATORY 36: If the answer to Interrogatory 35 is yes, what was the basis or bases for such objection? INTERROGATORY 37: In paragraph 17 of its Answer the City affirmatively asserts that "...an adequate remedy to redress the grievance of the Plaintiffs is provided by state law under Ark. Code Ann. §14-172-212 and City ordinance under LRO 14,042, now codified in Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code §23-130 (1988), providing 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."' Does the City contend that this quoted statutory language gives those who appeal rulings of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to the appropriate court a right to trial de novo? INTERROGATORY 38: If the answer to Interrogatory 37 is yes, does the City rely upon the opinion of a court or upon its own interpretation of the quoted statutory language? 5 INTERROGATORY 39: If the answer to Interrogatory 37 is yes, and, if the City relies upon the opinion of a court, what is the citation to the case or cases upon which the City relies? INTERROGATORY 40: Upon what specific facts does the City rely to substantiate its assertion in paragraph 17 of its Answer that "...the hearings on the Plaintiffs' request to demolish the historic structure provided substantial justice to the Plaintiffs...."? INTERROGATORY 41: In paragraph 21 of its Answer the City "affirmatively asserts that the any [sic] 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." What are the specific provisions, including section number(s), subsection number(s), paragraph number(s), or subparagraph number(s), of the City code that the City contends were violated by the Plaintiffs? INTERROGATORY 42: Has the City's Council (Board of Directors) had before it a proposed ordinance entitled "An ordinance to establish minimum maintenance requirements for buildings and structures within an officially designated historic district; declaring an emergency; and for other purposes"? INTERROGATORY 43: If the answer to Interrogatory 42 is yes, what is the present status of that proposed ordinance? INTERROGATORY 44: If the answer to Interrogatory 42 is yes, what is the legislative history of that proposed ordinance? INTERROGATORY 45: If the answer to Interrogatory 42 is yes, and if passed by the City's Council in its latest draft form, what would that proposed ordinance add to Plaintiffs' duty to secure and maintain the structure at 815 S. Rock St. that is not encompassed within the code provisions referred to above in Interrogatory 4 1 ? INTERROGATORY 46: In paragraph 26 of its Answer the City "affirmatively states that had the owners of the property fulfilled their responsibility to provide housing code maintenance 6 of 815 South Rock Street, it would not be in the substandard condition at present." What specific acts did the Plaintiffs fail to perform that if they had been performed would have fulfilled Plaintiffs' responsibility to provide housing code maintenance of 815 South Rock Street? INTERROGATORY 47: As to each such possible act referred to in Interrogatory 46, when, under the housing code, should the Plaintiffs have performed such act? INTERROGATORY 48: In paragraph 31 of its Answer the City "affirmatively pleads that r. the Plaintiffs 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."' Has anyone relied to their detriment upon the previous statements or conduct of the Plaintiffs regarding 815 South Rock Street? If so, what are their names, addresses, and phone numbers? INTERROGATORY 49: Also, .as to estoppel, does the City contend that Plaintiffs' alleged failure to secure or maintain the structure at 815 South Rock Street is inconsistent with their petition to the Commission for permission to demolish said structure, or with any other behavior of the Plaintiffs? If so what behavior of the Plaintiffs is inconsistent? INTERROGATORY 50: What other facts support the Citys defense of estoppel? INTERROGATORY 51: The City admitted in paragraph 8 of its answer that it had mailed to Plaintiffs Warning Notice NO. 90 32842 which condemned 815 South rock Street as unfit for human habitation, offensive to the neighborhood, dangerous to the lives, limbs and property of persons in its vicinity or lawfully passing thereby. What steps has the City taken to remove or lessen that danger? INTERROGATORY 52: The City admitted in paragraph 8 of its answer that it had mailed to Plaintiffs Warning Notice NO. 90 32842 which condemned 815 South rock Street as unfit for human habitation, offensive to the neighborhood, dangerous to the lives, limbs and 7 property of persons in its vicinity or lawfully passing thereby. What steps has the City taken to prevent Plaintiffs from removing or lessening that danger? INTERROGATORY 53: At the City Council (Board of Directors) meeting on May 3, 1994, did City Attorney Tom Carpenter inform the council members in writing that 815 South Rock Street had been boarded up for many years? INTERROGATORY 54: Section 5, subsection C of City ordinance 14,042 provides: "If the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involves the demolition of a building which } the Commission initially determines to be an inappropriate demolition, then notwithstanding said determination the Commission may defer the matter until such time as the Commission has had an opportunity to consider the following alternatives to the demolition of subject property: "1. Sources of funding for preservation and restoration activities, if lack of such funds is the reason for the request to demolish. "2. Adaptive use changes, if there are conditions under which the required preservation of a historic landmark would cause undue hardship to the owner or owners, so long as such changes are in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. "3. An attempt to find a purchaser for the property who would maintain the landmark in a suitable and acceptable manner within the limits of the Historic District Commission Ordinance. "4. The feasibility of moving the structure to another appropriate location. "5. Any such other solution as may be deemed advisable and in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. "During the time the Commission is considering any one of the alternatives hereinabove set out, progress reports shall be made by the Commission and/or its staff at each regularly scheduled Commission meeting. If at the expiration of six calendar months from the date of the first public hearing of an application for demolition, the Commission has not found a viable alternative to the demolition of the property, the Commission shall reschedule the matter for 8 public hearing requiring notices as aforesaid, and upon said public hearing, make its final determination as to the application. In such cases, the public hearing for final determination shall be held within one calendar month after the expiration of the six months from the date of the first public hearing, and at the second public hearing, the Commission may hear such matters as are considered necessary or desirable to fully advise the Commission of all facts and circumstances as then exist as they pertain to the proposed demolition. At the second public hearing the Commission may immediately announce its decision or take the matter under Y advisement to its next regularly scheduled Commission meeting for the purpose of announcing its decision, but in no event longer than two calendar months after the expiration of the six month period after the first public hearing. If the Commission has rendered no decision on the application for demolition within two calendar months after the expiration of the six months following the first public hearing, the Commission shall consider the application as having been approved and shall issue Certificate of Appropriateness." Was this procedure followed by the Commission on either of Plaintiffs' petitions for demolition? INTERROGATORY 55: Has the Commission ever followed the procedure referred to in Interrogatory 54 on a petition for Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a structure? If so, who was the petitioner(s)? INTERROGATORY 56: Under what circumstances would the Commission consider the use of the procedure referred to in Interrogatory 54? INTERROGATORY 57: In its first set of Interrogatories to the Plaintiffs the City asked for the assessed tax value of 815 South Rock Street and asked whether Plaintiffs had ever challenged the assessment. What defense or defenses will the City attempt to prove by the use of these facts? INTERROGATORY 58: Has the City Attorney ever advised the City Council (Board of Directors) that the City might be exposed to liability as a result of injury to innocent parties 01 caused by structures the City's code inspectors have determined to be a hazard to the public safety, which structures remain standing because of the Commission's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition? INTERROGATORY 59: If the answer to Interrogatory 58 is yes, what are the date or dates upon which such advice was given? INTERROGATORY 60: Has the City Council (Board of Directors) ever considered an ordinance that would require the demolition of the structure on 815 South Rock Street? INTERROGATORY 61: If the answer to Interrogatory 60 is yes, what is the legislative history of such ordinance or proposed ordinance? INTERROGATORY 62: Does any state statute or case law, or any City ordinance, allow the City to take action to reduce or remove any hazards to the public presented by deteriorated buildings? INTERROGATORY 63: If the answer to Interrogatory 62 is yes, what are the citations to such law or laws? INTERROGATORY 64: If such law or laws referred to in Interrogatory 62 do exist, would they apply to buildings within the McArthur Park Historic District? INTERROGATORY 65: If the answer to Interrogatory 64 is yes, was any action ever taken to protect the public from the hazards presented by 815 South Rock Street as detailed in the Warning Notice alleged in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint (and admitted in the City's Answer)? above. Plaintiffs request production of the following documents: REQUEST NO. 1: Please provide a copy of the letter referred to in Interrogatory No. 35 REQUEST NO. 2: Please provide a copy of the proposed ordinance referred to in Interrogatory 42 above in its latest draft form. 10 above. REQUEST NO. 3: Please provide a copy of the writing referred to in Interrogatory 53 REQUEST NO. 4: Please provide copies of any and all ordinance proposals referred to in Interrogatory No. 60. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ��VIJL William W. Hylton I Attorney at Law Arkansas Bar No. 72062 1501 South Elm Street Little Rock, AR 72204 664-8553 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William W. Hylton III, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed to Stephen R. Giles, Deputy City Attorney, at City Hall, Room 310, 500 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201; and to Nate Coulter, Attorney for the Quapaw Quarter Association, P.O. Box 71, Little Rock, AR 72201, on this the / day of July, 1994. A" 1 • 1 William W. Hylton I Attorney at Law