Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1998-020 Letter From Thomas M. Carpenter To Daniels 03/07/2001Pritchett Jimmy From: Carpenter, Tom Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 11:31 AM To: 'DP2700@aol.com' Cc: Mayor; Board; Black, Anthony; Carney, Cy; Pritchett Jimmy; Mann, Bill Subject: Comments about Historic District Commission action Dear Ms. Daniels, I have been asked to respond to your e-mail to Mayor Dailey and the Board about the situation between the Little Rock Historic District Commission and Ms. Deislinger. I suspect that your e-mail was prompted by the recent article in the Arkansas Democrat -Gazette. Until yesterday, we were actually curious why an essential non-event (since nothing had happened, nor was anticipated) had prompted a story. Yesterday we learned that the reporter had been given a copy of the 23 FEB 2001 response from Ms. Deislinger's attorney to our December letter about the structure's noncompliance with the Certificate of Appropriateness that Ms. Deislinger requested, agreed to, and received several months ago. Ironically, we did not receive a copy of the 23 FEB letter until after the newspaper article was published. Unfortunately, there is no short answer to your question. And, in light of how the story was portrayed, it seems appropriate to take some time to respond to your concerns. First, the City does not intend to take any legal action in this matter until there has been a resolution of certain issues. One of the things that has occurred is that the Historic District Commission has issued an RFP to hire a consultant to help with the review of its existing standards and guidelines. Although I understand that the RFP has been temporarily pulled because of the need to identify a funding source, the Commission and the City intend to follow through on this effort. Second, these standards and guidelines are necessary for several reasons. For one thing, the tax credits that numerous citizens have been able to obtain as an inducement to restore historic structures are placed at risk if the City does not enforce its standards. In addition, there needs to be some clear guidance on how to proceed with particular types of rehabilitation, and what actions are consistent with the historic character of a particular district. No one who purchases property and moves into an historic district, like Ms. Deislht ,Zes; does so without the knowledge and acceptance that special architectural and design standards apply within the boundaries of the district. It is this aspect of the situation that has been frustrating for the City. Ms. Deislinger applied for the Certificate of Appropriateness within the District, agreed upon the conditions that deal with the type of windows to be installed (and I separate that issue from the bars on windows), and then simply refused to do it. After repeated requests to come into compliance with what she had agreed to do, and repeated letters to follow up on those requests, the Commission voted to take its initial action. She focused the issue on the bars, but the major concerns are and have always been the windows in the front of the house (for which bars are not even an issue), and the placement of HVAC equipment at the side. As to the HVAC equipment, despite the fact it was not in compliance with the original agreement, the City deemed that her placement of appropriate shrubbery to screen the equipment would constitute compliance. This violation warrant that gained so much attention was virtually the same as a failure to cut the grass citation. While the manner in which it was served may have left something to be desired, the fact it was served occurred only after Ms. Deislinger essentially proved that it did not matter what she had agreed to do, or what the law required, she was not going to do it. The 23 FEB 2001 letter from her lawyer once again lays down the gauntlet — an all or nothing at all proposition — which is particularly unfortunate since the City is trying and has offered to reach accommodation. But, it is evidently Ms. Deislinger's and Mr. Larkowski's position that it is far more popular to refuse to return phone calls and blast the City, than it is to try to work through legitimate concerns. For example, if her real concern is the safety bars, I have every reason to believe that some accommodation could be reached on that issue — i.e., that the bars would not have to be removed, or that some modification could be made to render them compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood. The materials used on the front windows, however, create greater concerns for the City, this District, and the people who have relied upon and depended upon tax credits to preserve some of these structures. It would certainly be popular simply to forget all about this matter; but, would it be right for the City affirmatively to refuse to enforce the guidelines that it has certified are in place so the district is preserved, and which impact the tax situation of other citizens? And, would a decision not to pursue a matter, made because a person who simply refuses to talk to the City, constitute a responsible decision? If there is room for compromise or discussion, the Commission and the City are more than willing to explore it. But, I do not believe it should be a unilateral discussion — i.e., one that does not include Ms. Deislinger. She, or her lawyer, has selected that route. Now we have a dispute, a legitimate dispute on both sides of the issue, and we need a mechanism for resolution. In this Country, the legal system is designed to resolve disputes. The historic district statutes permit both civil and criminal actions. I believe a civil action is the appropriate way to proceed if Ms. Deislinger continues to refuse to discuss the issue. I also believe that meaningful and serious discussions are preferable to any type of legal action. Your quip about Mr. Black was cute, but in light of the above, I think misguided. To bring this into a different focus, consider a similar situation. There are various requirements the City must fulfill in order to achieve the lowest possible fire insurance rating. The better fire insurance rating, the lower premiums that homeowners have to pay. A citizen in Little Rock pays several hundred dollars a year less for homeowner's insurance than the owner of a similarly price and sized house in cities without such a rating. Part of the ability to maintain this rating is the assurance that the City has, and will enforce, certain structure codes — building codes, electrical codes, etc. Suppose we have citizens who refuse to comply because they disagree with these codes — as Ms. Deislinger evidently disagrees with the Historic District Commission standards she earlier committed to follow. Further, suppose that the City's refusal to enforce the codes jeopardizes its fire insurance rating, and costs the citizen's more money for insurance premiums (which for those who do not own the structure means higher rents). It is precisely this kind of situation the City faces as to the enforcement of the historic district standards. When the protection and enforcement of the law is considered in this light, do you still want me to suggest that Mr. Black serve as a companion for Ms. Ellen? Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney (501) 371-6875