CONCORD — New Hampshire Supreme Court justices questioned both the city of Rochester and the attorney representing Amazon Park during oral arguments Wednesday about a 1984 memo that may play a significant role in determining whether the park’s units can continue to operate as residential year-round housing.

The case is in Supreme Court because the city is appealing a 2017 Superior Court ruling in favor of Amazon Park. The four presiding justices made no rulings or determinations following Wednesday’s oral arguments.

City Attorney Terence O’Rourke and attorney Carl Potvin, representing Amazon Park owners John and Debra Weeden, both agreed in their oral arguments that the 1984 letter indicates the city’s building inspector and attorney at the time had no objection to Amazon Park’s year-round use.

However, O’Rourke, who argued his side first in court on Wednesday, claims the building inspector and attorney had “no authority” to make that determination or issue that memo. He claims the city and its Zoning Board of Adjustment previously rejected Amazon Park’s year-round use, a rejection he claims could only be overturned during an appeal through Strafford County Superior Court.

“You don’t get to appeal it to the building inspector, and you certainly don’t get to appeal it to the city attorney,” O’Rourke argued in court.

Potvin argued in court that the building inspector and city attorney were “acting well within (their) authority” in 1984 to tell Amazon Park it didn’t need a special exemption and that the city’s ordinances didn’t prohibit the proposed use. Amazon Park, Potvin argued, didn’t appeal the matter in Superior Court in the 1980s because he claims there was no rejection of the park’s year-round use.

“By the time the building inspector issued the letter in May 1984, residential occupancy was well known to the city,” Potvin argued in court. “If the city wanted to challenge that decision, the time to do it was then (by filing an appeal to its own ZBA)… It was a done deal and it has stood for 31 years.”

John Weeden’s father, Warren, opened Amazon Park as a seasonal motor trailer campground in 1977. The Whitehouse Road site later became a year-round operation because homeless and indigent people used it for long-term lodging.

Following the 1984 memo, Amazon Park was significantly upgraded in order to better serve individuals in need of long-term housing, according to Potvin. Upgrades included electric and sewer connections, which continue to provide service to Amazon Park’s 95 sites and roughly 120 residents today.

Over the years, the city’s welfare department also reportedly helped to place individuals at Amazon Park in addition to providing assistance to individuals living there. According to O’Rourke in court Wednesday, that is no longer happening.

The city has contended over the past few years that Amazon Park is unsuitable for permanent residences and that its present use doesn’t conform with the city’s ordinances. Following a 2016 Superior Court trial, Judge Mark Howard ruled in February 2017 that the use doesn’t violate the city’s original approvals of Amazon Park’s operation.

O’Rourke argued in Supreme Court Wednesday that Howard’s decision is “fatally flawed” and that Superior Court “just (got) it wrong.”

“(The Weedens) knew exactly what they were approved for and disregarded the law anyway,” O’Rourke argued.

Supreme Court justices questioned Potvin directly on that point during his argument, with one of the justices asking Potvin whether his client has “unclean hands” and has been “pulling the wool” over the city’s eyes.

“The city has had uninterrupted knowledge of this,” Potvin replied. “The Weedens did nothing to hide the use of the park. If anything, they went to the city and worked with the code enforcement department and the (state) Department of Environmental Services to get the necessary permits to put in the infrastructure that would support the use.”

It’s unknown when the Supreme Court will issue a ruling on the matter. Potvin said the sides now must “wait and see.”

John Weeden was present during oral arguments Wednesday. When approached following the court session, Weeden, like several times before, said he couldn’t respond to questions about the pending case.

“I’ll let the truth speak for itself,” Weeden said, referring to the evidence outlined during oral arguments.