Former Derby Mayor Marc Garofalo played detective when he first learned of a “supportive housing” proposal in downtown Derby in 2004.
Garofalo pulled assessors cards and researched corporation names in order to determine who wanted to renovate and lease out apartment buildings on Caroline and Fourth streets.
The owner of the property was hidden amongst “multiple layers of LLCs” Garofalo testified.
“It seemed at first blush that someone was trying to hide something,” he said.
The statements came during the first 90 minutes of Garofalo’s testimony Monday afternoon during a federal housing discrimination trial against the city of Derby.
They lay the groundwork for what has been the city’s defense in the case: That Derby wasn’t opposed to the supportive housing plans because it was meant for people with mental health or substance abuse problems — they were against the proposal because of the way the agencies went about seeking approvals.
Garofalo started his testimony after 3 p.m. Monday, and is expected to continue at about 11 a.m. Tuesday. Monday he was only questioned by an attorney for the city.
Background
The “supportive housing” — or apartments for clients of Birmingham Group Health Services in Ansonia — was proposed by Home Inc. and the Valley Housing Limited Partnership.
In a federal lawsuit, the groups claim that Derby and building inspector David Kopjankski illegally tried to thwart the project and the subsequent 39-month delay was costly to them.
The apartments are currently being renovated, after a state court overturned a zoning denial. The federal lawsuit seeks to get monetary damages for the cost of the delay.
Suspicions
Garofalo said his research was necessary because Home Inc. hadn’t come before the city to explain what they wanted to do.
The group, in earlier testimony, said they didn’t need to come before the city because they would be using the buildings for their existing purpose: apartments.
Garofalo testified that he found out about the project when a neighbor asked Garofalo why people in the apartment buildings were being evicted.
His digging led him to a federal funding application — which outlined the group’s plans.
Garofalo said he drove to Hartford to review the application, and left, with a copy of the documents, feeling offended.
“They basically said they were not going to tell the city, not going to work with the city, and hire politically connected people and just push it through,” Garofalo testified Monday in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport.
“It made it sound like someone could be bought off,” Garofalo said. “Presumably me.”
John Blazi, attorney for the city and Kopjanski, asked if Garofalo told anyone of the plans upon his discovery.
“What did you do?” Blazi asked him.
“Nothing,” Garofalo responded.
“Did you show (the documents) to anybody?”
“Nope.”
“Did you do anything with the info?”
“Nope.”
“Then what was the purpose?” Blazi asked.
“To find out what was going on,” Garofalo responded.
A year later, Garofalo met with the developers, he testified.
“I asked them to withdraw the plan. I said let’s try to work together on a project like this because the project was too dense,” Garofalo said.
ZBA
Derby Zoning Board of Appeals member David Manley also testified Monday afternoon.
He said that he voted against a variance for the housing proposal in 2005 because he was concerned that the lawyer for the applicant wouldn’t discuss parking issues.
At that meeting, the architect started talking about parking issues at the site, but attorney Dominick Thomas cut him off, saying it wasn’t relevant to the issue that night.
Manley said as soon as that exchange took place, he decided to vote against the project.
“He said it was not relevant, and I believed it was relevant,” Manley said. “I wanted to hear the answers on it, and they did not want to give any answers, and I did not believe that was proper protocol.”
But when questioned by U.S. District Court Judge Tucker L. Melancon, Manley read through meeting minutes that indicate he voted against the proposal before the exchange he described.
Judge Melancon asked him how he could reconcile that discrepancy.
“I can’t explain it,” Manley responded.
