Building inspector David Kopjanski is so strict he once wouldn’t approve something from St. Michael’s Church.
And he was a parishioner there.
Those were the words Thursday of ex-Derby Alderman Sam Rizzitelli, on the witness stand for a fourth day in the federal housing discrimination case Home, Inc. and Valley Housing Limited Partnership versus the City of Derby.
The plaintiffs claim Derby officials repeatedly thwarted their attempts to renovate three apartment houses on Caroline and Fourth streets and rent them to clients of Birmingham Group Health Services in Ansonia.
Birmingham helps people with mental and substance abuse problems, along with victims of domestic violence.
Derby officials deny the claim.
John Blasi, an attorney representing Derby, began a cross-examination of Rizzitelli Thursday afternoon.
Blasi asked Rizzitelli a number of questions about Kopjanski’s reputation.
Why?
Because the plaintiffs claim that Derby elected officials did not want Birmingham clients moving into the neighborhood, so they pressured Kopjanksi in to reject a certificate of occupancy and force Home, Inc. to the Derby Zoning Board of Appeals, chaired by Rizzitelli.
Rizzitelli, at the time, was also a member of the Board of Aldermen and the chairman of the Derby Democratic Committee.
Rizzitelli, however, testified that Kopjanski isn’t the type to succumb to political pressure.
“Mr. Kopjanski has a reputation of being a very strict enforcer of the building and zoning codes in the City of Derby,” Rizzitelli said.
Blasi had Rizzitelli read an old memo from Kopjanski, where the building official explained that what Home, Inc. wanted to do required approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The ZBA, in a 2005 decision authored by Rizzitelli, then denied Home, Inc.
Home, Inc. appealed Rizzitelli’s decision to Superior Court — and won.
However, from the witness stand under questioning by Blasi, Rizzitelli argued the Superior Court decision was wrong and that Derby should have appealed the decision.
Rizzitelli testified the ZBA’s rejection of Home, Inc. had nothing to do with the fact Birmingham clients were moving in. The project simply didn’t jive with Derby’s zoning rules, Rizzitelli said.
Rubber Stamp?
However, David Rosen, an attorney for the plaintiffs, questioned Rizzitelli’s decision on the ZBA.
He asked why, at one ZBA meeting, the Home, Inc. application was tabled. A decision was to be made at the subsequent meeting. However, that didn’t happen.
“It didn’t appear on the agenda?” Rosen asked.
“No one brought it up,” Rizzitelli said.
“You decided it shouldn’t be on the agenda and no one protested?” Rosen asked.
“Correct,” Rizzitelli said.
“And that was your prerogative as chairman?” Rosen asked.
Rizzitelli said setting the agenda was his responsibility.
Rosen also questioned Rizzitelli about a conversation he had with a city attorney about the Home, Inc. matter. He asked whether Rizzitelli had other, off-the-record conversations about the application.
Rizzitelli said he had not.
Rosen read minutes from the ZBA meeting where Rizzitelli read the decision he wrote into the record.
Rosen asked whether anyone in the public was expecting Rizzitelli to author a decision.
Rizzitelli said he didn’t think so.
After Rizzitelli announced the decision, none of his fellow ZBA members asked questions. They just moved to accept Rizzitelli’s decision as is.
“Is it fair to say you read the decision and the board just rubber stamped it?” Rosen asked.
“No,” Rizzitelli replied.
Rizzitelli’s testimony is expected to continue when the trial resumes later this month.
Sam Rizzitelli “rubber-stamped” everything his friend, ex-Mayor Marc Garofalo, wanted.
Former Mayor Garofalo, could never use David Kopjanski, “as a rubber stamp,” as his convictions were always to do his job, honestly, and professionally, an accomolishment, which he always mastered.
Mr Kopjanski isn’t “on trial”. This is a civil lawsuit against the City of Derby over housing discrimination, asking for money damages. The only way this becomes a criminal matter with “charges” is if someone were to commit perjury on the stand.
The Superior Court judge has already ruled that Mr Kopjanski’s application of the zoning law and the Zoning Appeal Board’s actions were wrong. That’s a settled matter. Contrary to popular belief, the laws of the United States – the 14th amendment, the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) do apply within the city limits of Derby, as well as Connecticut law. Continuing to try to defend the wrong decision is just digging the hole deeper when monetary damages are decided, since it demonstates the officials involved still don’t accept the Superior Court’s decision about application of the law.
The units were already zoned for multifamily residential use, which was not changing. There was no rationale for requiring zoning approval since the use was not changing. The units were not being made bigger or to house more people. The rationale eventually became “You can’t renovate the buildings because that would make them not blighted and worth more than they are now”. The documentation of the lawsuit is on this web site if you’re interested in the facts if you don’t believe my version.
Zoning can’t be used to discriminate against who is going to live in a building, especially if they have a Federally protected disability like HIV/AIDS or mental illness. If the city was thoughtful, they probably could have negotiated something with the developer like an agreement to require periodic drug testing of their clients. Discrimination is allowed against currently active drug abusers and the city could demand they be evicted when detected – but they appear to have chosen “all or nothing”.
If the city wants to not be a “dumping ground” for people with social services needs, it needs to think about what types of people would better suit the goals of the city and what it could do to attract them. Being right on Route 8 with fairly convenient rail access to New York City could be useful to attract high income young professional people living in high density housing or companies wanting to build regional distribution facilities – but I tend to doubt the board of zoning would encourage that type of development. Nature abhors a vacuum.