A hearing held Nov. 24 by the Connecticut Department of Public Health to consider Mildred Norton’s appeal of a notice of violation for 70 Rochelle Avenue in Stamford was continued to Dec. 11, 2025, after the local health department failed to meet the evidentiary filing deadline, the hearing officer said.

Hearing officer Aidan Bowne opened the proceeding and said the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the City of Stamford Department of Health and Human Services properly issued the notice of violation based on the conditions at the time of inspection. Bowne said the proceeding follows agency rules and that the department, as the party with the burden of proof, would present opening statements and evidence first. "This is a public hearing held by the Connecticut Department of Public Health concerning an appeal of an order issued by the City of Stamford Department of Health and Human Services," Bowne said.

Norton, 82, is representing herself in the appeal and said she had hand-delivered a letter to Stamford City Hall on Nov. 18 that she intended to place into evidence. The hearing officer told Norton the Department of Public Health would not automatically have received materials delivered to Stamford City Hall and invited Norton to formally enter the letter when testimony resumes. Norton also told the panel that a Fire Department inspector named Brandon checked exits and "said if you can get out of the house in 3 minutes, I'll clear you," and that the inspection "got cleared."

City attorney Dana Lee told the hearing that the Stamford health department had emailed photographs and documents on Nov. 20 and had overnighted copies to Norton after realizing the hearing date. "The hearing date that... was not on my calendar," Lee said. Bowne said he required a compelling justification to admit late-filed evidence and indicated he did not find good cause to receive the department’s filings as submitted. To give Norton time to review the material and to allow DPH staff to process the submissions, Bowne continued the matter and scheduled a new hearing date.

Bowne told the parties he would not extend any additional deadlines for further evidence and emphasized the continuance was to ensure fairness so that Norton could meaningfully review materials. He explained the possible outcomes on the merits: the notice of violation could be vacated, modified, or affirmed.

Bowne gave administrative instructions for submitting evidence and contact information for the city attorney. He asked that Norton or her representative send documents and the hand-delivered letter to the DPH administrative inbox at PHHO.dph@ct.gov and referenced the Nov. 3 procedural ruling for submission guidance. The hearing was continued to Dec. 11, 2025, at 2:00 p.m.; Bowne said the parties were free to resolve the matter before that date.

The hearing record includes seven marked record exhibits for identification, including the violation order dated July 30, 2025, proof of delivery for that order, Norton’s written appeal dated Aug. 4, 2025, and notices and rulings related to prior continuances. The Department of Public Health will decide whether to admit the department’s late exhibits when the hearing resumes or to proceed without them. The hearing was adjourned and taken off the record.