Danbury committee hears that enforcement gaps let illegal apartments reappear; members back higher fines

At a meeting of Danbury’s ad hoc committee on unpermitted apartments, Chairman Peter Bizaid and enforcement staff reviewed how the city responds to illegal and unsafe occupancies and discussed proposals to strengthen penalties.

The committee heard from Sean Stillman, the unit director, who said the unit responds to resident complaints and conducts proactive inspections but does not currently have authority to issue orders for housing or occupancy violations. "I don't have the teeth to issue the letter," Stillman said, describing a multi-step enforcement process that can culminate in fines and a lien only after repeated notices and referral to corporation counsel.

The exchange focused on authority, process and outcomes. Stillman told the committee his team handled about 1,400 service requests in 2024, with roughly 47% the result of proactive observations rather than incoming complaints; he said more than 90% of re-inspection appointments are completed within a few days. "We go in there knowing, you know, maybe that we're there for a complaint ... but we go in there with an open mind," Stillman said, describing how staff document conditions with photos and coordinate with fire, zoning and building departments when unsafe bedrooms or additional dwellings are found.

The meeting recounted a high-profile example at 20 Chappell Street. Bizaid said the property "hit the news in a big way," and Stillman described an October 2020 referral in which staff and the fire marshal found people living in the garage, two basement bedrooms and an attic apartment. Fire ordered occupants from unsafe basement bedrooms immediately; subsequent inspections yielded only temporary compliance and, Stillman said, the problem resurfaced years later.

Committee members pressed on enforcement mechanics and deterrence. Stillman outlined the city's typical letter sequence: an initial 30-day remedy period, a follow-up 10-day notice with daily fines accruing, then a hearing-officer order and possible referral to corporation counsel to file a lien. He said few cases reach full collection but recommended giving the unit or a lead department clearer authority to issue larger fines so repeat offenders are deterred. "I'd like for our department to be able to issue a substantial fine," he said.

Corporation counsel Joseph Wargoletti told the group a recently passed Connecticut public act allows municipalities to charge larger fines for violations and urged the committee to draft local implementing language promptly. "We're drafting it now," Wargoletti said; members discussed $2,000 per violation as a possible penalty amount the city could consider.

Members also discussed the human consequences and the city's limited relocation response. Staff said formal relocation assistance is used primarily in fires or other emergencies and that, in many cases, landlords are asked to fund temporary shelter; the Red Cross and friends or relatives are sometimes used to help displaced people. Council members flagged how overcrowding can affect schools and social services.

On enforcement outcomes, Stillman said the city's follow-ups and permitting work have brought roughly $28,000 in revenue into the city so far in 2025 and that, although fines and liens are a tool, the current stepwise process can allow repeat violations when authorizing penalties are not immediate or sufficiently large to deter re-occupation.

Chair Bizaid closed by asking that department heads and corporation counsel attend the next meeting to review orders, timelines and a draft ordinance to increase penalties. A motion to continue the ad hoc meeting and prepare recommended ordinance language was made and scheduled for a future meeting.