Danbury ad hoc committee hears fire marshal, building official on limits enforcing 'illegal' apartments

The Danbury ad hoc committee on unauthorized occupancies heard detailed briefings from the city’s fire marshal and building official about enforcement limits, staffing shortfalls and the financial implications of removing residents from unsafe, unpermitted units.

Fire Marshal Terry Timon told the committee his office focuses on plan reviews and inspections and is required by state law to inspect three-family-and-up structures and licensed facilities, but he repeatedly stressed an access constraint: “we have to have the consent of the occupant,” he said, noting Fourth Amendment limits on entry without an administrative warrant. Timon said his office relies on “authentic sources” — other government agents such as police, the health department or zoning staff — to trigger investigations when a dwelling’s use appears to have changed.

Why it matters: Some conversions are only discovered after fires or other incidents; the marshal said those scenes must be investigated for origin and use, and that unsafe occupancies present a higher risk of injury or death. Committee members pressed Timon on when cooking appliances or a hot plate qualify a space as a separate dwelling; Timon said the presence of sleeping, cooking and sanitary facilities determines a dwelling unit under the code.

City officials described how enforcement is shared across agencies. Timon said that when inspections show a change of use (for example, a single‑family house being used as three separate units) the matter is routed to building, zoning and health so each department can apply its code. The building official confirmed the building department typically acts after notification from other divisions and that zoning approval is required before a conversion can be legalized.

Resources and remedies: Timon told the committee his division has a chief and six deputies and said that meets only a portion of the workload. “It’s an unfunded mandate,” he said, adding that staffing in the fire marshal’s office has not increased in decades and that more inspectors would be needed to reach full compliance. He suggested one option used elsewhere: require annual permits for multifamily properties tied to mandatory inspections, with fines and liens for noncompliance, while acknowledging fairness concerns for owners when the city lacks inspection capacity.

The fire marshal described technology gains — adopting 1st Due and conducting inspections on iPads — that have improved efficiency and contributed to an increase in completed inspections, but he said the software is still being built out and that the volume of new development (he cited recent large projects) continually raises the workload.

Displacement costs and legal process: Officials agreed that when occupants are displaced by code enforcement actions the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (URAA) may apply; the property owner is responsible for re-housing costs, but if an owner is unavailable or declines, the city may provide temporary housing and then seek to recover costs or place a lien. The building official and fire marshal described existing enforcement tools — administrative warrants (used in other municipalities), written abatement orders, and, for repeat or noncompliant owners, referral to the state housing prosecutor or court — but said criminal or civil penalties are limited by state statute and typically pursued through court processes.

Enforcement activity: The building official noted his department’s written order letters increased substantially in the most recent reporting period (he described them as up roughly 200% compared with the prior two years combined), reflecting more active codified enforcement work. He also told the committee that while many owners seek to legalize conversions when notified, others ignore letters and calls, creating persistence and entry challenges.

Committee direction and next steps: Members pressed for clarity on who qualifies as an “authentic source” and asked corporation counsel to advise on that question. Council members emphasized priorities: targeting the highest life-safety risks, improving staffing levels, and exploring ordinance or program changes such as owner permitting to improve accountability. The chair moved to continue the ad hoc committee to hear zoning and health department briefings at a later date; the motion passed and the meeting was adjourned.

The committee did not adopt new local rules at this meeting; members directed staff and counsel to return with options, legal interpretations of what constitutes an authentic source, and estimates of resource needs for more aggressive inspection and enforcement.