Advertisement

Public Health report: Department of Health finds health code violations at 16 establishments

Update (Feb. 4): This article previously incorrectly reported that inspectors found Tita’s Kitchen and the Café on the Common did not have an employee present with the requisite anti-choking training. This was due to a misinterpretation of inspection reports; both restaurants did, in fact, have a properly-trained employee on site.

The Department of Health found that 16 restaurants it inspected between Dec. 5 and 17 did not comply with Waltham’s health codes. The department did not conduct any routine inspections of group living facilities or schools at this time. 

A busy restaurant kitchen. Canva stock image.

Also during this period, the department responded to five new health complaints. Inspectors resolved two of them — one dumpster complaint and one trash complaint — and are still resolving another trash complaint, a housing complaint from a renter about a faulty heating system, and a housing complaint from a renter about pest control.

The city’s health department conducts regular inspections of living and eating establishments to ensure compliance with the city’s safety codes. Twice a year, it inspects each of the city’s restaurants, schools, lodging houses, nursing homes, and any other businesses that serve food or are regulated by specific health codes in Waltham to make sure they comply with the city’s safety regulations. 

The department’s inspectors also investigate complaints about pests, trash management on private properties and other environmental hazards.

Below is a summary of the violations found at each of the 16 restaurants that inspectors evaluated as unsatisfactory during this two-week period. Violations that inspectors designated to be critical are marked with an asterisk. It’s common for restaurants to have minor violations during inspections, and when a restaurant is found to be unsatisfactory, the department sets a deadline for the restaurant to correct any violations. 

Karibu Restaurant, 10 Crescent St., on Dec. 9

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • Food was stored uncovered in a freezer.
  • Food was stored less than six inches off the ground in a walk-in fridge.
  • The kitchen’s fume hood was due for a professional cleaning.
  • The sides of a grill and fryolater required cleaning.

The restaurant was given 10 days to correct these issues.

Shanghai Cuisine, 11 Pine St., on Dec 9

Advertisement

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • A handwashing sink that required repair. *
  • A freezer that was disorganized, with insufficiently labelled food.
  • Food that was stored on the floor of a freezer.
  • Knives that were stored in crevices.
  • The basement floor had broken tiles.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

Feng Shui Kitchen, 1019 Trapelo Road, on Dec. 10

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The kitchen’s fume hood was due for a professional cleaning.
  • A refrigerator’s door runners and glass required cleaning.
  • The bottom shelf in a condiment refrigerator required cleaning.

The restaurant was given 10 days to correct these issues.

Salgueros Market, 139 Felton St., on Dec. 10

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • A grease barrel outside that needed to be emptied and removed
  • The restaurant did not have someone on-site with sufficient knowledge of anti-choking measures
  • The kitchen’s fume hood needed its panels cleaned of grease.
  • The restaurant had rats that required extermination. *

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

In a Pickle Restaurant, 265 Moody St., on Dec. 15

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • A cutting board that required repair or replacement.
  • Knives and utensils that were stored between food preparation tables.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

B&F House of Pizza, 227 Lake St., on Dec. 15

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The restaurant’s dumpster required a plug.
  • The restaurant’s dumpster was not kept closed.

Banh Mi Oi, 1097 Lexington St., on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • A handwashing station which was not accessible and free of clutter. *
  • The floor area between a grill and fryolater required cleaning.
  • The bottom shelf of a refrigerator required cleaning.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

Bonfire Indian Grill, 1091 Lexington St., on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • Uncovered food in a condiment fridge (a repeat offense).
  • The floor area around a mixer required cleaning (a repeat offense).
  • The floor area around a food prep station had onion peels on it.

Jake n Joes Sports Grille, 70 Market Place Drive, on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • Insufficient fruit fly pest control at the bar area.
  • The kitchen’s fume hood was due for a professional cleaning.
  • The back of a conveyer grill required cleaning.

The restaurant was given 10 days to correct these issues.

Not Your Average Joe’s, 56 Market Place Drive, on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • Rice stored uncovered in a walk-in fridge.
  • The area behind a grill and fryolater required cleaning.
  • The ceiling exhaust above a pizza oven required cleaning.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

Paisanos Restaurant and Bar, 223 High St., on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • Food stored in take-out bags.
  • Bowls stacked on top of food.
  • Fans from the back of a walk-in fridge required cleaning.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

Tita’s Kitchen, 198 High St., on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The restaurant did not meet safety criteria for having a person in charge sufficiently familiar with food safety.
  • The restaurant did not have someone on-site with sufficient knowledge of anti-choking measures.
  • The kitchen’s fume hood was due for a professional cleaning.
  • The kitchen’s fume hood needed its panels cleaned of grease.
  • The walls and floors by the restaurant’s microwaves required cleaning.
  • The walk-in fridge had a broken gasket.
  • The restaurant had rats that required extermination. *

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

New York Taco & Pizza, 47 Lexington St., on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The walk-in fridge’s racks required cleaning.
  • Kitchen vents that required cleaning.
  • The kitchen’s fume hood needed its panels cleaned of grease.
  • The restaurant had mice that required extermination. *

Solea Restaurant and Tapas Bar, 388 Moody St., on Dec. 17

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The soda guns at the bar area required cleaning. *
  • A grease barrel outside required cleaning.
  • The restaurant did not have someone on-site with sufficient knowledge of anti-choking measures.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

El Sabor Salvadoreño, 139 Prospect St., on Dec. 17

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The fire suppression system needed to be cleaned of grease. *
  • The wall next to a grill needed to be cleaned of grease.
  • The restaurant had cockroaches that required extermination. *

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

Café on the Common, 677 Main St., on Dec. 18

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The restaurant did not meet safety criteria for having a person in charge sufficiently familiar with food safety.
  • The restaurant did not have someone on-site with sufficient knowledge of anti-choking measures.
  • An area of the restaurant required cleaning.

Shanghai Cuisine, 11 Pine St., on Dec 9

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • A handwashing sink required repair. *
  • A freezer was disorganized, with insufficiently labelled food.
  • Food was stored on the floor of a freezer.
  • Knives were stored in crevices.
  • The basement floor had broken tiles.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

Feng Shui Kitchen, 1019 Trapelo Road, on Dec. 10

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The kitchen’s fume hood was due for a professional cleaning.
  • A refrigerator’s door runners and glass required cleaning.
  • The bottom shelf in a condiment refrigerator required cleaning.

The restaurant was given 10 days to correct these issues.

Salgueros Market, 139 Felton St., on Dec. 10

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • A grease barrel outside needed to be emptied and removed
  • The restaurant did not have someone on-site with sufficient knowledge of anti-choking measures
  • The kitchen’s fume hood needed its panels cleaned of grease.
  • The restaurant had rats that required extermination. *

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

In a Pickle Restaurant, 265 Moody St., on Dec. 15

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • A cutting board required repair or replacement.
  • Knives and utensils were stored between food preparation tables.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

B&F House of Pizza, 227 Lake St., on Dec. 15

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The restaurant’s dumpster required a plug.
  • The restaurant’s dumpster was not kept closed.

Banh Mi Oi, 1097 Lexington St., on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • A handwashing station was not accessible and free of clutter. *
  • The floor area between a grill and fryolater required cleaning.
  • The bottom shelf of a refrigerator required cleaning.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

Bonfire Indian Grill, 1091 Lexington St., on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • Some food in a condiment fridge was uncovered (a repeat offense).
  • The floor area around a mixer required cleaning (a repeat offense).
  • The floor area around a food prep station had onion peels on it.

Jake n Joes Sports Grille, 70 Market Place Drive, on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • There was insufficient fruit fly pest control at the bar area.
  • The kitchen’s fume hood was due for a professional cleaning.
  • The back of a conveyer grill required cleaning.

The restaurant was given 10 days to correct these issues.

Not Your Average Joe’s, 56 Market Place Drive, on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • Rice was stored uncovered in a walk-in fridge.
  • The area behind a grill and fryolater required cleaning.
  • The ceiling exhaust above a pizza oven required cleaning.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

Paisanos Restaurant and Bar, 223 High St., on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • Food was stored in take-out bags.
  • Bowls were stacked on top of food.
  • Fans from the back of a walk-in fridge required cleaning.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

Tita’s Kitchen, 198 High St., on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The kitchen’s fume hood was due for a professional cleaning.
  • The kitchen’s fume hood needed its panels cleaned of grease.
  • The walls and floors by the restaurant’s microwaves required cleaning.
  • The walk-in fridge had a broken gasket.
  • The restaurant had rats that required extermination. *

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

New York Taco & Pizza, 47 Lexington St., on Dec. 16

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The walk-in fridge’s racks required cleaning.
  • Kitchen vents required cleaning.
  • The kitchen’s fume hood needed its panels cleaned of grease.
  • The restaurant had mice that required extermination. *

Solea Restaurant and Tapas Bar, 388 Moody St., on Dec. 17

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The soda guns at the bar area required cleaning. *
  • A grease barrel outside required cleaning.
  • The restaurant did not have someone on-site with sufficient knowledge of anti-choking measures.

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

El Sabor Salvadoreño, 139 Prospect St., on Dec. 17

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • The fire suppression system needed to be cleaned of grease. *
  • The wall next to a grill needed to be cleaned of grease.
  • The restaurant had cockroaches that required extermination. *

The restaurant was given five days to correct these issues.

Café on the Common, 677 Main St., on Dec. 18

Inspectors identified the following instances of noncompliance with Waltham’s safety regulations:

  • An area of the restaurant required cleaning.

The restaurant was given 24 hours to correct these issues.

* Violations that inspectors designated as critical.

All information was obtained from public records requests to the Waltham Heath Department.

Author

Artie Kronenfeld is an Arlington and Waltham-based reporter who enjoys writing about policy and administration that affect people’s everyday lives. Previously hailing from Toronto, they’re a former editor-in-chief of the University of Toronto’s flagship student paper The Varsity. You can find them during off-work hours playing niche RPGs, wandering through Haymarket and making extra spreadsheets that nobody asked for.

Comments (7)
  1. Thank you for this article. I hope it becomes a regular feature.

  2. This is helpful, and I hope we’ll get follow-ups when they fix the issues, so this isn’t just something that sticks with them even if resolved.

    Would it be possible to also get a list of recently inspected restaurants with passing grades? Would be good to know who is doing great!

  3. Thank you for bringing more transparency to Waltham residents. Restaurants should be held accountable to adhere to guidelines

  4. It’s good to know that inspectors are on top of these issues. None of them surprises me with the extremely fast pace and narrow margins of the food service business. I’m sure paying for professional cleanings and constant equipment repairs is costly, and I’m sure no one will mind (wink) if their entree price goes up a little so that all our beloved restaurants can keep on top of all these expenses…

    This reporting hopefully keeps restaurants on their toes. But patrons should also not overreact, and should realize that high standards are meant to ensure the utmost safety, not to suggest that these hard-working owners and employees are engaging in any deliberately malicious or negligent behavior.

  5. This is a disgusting pathetic reporting. Do you have anything else to report? Some of these establishments are long time well known Waltham family people. For you to write this is just ridiculous and a backfire to the Waltham Times. Get a new hobby!

  6. Since I patronize a number of these establishments, I appreciate the details of your article. It’s more useful info as opposed to a blanket statement that the restaurant failed an inspection. You can see for yourself that not all failures are equal.

  7. Great article, an excellent idea to publish the list of restaurant code violations. I worked in restaurants, so no shock or surprises here. I hope this becomes a regular feature; it will be interesting to see if any establishments make a repeat appearance. And how long it takes restaurant owners to take notice.

Comments are closed.