Zoning case about lodging house classification further delayed

The Zoning Board of Appeals at its Tuesday meeting granted a delay on a case it’s been considering since early June surrounding the definition of lodging houses in Waltham’s zoning code.

The case pertains to a group of multi-family houses in Waltham run by a company, GradBnB, that rents the properties to tenants that the company groups together through a roommate-matching service.

All of these eight properties received cease-and-desist letters from Building Inspector Brian Bower in November 2024. The letters claimed that they were operating as unlicensed lodging houses — defined in the city’s code as “rooms are rented to four or more persons not within the second degree of kindred to the owner.”

The owner, David Schwartz, has appealed all eight of these cease-and-desist letters to the board, arguing that since his company is renting its apartments to groups of roommates who live together as a unit, the buildings should instead be classified as standard dwelling units.

This case may have broader implications for Waltham. Some renters and housing advocates in the city have argued that classifying these properties as lodging houses could endanger legal rights to rent a property with roommates. Because of these potential effects, as well as nuisance reports at some of the properties, the case has attracted a lot of attention from Waltham residents. 

At the end of its last hearing on the case in July, members of the board failed to put forward a motion on whether to accept or deny Schwartz’s appeal of the letters. Instead, board member Matthew Deveaux moved to seek additional legal advice from the city’s law department.

Since City Solicitor Katherine Laughman represented Bower in front of the board at its July hearing, Schwartz’s lawyer has sent multiple letters to the zoning board opposing this motion on the grounds that Laughman should not simultaneously represent the Building Inspector and provide legal counsel to the ZBA.

In her most recent letter to the board, Laughman wrote that she does not represent the ZBA in this case and is not acting as its counsel, and that the ZBA acts in an independent “quasi-judicial capacity.”

She added that she would provide answers to any questions posed by the ZBA in her capacity as Bower’s representative, and recommended that the ZBA send those questions to Schwartz’s team as well, at their request, to “ensure procedural fairness.” With Schwartz’s counsel arguing they were given insufficient time to respond, Laughman wrote that she would agree to a postponement of the hearing.

Schwartz and his counsel were absent from the Sept. 9 ZBA meeting, but the board agreed unanimously to postpone the hearing until Sept. 30.