top of page
The Waltham Files
Facts and Evidence compiled in one place. This site is for organizational and information purposes only. Not for public consumption or the media. Any copy or reproduction of documents or this website in any form must first obtain the express written consent of its owner. All rights reserved.
Compiled documents, building plans, building permits, approvals, and evidence of compliance.
Stunning transformations showcased through our Before and After Photos. Explore our meticulous Building Plans and Building Permits Approved by the Building Department. Take a look at the Certificates of Occupancy, issued after passing thorough inspection by the Building Department.
Our properties have been meticulously renovated, improved, and managed with approval from the Waltham Building Department and ZBA over a decade, with all necessary approvals in place.
Who are we?
We are the operator of a real estate portfolio in Waltham, MA. Our property management and roommate-matching platform are highly rated by our tenants. We primarily advertise to graduate students at Brandeis University and Bentley University. Two local, top-tier universities that collectively have nearly 3,000 graduate students. What the universities do not have is available on-campus housing for these students. That's where we come in.
We solved a major housing need for this underserved population. We provide compliant, well-maintained, and fully permitted housing for graduate students attending Brandeis and Bentley Universities.
Over the years, every one of our renovations, building plans, and occupancy certifications has been reviewed and approved by the Waltham Building Department and, in several cases, by the Zoning Board of Appeals itself. Yet despite those approvals, misinformation has spread — confusing neighbors, students, and city officials alike. This website exists to create transparency. It serves as a public, evidence-based record showing the real documents, real inspections, and let's you see the truth for yourself.
WALTHAM FILES
From Vision to Realty
See our Before-and-After Photos. The building department, neighbors, and investors all agree: the improvements are beautiful. We have rehabilitated these properties, adding modern amenities, while maintaining the original charm and character of the homes.
23 Washington Avenue. Waltham MA
BEFORE
AFTER
BEFORE
AFTER
COMPLIANCE
Building plans, permits, and occupancy certificates demonstrating that our properties were developed responsibly and with city oversight.
23 Washington Avenue
BUILDING PLANS
Approved by Waltham Building Department in 2018
Note: Bedrooms are labeled showing original number of bedrooms and total number of bedrooms in the proposed building plan.
PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS
6 bedrooms, 3 bathroom per dwelling unit.
Two dwelling units total.
ORIGINAL BUILDING PLANS
2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom per dwelling unit.
Two dwelling units total.
BUILDING PLANS
The Building Plans were Approved by Waltham Building Department in 2018, and show the addition to the house structure, as well the addition of bedrooms, from two bedrooms per dwelling unit to six bedrooms per dwelling unit. There are two dwelling units, totaling 12 bedrooms. Notably, each bedroom is labeled, showing the six bedrooms per dwelling unit.
DWELLING UNIT
City of Waltham Ordinance 2.317:
“One or more rooms designed for or occupied as a place of abode by one person or by one family with cooking, sleeping and toilet facilities.”
There exists no law or zoning ordinance that limits the number of tenants or occupants in Waltham Massachusetts. The only limitation on number of occupants is based on health code requirements stipulating the minimum square footage required per person. Our square footage per person exceeds the requirement. That means that 12 tenants living here is permitted by the code, and is evidently permitted as the Building Department explicitly approved the building plan, with the twelve bedrooms clearly labeled.
IMPORTANCE OF APPROVALS
Permits are required for the construction of our $600k capital improvement renovation plan. With the City's approval on 02/02/2018, we began the approved work to improve the property and increase the total number of bedrooms to twelve, and total number of bathrooms to six -- 6 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms per dwelling unit.
After several months, the work was completed and the city came to inspect the completed work, including signing off on the construction and safety Inspections. The final inspection was on 08/03/2018. The result was that all work was completed properly and safely. The City issued their Certificate of Use and Occupancy on 08/03/2018.
APPROVED AND COMPLETED BUILDING PERMITS
Permit Number: P201841077
Date of Application: 11/27/2017
Date of Permit Approval: 02/02/2018
Work Completed: 08/03/2018
IMPORTANCE OF APPROVALS
Permits are required for the construction of our $600k capital improvement renovation plan. With the City's approval on 02/02/2018, we began the approved work to improve the property and increase the total number of bedrooms to twelve, and total number of bathrooms to six -- 6 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms per dwelling unit.
After several months, the work was completed and the city came to inspect the completed work, including signing off on the construction and safety Inspections. The final inspection was on 08/03/2018. The result was that all work was completed properly and safely. The City issued their Certificate of Use and Occupancy on 08/03/2018.
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Approved by Waltham Building Department. Issued August 3, 2018
INSPECTED, APPROVED, SIGNED
With our 12 bedrooms properly inspected, the leasing team interviewed prospective tenants, introduced them to each other, and by September 1 2018, twelve people became tenants at 23 Washington Avenue.
INSPECTION #1 PASSED
Property Passed All Inspections. Certificate of Use and Occupancy Issued by William Forte, Inspector of Buildings.
This Certificate certifies that 23 Washington Ave has met the requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Waltham as it applied to buildings in the Residential B Zoning District.
Permit Number: P201841077
Date of Certificate: 08/03/2018
INSPECTION REQUESTS
Despite passing the inspection by the Waltham Building Department, and receiving approval to rent the building's twelve bedrooms, the city continued to come inspect 23 Washington Avenue three more times.
Since they approved the structure, this shows that the aim of the subsequent inspections are to determine if the structure changed, or if the space is being used improperly.
It turns out that the subsequent inspections were based on complaints alleging unlicensed lodging house use. The complaints came from a grouchy neighbor living next door. She filed her complaint with the Building Department because when she took issue with our advertising, our landscaping, and our tenants' trash disposal etiquette. We addressed her complaint by trimming back bushes, cleaning up the trash, and directing our maintenance team to take responsibility for maintaining the proper trash disposal.
Despite this, the inspector asked to inspect the property for alleged use as an unlicensed lodging house.
INSPECTION #2
Waltham inspector of buildings, John Jennings, walked through the apartment, checked to make sure there were no locks on the outside of the bedroom doors, and he subsequently commended us on the high quality of the apartment, the building, and landscaping. He gave explicit verbal confirmation following the inspection that we are good. He was so impressed that he recommended we buy another property a few streets away that he said might be coming onto the market. He even gave us the address.
The nosy neighbor was disgruntled that her complaint did not result in the finding she was hoping for. Because the property is not a lodging house, despite her opinion and her misinterpretation. She complained again. The Building Inspector inspected again. Still no locks on the outside of the bedroom doors. Again, verbal confirmation following the inspection that we are in compliance.
What followed was a hit-piece complaint to the Building Department alleging unfair business practices. Our housing model solved a major issue for the Universities and their students: It increased new housing supply and made it more affordable for the students. The complaint alleged that we are making housing less affordable by running unlicensed lodging houses. It cited our advertising as "evidence". See below.
INSPECTION #3 - LABELED BEDROOMS
The third inspection seemed to be routine. We were not given the complaint. The Building Inspector led us to believe that this was simply another administrative inspection. He said that as many times as there are complaints, they have to come inspect. He told us that if we could show him leases with everyone's name on one lease per dwelling unit, he could stop inspecting. We complied, providing him with one lease per dwelling unit with all tenants signed onto a group contract.
We shared our legal counsel's finding, supporting that we are in compliance. This is supported by Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court precedent. In 2013, the MA SJC found in favor of the Landlord against the City of Worcester. The City of Worcester tried arguing that 4 or more students living together constitute a "Lodging House". The SJC decision made very clear that in order to be a lodging house, there must be "lodgings". Since the group of 4 students in this case were on one lease, they are ipso facto not lodgings.
For reference, Lodging House is defined by Massachusetts Law as:
''Lodging house'', as used in sections twenty-two to thirty-one, inclusive, shall mean a house where lodgings are let to four or more persons not within second degree of kindred to the person conducting it, and shall include fraternity houses and dormitories of educational institutions, but shall not include dormitories of charitable or philanthropic institutions or convalescent or nursing homes licensed under section seventy-one of chapter one hundred and eleven or rest homes so licensed, or group residences licensed or regulated by agencies of the commonwealth.
MGL c. 140 §§ 22
Lodging Houses require licenses, among other things. Our properties are not lodging houses. Lodging House is further defined by Waltham Zoning Code as:
A dwelling, excluding dormitories of charitable, educational or philanthropic institutions, in which rooms are rented to four or more persons not within the second degree of kindred to the owner and in which meals may be served to residents. Further, a residential dwelling unit subject to the licensing provisions of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, except that the applicant for a lodging house license need not be a resident owner of the premises sought to be used as a lodging house and need not file a statement with the Inspector of Buildings similar to the requirement for rooming houses.
Waltham Zoning Code § Z-3.26
We do not serve meals. All Dwelling Units are rented in their entirety on one lease per Dwelling Unit. We are in compliance with the SJC precedent, which bears the question: does the Building Inspector, Law Department, or Zoning Board of Appeals think that they know better than the MA Supreme Judicial Court?
CEASE AND DESIST
After the third inspection, which ended with the inspectors acknowledging verbally that we are good -- again with no locks on the outside of bedroom doors, it seemed to be routine. However, what followed was the Building Department sending us Cease and Desist letters for every property they inspected.
This is evidence?
This is evidence?
POST INSPECTION & EVIDENCE
The City of Waltham Building Department claims to be required to investigate and inspect any property where a zoning ordinance violation may exist. They claim that "as a result of our August 20, 2024 inspection, we concluded that the property that you control at 23 Washington Avenue is being used as an unlicensed Lodging House, based on the fact you have advertised separate bedroom rentals to unrelated individuals (see attached photo)." The photo they are referencing is the last page of the Cease and Desist letter (see above).
APPEALING THE DECISION
Per M.G.L c. 40A Section 8 and 15, any person aggrieved by a zoning decision of the Inspector of Buildings may appeal to the local permit granting authority (here, the Zoning Board of Appeals).
We filed our timely appeal. We also met with the Building Inspector on numerous occasions to resolve this clear misinterpretation of the Code. Despite telling us that his goal was for us to be in compliance, Inspector Bower made it clear that he had made up his mind, regardless of the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruling, and despite our compliant operation in which our tenants live together in accordance with the Waltham City Zoning Code definition of Family.
FAMILY
A bona fide single housekeeping unit consisting of two or more individuals living together where the relationship to one another is of a distinct domestic character and achieves the permanency and cohesiveness inherent in the notion of a single housekeeping unit.
Waltham Zoning Code § Z-2.317A
ZONING BOARD HEARINGS
The Zoning Board of Appeals exists as an independent body, established under the authority of the City of Waltham and state law, that hears cases and makes decisions based on evidence and the city's zoning code. The Board exists to hear appeals of decisions made by the Building Inspector. The Board's decisions ay be appealed to a higher court.
Structure: The ZBA consists of appointed members from the community, not elected or appointed judges with lifetime tenure. They are appointed by the Mayor.
Operating Procedures: While the ZBA operates in a structured, "quasi-judicial" manner with public hearings and evidence review, it adheres to administrative procedures defined by local and state law (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A), which are less formal than the strict rules of evidence and civil procedure used in a formal court.
The ability to appeal the ZBA's decision to the Land Court or Superior Court is a crucial part of the checks and balances system. It allows a formal judicial review of the ZBA's decision to ensure that the board acted within its authority, followed proper procedures, and applied the law correctly. This legal oversight reinforces the ZBA's status as an administrative/regulatory body, subordinate to the state's official court system. The first Board hearing was scheduled for June 3 2025. The Appellant was ill and was medically excused, and requested a continuance. The Board granted the continuance, but first made critical, fatal errors of procedure.
The hearing can be viewed here:
https://www.wcac.org/government/meetings/zoning-board-of-appeals/zoning-board-of-appeals-6-3-25
Notably, the Board violated the Appellants' right to a fair hearing, created prejudice, mischaracterized the Cease and Desist status, and allowed for Political Interference by City Council Member CathyAnn Harris.
Waltham Zoning Board Members:
John Sergi
Chair
Mark A. Hickernell
Vice-Chair
Matthew Deveaux
Clerk
Glenna Gelineau
Member
Stephen Taranto
Member
Oscar LeBlanc
Associate Member
Sarah Hankins
Associate Member
Joseph Attardo
Associate Member
Edward McCarthy
Associate Member
Present for the June 3 2025 ZBA Hearing:
ZBA Chair John Sergi, Vice-Chair Mark Hickernell, Clerk Matthew Deveaux, Edward McCarthy, and Joseph Attardo.
The Clerk, Matthew Deveaux, read the petition in Cases #: 2024-36, 2024-37, 2924-38, 2024-39, 2024-40, 2024-41, 2024-42, 2024-43 into evidence on the record. The Chair asked if the Appellant's attorney was present, and acknowledged that he was not. Deveaux and Chairman Sergi then acknowledged that the case was opened. He opened up the Hearing to questions, and City Councilor Cathyann Harris grandstanded saying that the cease and desist order is important to the neighbors who are "living next to what otherwsie shouldn't exist" and continued that "it's very disruptive to the neighborhood's quality of life" citing that "the weather is better, finally the sun is out and people are trying to enjoy their yards and they are dealing wit this intensity." She finally asked her question, "What relief does the neighbors have?"
Mr. Sergi incorrectly replied "They are still under cease and desist so that's still in effect." He elaborated further "They should not be allowed to operate a rooming house at this time". His lack of understanding of the difference between a lodging house and a rooming house warrants the question, what right does Sergi have to be on the Board when he does not understand the code?
His mistake was not just a slip of tongue. It was evidence that he already made up his mind, and it was an act by the Chair of the Board influencing others, under the influence of rapport from the City Councilor. Blatant Political Interference. She directed residents to send complaints to the Building Inspector, Sergi replied that those against the petition should write emails to the zoning board. Cathyann Harris replied that "we can try to get people to send emails"
But don't worry, the procedural violation gets worse. Board member McCarthy asks the Chair to hold a vote of those in favor of having a cease and desist. Sergi agrees that it is a good idea. It is not. It is creating a violation of fair hearing by polling the public prior to hearing the case and without the petitioner or his legal counsel present. Mr. Deveaux rightfully points out that "we can't hear any comments on the petition until we hear from counsel. No one has made a case. The applicant has not made his case." Sergi replied that it is just a show of hands. Deveaux continued "a show of hands for maintaining the cease and desist, not for who is for or against it". Sergi followed by calling for "a show of hands on who is in favor for the cease and desist that's in place currently if you want it to continue". They count and record the vote and then pass a motion to continue the hearing to July 15 2025.
What is NOT included in the Minutes is what happened afterward. Attorney Bret Francis can be heard on the microphone, approaching Chair Sergi, telling him that the Cease and Desist is not in effect, as the appellant is appealing. He explains that the Cease and Desist is "stayed" during appeal process. Sergi laughs and remarks that attorney Francis "loves this stuff".
The Meeting Minutes can be read here:
The Hearing can be viewed here:
https://www.wcac.org/government/meetings/zoning-board-of-appeals/zoning-board-of-appeals-6-3-25
ZONING BOARD'S DECISION
We have received the ZBA Decision Letter, which we have already appealed to MA Land Court. The Board finds that "joint and several leases do not cure the underlying zoning violation because they do not actually alter the nature of the occupancy, the transiency of the tenants or address the lack of familial cohesiveness."
"Consistent with Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416, U.S. 1 (1974) and Rogers v. Norfolk, 432 Mass. 374 (2000), the City may regulate residential density and occupancy to preserve neighborhood stability." This is true, but this right is not enforcable by the ZBA when these things are not clearly stipulated in the Zoning Code. Density is not described in the code. Not being considered a "Family" does not by default mean it is a lodging house. The claim of negative impact has no bearing when we meet the code for parking, noise, fire, and density. The fact of the matter is the Building Inspector presented no evidence, and neglected to explain his position at the Hearing. Instead, the city solicitor testified on his behalf, and misconstrued the situation as she directed the Board on how to interpret the Code and how to decide the case.
Here is their decision in full:
THERE IS MORE COMING SOON
There is more to share, but for now, you have an understanding of how we got here.
The takeaway here is that:
1. The tenants are all on one lease per dwelling unit
2. MA Supreme Judicial Court already decided that one lease means no lodgings; no lodgings, means no lodging house.
3. The ZBA violated protocol and we have evidence
AFFIDAVITS BY TENANTS
One tenant from each dwelling unit has attested that they lived as a Family.
23 Washington #1
23 Washington #2
Chairman Sergi invites the Building Inspector and City Solicitor to Testify Against Appellants
Watch the Clip HERE at 1:23:44 into the video
ZBA Chair Deflects Vice-Chair Mark Hickernell's Hardball Questions for Solicitor Laughman
“In the two decades give or take that I’ve been on the Zoning Board, and we’ll see how long that lasts, City Counsel has never come to argue a case before us like this. Who asked you to be here?”
"Why are we being told what the answer is?"
Board member Hickernell called attention to this inappropriate and unethical conduct on the record: “In the two decades, give or take, that I’ve been on the Zoning Board – and see how long that lasts – but the city councilor has never come to argue a case for us like this. Usually we get a case, look at the code, look at the evidence, and issue a decision. But we never get the city’s attorney coming here telling us what to do.” He continued, “Never, never, ever, has a city attorney come and said ‘I am here to tell you what this case is about and how you should decide it… Absolutely she told us how to decide. That’s where this goes off the tracks. Because we, as a Zoning Board of Appeals, issue that interpretation. She gave us her understanding of how the code should be interpreted but we’re the ones who are supposed to interpret it.”
Solicitor Laughman Manufactures hearsay, citing "Report" Twists FD's Unsworn Testimony
Watch the Clip HERE at 1:36:18 into the video
Here is an actual copy of the Fire Department Report from the fire at 23 Washington Ave. It does not mention locks on bedroom doors. Instead, an email referred to each dwelling unit as "bedroom spaces". There are locks to enter each of the two dwelling units.
Instead, an email referred to each dwelling unit as "bedroom spaces".
There are locks to enter each of the two dwelling units.
The email does not include any earlier parts of the thread, for example who asked him about this and what did they ask him to say? Or did they call him? Text him? Ask him in person? Why was he emailing instead of the Building Inspector requesting the fire report, which notably does not mention coded locks on bedroom spaces? Further, the email shows that Scott Perry was confused because he spoke to Adam Schwartz and David Schwartz. Adam arrived on the scene first and Scott said to him that the responding companies were able to put out the fire so quickly because the residents were outside, standing across the street when the fire department arrived, and the firefighters were able to walk through the building so quickly to ascertain that it was cleared out and no one was home. How could he have done that if there were locks on the bedroom doors?
Administrative bodies must rely on competent evidence, not mere hearsay or attorney argument.
See e.g. Rucker v. Board of Appeals of Lexington, 351 Mass. 292 (1966).
Tenant testifies "No locks on the Bedroom Doors", "We live as family"
Video Tour Showing NO LOCKS on the bedroom doors
23 Washington Ave #1, Waltham MA 02453
23 Washington Ave #2, Waltham MA 02453
Photos of:
Building Door (w/ lock),
Dwelling Unit Doors (w/ locks),
and Bedroom Doors (no locks) at:
3 Washington Ave, Waltham MA 02453
1/1
1/1
_svg.png){kind=icon}
Open our Google Drive Folder to see the full director. Peruse the Waltham Files for yourself and you can verify our compliance from Building Permits to Zoning Board of Appeals Approvals to Certificates of Occupancy and more.
Coming soon...
bottom of page