Framingham Board of Health sustains inspection orders for 73 Hollis St. after tenant raises mold and pest concerns

The Framingham Board of Health voted 3-0 to sustain existing housing inspection orders for 73 Hollis Street, Unit 2, after a hearing during which occupant Paul Watson and property representatives disputed whether outstanding pest and alleged mold problems remained uncorrected.

The hearing, opened and closed by the board, centered on enforcement under the state sanitary code as described in the meeting packet and on whether the housing inspector’s orders had been carried out. Housing inspector Matt said that, aside from ongoing pest treatment, “I have never observed mold, during my inspections,” and that the department’s enforcement is limited to visible conditions the inspector can confirm on site.

Paul Watson told the board he had arranged independent testing and said, “the mold test came back positive for 3 different the 10 different kind of molds in this building,” and described ongoing water and ventilation problems in his bathroom and bedroom. Jacqueline Taylor spoke on Watson’s behalf and said he had not received direct notification from the property manager about pest-control visits.

Al Gentile, who identified himself as regional maintenance manager overseeing 73 Hollis Street for the property owner South Middlesex Opportunity Council, told the board the manager had offered a temporary move to another unit and a full room turnover, and that the owner sends 48-hour notices for pest-control work. Gentile said the owner was “willing to redo his room, but he needs to move out for at least 2 to 3 days” to allow renovations and pest treatment.

Board members and staff clarified that the housing inspectors cite visible mold but do not perform air-quality or wall/ceiling sampling and cannot base enforcement on occupant-submitted test results alone. A city staff member recommended sustaining the inspector’s orders and continuing the inspector’s involvement until the case is closed, saying, “my recommendation would be to sustain the order, but continue Matt’s involvement, in the case till it’s closed.” The board approved that motion unanimously, 3-0.

The board’s action sustains the enforcement orders already issued, requires continued follow-up by the inspector, and leaves remediation logistics—including any tenant relocation beyond a temporary room move—to housing-management processes the board described as outside the maintenance manager’s authority. The board said a written decision will be issued to the parties.

Clarifying details recorded at the hearing include that the property owner reported providing routine monthly pest-control reports to the housing inspector and that the manager offered to repaint, replace flooring, and apply commercial mold-control chemicals during a full turnover if the tenant temporarily vacates the unit. The board noted the limits of local code on mold enforcement: inspectors can cite only visible mold observed during an inspection; they do not perform mold air-quality testing or rely on occupant-submitted sampling results for enforcement.

The Board of Health will continue to monitor the case through the housing inspector and will provide a written decision to the owner and occupant summarizing the board’s ruling and next steps.