Luxury ​“Rooming House” Called Out

Is a luxury apartment complex with ​“collective” rentals actually an illegal rooming house? 

A legal aid attorney argued that it is, as she defended a tenant facing eviction from one of the new high-end apartment complexes that have popped up in recent years on the downtown edge of Wooster Square.

That complex is the 299-unit Olive & Wooster.

New Haven Legal Assistance Association attorney Rachel Scotch submitted her unlicensed-rooming-house argument last November in a filing made during an eviction case that was settled in housing court on Feb. 11. The landlord had filed to evict the tenant for nonpayment of rent back in September 2024. 

In the ​“Special Defense” filing in the eviction case, Scotch argued that because her client was allegedly renting a single room (with a unique lock and room number) for exclusive use in a four-bedroom apartment, and because the rooms in the apartment were all leased separately, the complex was operating as an unlicensed rooming house in violation of city ordinances. 

The definition of a rooming house, under the city’s housing code, is ​“any dwelling, or that part of any dwelling, containing one (1) or more rooming units in which space is let by the owner or operator to four (4) or more persons,” which is what the property’s developer advertised as the appeal of Olive & Wooster’s ​“collective” apartments back in 2022 (see more below).

The city has spent the last several years battling with illegal rooming houses, which often have code violations that make them unsafe. New Haven recently reached a $14.5 million settlement with the estates of two men who died during a fire in an illegal rooming house in 2019. But those illegal rooming houses have largely been in older units and much smaller buildings, and the residents skew toward tenants looking for cheap rent. 

Olive & Wooster, with its own pool, fitness center and even a dog grooming room, doesn’t fit that bill. 

“[Rooming houses] need to be zoned and regulated. They have to be safe, and a lot of times when they’re being done illegally they are not safe,” Scotch told the Independent when asked about her rooming-house defense in this eviction case. ​“The risk is that there’s not safe egress. That’s usually the number one thing that happens with these places.” 

She also stressed that safe and legal rooming houses often help people find housing in a city with a serious shortage. ​“We need legal ones, and a lot more of them. And not luxury,” she said.

“The plaintiff denies each and every allegation of the defendant’s special defenses,” Robert Chesson, the attorney representing the housing complex in the eviction case, wrote in his counterfiling.

Olive & Wooster developer Darren Seid, whose New York City-based company Epimoni developed the 299-apartment complex at 87 Union St., did not respond to a list of questions about the allegations in the filing by the time of publication.

Seid had previously touted the benefits of the housing complex’s ​“collective” apartment rental options, arguing that it means the building has a lower ​“entry point” for tenants than other luxury apartment complexes across the city.

“Ours has an entry point of under $1,200 per month,” Seid told the Independent in 2022. He explained that the arrangement was for anyone who wanted to rent one of the beds in a four-bedroom, four-bathroom apartment — the exact kind of unit Scotch was challenging.

This particular eviction case was settled before trial. The tenant secured a stay of eviction — allowing her to stay in the unit — until April 30 as long as she pays back her outstanding debt with eviction prevention funds she received from the state. 

Scotch’s argument still raises questions about what counts as a rooming house and whether one could exist at one of New Haven’s fanciest new developments.

Scotch declined to comment on the specifics of this eviction case, citing her client’s ongoing payment plan. But her filing with the housing court, which includes a copy of the tenant’s lease, makes a clear argument for why the building’s collective apartments could qualify as an unlicensed rooming house.

According to the tenant’s lease, she was renting bedroom number B in ​“Dwelling Unit” 452W‑B. The lease gave her access to her own bedroom as well as shared use of other spaces in the unit, including the kitchen and living room. The unit would also include other ​“co-residents” — other tenants living in the same unit under a separate lease contract with Olive & Wooster. 

The co-residents were all expected to share the unit’s common spaces, and the lease gave the landlord permission to assign other renters to the tenant’s unit, or even their bedroom, without the tenant’s say or any screening process.

The rental contract also includes a provision near the end: ​“In no event shall the Dwelling Unit or the Premises be deemed a rooming, lodging house, boarding house or tenement house and, in the event any state or local agency makes any determination to the contrary, we reserve the right to terminate the Lease upon seven (7) days’ notice.”

As of Wednesday morning, Oliver & Wooster has 28 ​“collective” units available for rent on its website. The units, which are advertised as four-bedroom apartments, have base rents ranging from $1,049 to $1,398 a month, far lower than the non-collective four-bedroom units posted, where the base rent starts at over $4,800 a month, but in line with the rent if it were being split four ways.

The collective apartments are also labeled differently, with tenants renting 252W‑A or 252W‑B instead of 255W, for example. Seid did not respond to questions about how many units in the development are ​“collective” units, or how many tenants currently live in those units.

An official in the city’s Building Department confirmed to the Independent that Olive & Wooster was not on its list of registered rooming houses, and the property does not have a license posted on the city’s licensing portal certifying it as a rooming house.

To obtain a license, Olive & Wooster would have to apply with the city, and then pass safety checks from both the Fire Department and the Livable City Initiative (LCI).

In a phone interview with the Independent, Livable City Initiative (LCI) Executive Director Liam Brennan was noncommittal on whether the ​“collective” units at this development would constitute a violation of city ordinances.

“As long as it’s safe, there should be options for it,” Brennan said of rooming houses generally. ​“Sometimes they cannot be safe because they have landlords trying to eke out every single drop of money out of a piece of property.”

If Olive & Wooster were to be deemed as being in violation of the city’s code on rooming houses, management could face a fine of up to $100 or as many as 30 days imprisonment. Each day not in compliance would count as a separate violation.