The final argument concerned a challenge to a Bridgewater cease‑and‑desist order for a 58‑unit development built under Chapter 40B. SLV counsel told the panel that the comprehensive‑permit filings included a "representative lease" and post‑approval plan sets ("cube 3" plans) showing multiple beds per bedroom and that the town had notice of multi‑occupancy intentions and therefore waived any lodging‑house objection.

"The representative lease and plans were in the record," counsel said, arguing the town had effectively consented or at least sat on its rights during the approval process. SLV asked for remand for a merits trial if necessary, saying unresolved factual issues about what the town knew and when should be litigated rather than resolved on summary judgment.

Bridgewater counsel responded that the town's lodging‑house bylaw defines a lodging house as a dwelling where "lodgings" are let to four or more non‑kin and that the bylaw applies to dwelling units (which the town's bylaws define). The town argued that it had not granted nor implicitly waived relief from the lodging‑house regulation and that a municipal ordinance can adopt stricter local rules so long as they do not run afoul of state law. Town counsel emphasized selective enforcement and the public‑safety concerns lodging provisions are meant to address.

Justices asked about the record evidence of the developer's occupancy plans, the comprehensive‑permit waiver process, and whether administrative avenues (return to the ZBA or Housing Appeals Committee) had been pursued. Counsel disagreed about whether the plans' depiction of beds constituted an express request for relief or merely a construction‑stage detail. The court took the matter under advisement.