The example you gave doesn't work on a grammatical level and the reason is the word hier.
In part 1, it is the last word of the clause, while in part 2 it stands between hat and gewohnt. That has the effect that in the first clause it sounds quite predicative - that is to say, it sounds like it is part of the verbal phrase with the action being hier wohnen. In the second clause it is more just a local information because the final position is occupied by gewohnt, thus the predicate is more gewohnt haben. The hier does not have the same weight and is not placed at the same rhythmical position. Thus, you can't skip it.
Herr X bzw. Herr Z. wohnt hier bzw. hat hier gewohnt.
If we use the preterite, the hier is at the end in both sentences and can thus be skipped once.
... wohnt bzw. wohnte hier.
It also works if you make that whole thing a minor sentence.
Ich wusste nicht, dass Herr X bzw. Herr Z. nicht hier wohnt bzw. gewohnt hat.
Also here, the hier carries the same "weight".
Now, in general I would say that this sentence is maybe not wrong but definitely not very good. It is hard to tell what bzw. refers to what and I can only understand the sentence with a little analyzing. It doesn't come automatically. So if you want to separate 2 entities and to respective actions, I would recommend not using a double bzw. because it doesn't "span". The first impression is always that the second entity (Herr Z) does both the actions.