Warren, Water Street property owner headed to court

Warren, Water Street property owner headed to court

325 Water St. in Warren.

325 Water St. in Warren.
325 Water St. in Warren. This photo comes from the Town of Warren assessment database.
A property boundary and water rights dispute between the town and a Water Street property owner is headed to court.

Settlement talks between the town and Smithfield resident John Quattrocchi have failed, Warren town solicitor Anthony DeSisto said, and the matter is scheduled to be heard in Rhode Island Superior Court next month.

The suit has been around for several years. Mr. Quattrocchi alleged that the town encroached on his property at 325 Water St. in two ways: First, a town-owned retaining wall between his property and the town wharf was buckling over the property line, he alleged, and was therefore encroaching on his property. That wall has since been repaired by the developers who built the Trafford restaurant.

Second, Mr. Quattrocchi alleged that the town’s marine spills over onto his property, affecting his riparian rights to the water.

That issue has yet to be settled, Mr. DeSisto said.


  1. The first my lawyers and I heard of settlement talks having “failed” was in your paper. We were negotiating in good faith. No one on my side of the issue ever even received the basic courtesy of hearing the news directly from the Town or its lawyer.
    Such an approach is guaranteed to sabotage any compromise. The Town has chosen to conduct discussions through your newspaper. Worse, the newspaper never contacted me for verification or comment.
    Here is my side of the story:
    All should know that during settlement discussions I put on the table the possibility of connecting the Town Wharf to the foot of Washington Street via my docks. I thought a river walk was a long hoped for goal of the Town. Perhaps not..
    In addition this article is inaccurate and deserves a retraction. The trial will not begin in April. On April 26 there will only be a status conference in Superior Court. Any trial will be weeks if not months later. Next, the wall has been ‘repaired” but not in a proper manner. No property owner would be satisfied if a neighbor “repaired” their driveway by extending beyond the property lines. Next the photo you used with the article is roughly seven years old and does not show the many improvements I have made to the property since that time.
    How about some elementary fairness from government and press?