The long-contested ownership of the land at the end of Washington Street leading to the river was up for discussion once again at the August council meeting, when Town Solicitor Anthony DeSisto sought the body's approval of updates to the settlement with abutting proprietor John Quattrocchi.

The beginnings of the agreement between the parties were supported by the council earlier this calendar year. It ends the years-long dispute over ownership of the parcel and an easement at the foot of Washington Street, which will allow for much-needed and required infrastructure improvements. Upon taking final ownership of the land, Quattrocchi agreed to be responsible for those repairs.

The relevant decisions made by the council last month were to amend two sections of said agreement.

One, in paragraph 10, would remove the words "which" and "restricted" as it pertains to public access to a portion of the property. The change allows accessibility to be from "sunrise to sunset" daily. The second, discarded the entirety of paragraph 11, requiring the installation of fencing along the southern boundary of the location.

DeSisto, reading from council meeting minutes on February 12, 2026, noted the body approved the initial agreement "unanimously," adding, "So, what tonight is for is to approve the proposed agreement, which you have there, along with the related documents, that you have."

As a point of clarification, Councilor Louis Rego asked about the wording included about the town's responsibilities upon conclusion of the pact.

"Paragraph seven, it says, Warren will accept the proper disposal, and contaminated ways collected in the road oil, and enrolled sand crab, structures to be constructed or maintained. So that's anything, actually, he does what he needs to do, anything that runs off, we will take care?" Rego questioned.

Town Council President Joseph DePasquale responded, "It's in accordance to what we do with all catch basins in town." DeSisto added, "It catches the sediment, and that's something that you do now, and because that sediment is being generated by normal flows it goes through, I think it's appropriate that you continue that practice."

During the discussion, Woody Kemp, Chairman of the Harbor Commission, expressed the concerns his group has with the agreement, saying some of the language should have been more definitive.

Said Kemp, "We've had a position on this from day one that we didn't think this was the correct direction the town should go. Regardless, we're looking at an agreement that we have in place. But one of the questions that we have is that there doesn't seem to be any timelines on this agreement. And our concern is that, with no timelines on the agreement, there's no reason for any of these things to actually ever get done.

He added a bit later, "That's our main concern. And the other point that we wanted to make is that if the agreement is defaulted on, such as the timeline, that this agreement would be rescinded, and we would go back to what our position is from day one, that it is a right of way that the town owns."

In response, DeSisto said most of the demands to correct the deficiencies on and around the location were being led by the Rhode Island. He noted the presence of hazardous waste on the site as being one of the main issues.

"There's an order for cleanup," DeSisto explained. "We've seen some documentation from DEM on that. They're driving the bus. There's three separate parcels that are subject to their order. I understand, from DEM, by the way, that the cleanup has already started on one of the parcels. So to the extent that there's timelines, that's being driven by DEM. The issue with what we're talking about, this land, there was a dispute as to the ownership, which DEM wanted to have clarified.

"So once it is clear that the owner of this land is Mr. Quattrocchi, then he's subject to DEM's time limits. And they are the ones that have the jurisdiction for this. And, you know, I can tell you from experience that if there's any issues there, uh, they will go after Mr. Quattrocchi to make sure there's a cleanup on this."

Kemp also wondered if the state's Coastal Resource Management Council should be involved in the matter.

"But the other question I have is that, correct me if I'm wrong, but DEM doesn't have any jurisdiction on coastline improvements. Should be a CRMC jurisdiction," Kemp inquired. "And I haven't seen any documentation from CRMC, any plans, any anything, any no engineering studies, nothing as far as how they're actually gonna address that. And we have an application in front of CRMC that's been there for a decade that we have been able to that should substantiate that.

"It is a kind of right of way, but we've never gotten any answers from CRMC, so we have a couple of agencies here that don't seem to be working in conjunctions to begin with, and we're concerned about whose jurisdiction and who's going be making sure that this project's actually is complete."

Again, DeSisto responded, "So the first issue is the environment of cleanup.  That's DEM. They're already taken care of. CRMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over that. That's number one. Number two, with this agreement and its easement, once that easement is put in place, you don't need the CRMC jurisdiction, because designation, because the town has it. And if there's any blockage, the town can go to court and get an injunction for this. They have the equitable relief for that.

"The only remaining thing that has to be done is the seawall and the bench, and that's something that Mr. Quattrocchi would have to do, and if he doesn't, again in town would be able to enforce this agreement in court. We wouldn't have to rely on the decade long, the CRMC. So I do think that there's some advantages going this way."

Kemp remarked, "We would still like to see a timeline. We'd like to see some conditions onto this the project is completed in a timely fashion."

Said DePasquale, "Well, what, Mr. Kemp, once this is takes place, the timeline is on him (Quattrocchi). This relieves the town of the burden of the cleanup and the responsibility of the seawall and the stormwater drainage."

Added Kemp, "I understand. That's our position. We feel that we should have gotten a better deal to begin with, and are we gonna wait forever for the deal that we got, and we should have some conditions in this for to ensure that this actually happens."

Councilor John Hanley joined the discussion, saying, "I understand it. DEM is pretty hot on this day. They were getting ready to start assessing us fines, right? So I don't think they're gonna back down."

In bringing the matter to a close, Councilor Derrik Trombley sought DeSisto position on the pact between the parties.

"So, Mr. Sisto, you have a great deal of background experience in maritime matters. In fact, you are CRMC legal counsel," said Trombley. "Now, you reviewed this contract. Do you feel that this is in the best interest of the citizens of  Warren?"

DeSisto answered, "I do, yes. You know, you have. You have two ways to go here, as I said back in February.  You go this route, where you can say, Look, this is ours. Go to court, you could win or lose. You never know.  If you win, then you gotta do the cleanup. Then you have to do the other repairs that are specified in this thing. So the council already voted on it, and here we are. It's taken months to get to this point with this agreement, which I think is a good agreement, and it does protect the town."