My client is a widow who wants to be close to her grandchildren.”

Anthony DeSisto, attorney for Jaki Jayne

Honestly, I want the zoning laws and regulations followed for her, just like they are for everyone else.”

Skip Mattos

I cannot figure out why these people are giving me such a hassle.”

Jaki Jayne

We understand that there is no indication in the Zoning Board record that notices were actually mailed — by certified mail or other means — to all — or indeed any — of the abutting property owners as required by law.”

William Landry, attorney for abutters

We are seeking to have this construction restricted, as the public access to the water this road provides is of great interest to the community.”

Matt and Hillary Hollis, in an email to the town manager

A complex property dispute in a quiet Hampden Meadows neighborhood has led to multiple lawsuits and questions about town procedures and protocols.

Did the town properly notify abutters about a plan to build a home at 0 Seabrook Court?

Was the zoning board presented with accurate information or was it intentionally misled?

Would the plan to develop the single-family home result in the loss of a public access point to the water?

A group of residents who live in the Meadowbrook Drive and Seabrook Court neighborhood were prepared to discuss those issues and more with the Barrington Town Council at its July 27 meeting, but council members and other town officials, citing the pending lawsuits, refused to comment on the dispute.

Bill Landry, the attorney for the residents, was not so shy.

Speaking via Zoom, Mr. Landry said a zoning board approval issued in 2018 was done without jurisdiction and that the meeting at which the approval was granted was null and void because the town failed to send certified letters notifying the abutters of the project. Mr. Landry requested the town hire a law firm that was not involved in the prior approval process to conduct a full review of the case.

Anthony DeSisto, the attorney for the property owner, Jaki Jayne, said his client has done nothing wrong and deserves to be issued a building permit by the town. (Ms. Jayne filed a lawsuit against the town in order to have the permit issued.)

In addition, Ms. Jayne has been the victim of bullying by her neighbors, Mr. DeSisto said.

“My client is a widow who wants to be close to her grandchildren,” Mr. DeSisto said during the July 27 meeting. "She’s been bullied, in my opinion. She’s been ganged up on.

"My client has been treated as an ‘other.’ She’s been othered. She’s been victimized.”

‘The neighbor is trying to steal my land’

Years ago, Ms. Jayne and her family moved from California to Rhode Island and settled in a Cranston neighborhood. Her daughter eventually moved from Cranston to Barrington, drawn to the town by its reputation for stellar public schools. She and her husband moved into a home on New Meadow Road, a short walk from Temple Habonim and a stone’s throw to the Barrington River.

Ms. Jayne was happy for her daughter and her family and visited the home often, taking care of her grandchildren regularly.

Faced with the daily commute from Cranston, Ms. Jayne began looking for a home in town. One day a few years back, Ms. Jayne spotted a “For Sale” sign staked on a piece of land just across New Meadow Road from her daughter’s house. The property was, at that time, under contract by Skip Mattos, but when Mr. Mattos family decided to walk away from that deal, Ms. Jayne made an offer.

She purchased the parcel — now referred to as 0 Seabrook Court — in 2018 for about $150,000. The oddly-shaped lot ran from New Meadow Road behind the home at 47 Meadowbrook Drive, which was purchased by Mr. Mattos and his wife. The lot also ran across the paper road section of Seabrook Court and up to the edge of the wetlands abutting the Barrington River.

Ms. Jayne applied for and received a zoning variance and a special use permit to construct a home on the land, and also received CRMC approval. The plan calls for a three-story home, with the first floor serving as a garage and storage area, and three bedrooms on the third floor.

Construction of the new home drew closer. Ms. Jayne hired a contractor to fell some trees on her lot, but that crew’s arrival on the land, accompanied by large construction equipment, was met with resistance by the neighbors.

Mr. Mattos, who had been researching the proposed development, called the town and asked for officials to intervene. He said the town issued a work freeze order. Mr. Mattos said that while Ms. Jayne had CRMC approval to clear the land, she did not have a building permit. (Ms. Jayne has said she did not need a building permit to clear the property.)

Mr. Mattos said he approached the contractor and notified him of the freeze order. He said the exchange was cordial.

Ms. Jayne offered a different description of the incident.

"… The two neighbors came out and started yelling at the contractor," she said.

The work stopped, and the construction equipment has remained in the same spot ever since. Waist-high weeds have filled in the once-cleared lot.

Ms. Jayne said her neighbors, Cris Crecelius and Mr. Mattos, have encroached on her property. She said Mr. Crecelius installed one of his in-ground lawn sprinklers on her land and planted bushes on her property.

"There are some people in this town who feel they can do whatever they want," Ms. Jayne said.

"I cannot figure out why these people are giving me such a hassle … It’s strange to do this to an older white woman. What if I were black or Latino?"

Mr. Mattos and Mr. Crecelius denied that accusation and have said they are being wrongly characterized, that they are not bullying Ms. Jayne. They said it is quite the opposite. During the July 27 council meeting, Mr. Crecelius said that the neighbors were the ones being bullied. And Mr. Mattos said one of his first encounters with Ms. Jayne was an uncomfortable exchange where she approached him in an angry manner.

Ms. Jayne said she has tried numerous times to tell the neighbors to stay off her property. She said when Mr. Mattos bought his home on Meadowbrook Drive about a year ago, she noticed that the real estate agent had mowed down the vegetation on her land — the strip of land that runs between Mr. Mattos’s back yard and the water.

“I went and told them it was my land,” she said. “I told them, that’s not your land, that’s my land. They must have known because they had had the land under contract earlier.

“The neighbor is trying to steal my land. They’re trying to make it so I can’t build.”

Mr. Mattos said that is not accurate.

“Honestly, I want the zoning laws and regulations followed for her, just like they are for everyone else,” he said, adding that he had to clear numerous hurdles with a prior residential construction project in town.

Mr. Mattos said that if the court rules in Ms. Jayne’s favor, then he will be fine with that.

Adverse possession claims

Ms. Jayne’s concerns about neighbors “stealing” her land appear to be legitimate.

In late April, Mr. Mattos and his wife filed an adverse possession complaint in Rhode Island Superior Court against Ms. Jayne.

Mr. Mattos and his wife (and their “predecessors in property”) are claiming the piece of land that runs from the edge of their backyard to a section of the Barrington River, as their own. Currently the property is shown to be part of 0 Seabrook Court, which is owned by Ms. Jayne.

In court, Mr. Mattos and his wife will need to prove that they have “for a period of 10 years, actually, openly, continuously, adversely, in a hostile manner, and notoriously, passed and re-passed on foot over a portion of The Disputed Property separating The Mattos and Ristuccia Property from the Barrington River …”

In late July, Mr. Crecelius and Alexandra Saletin filed an adverse possession complaint against Ms. Jayne.

Mr. Crecelius and Ms. Saletin are claiming a portion of Ms. Jayne’s property that runs along the northern border of the 0 Seabrook Court parcel as their own.

Also in late July, the Seabrook Court Trust, which names Douglas Caito and David Caito of 4 Seabrook Court, filed an adverse possession complaint against Ms. Jayne, claiming a portion of 0 Seabrook Court as their own.

Mr. Landry is representing the plaintiffs in all three adverse possession complaints.

Zoning questions

Mr. Mattos has been researching Ms. Jayne’s proposed construction for months.

His research led to a question about notification given — or not given — to abutters. Mr. Mattos said he discovered the town did not send certified letters to the neighboring property owners prior to the 2018 zoning board of review hearing.

Mr. Landry shared that message with members of the town council and Barrington Town Manager Jim Cunha.

“The Zoning Decision appears to be a legal nullity,” Mr. Landry wrote in a July 23 letter. “We understand that there is no indication in the Zoning Board record that notices were actually mailed — by certified mail or other means — to all — or indeed any — of the abutting property owners as required by law. We understand that, at a minimum, the then-owners of the 45 Meadowbrook Drive Property, Heidi M. Janes … and Elizabeth J. Nesbitt did not receive notice. Although they were not actually in residence at the property at that time, no notice was received at the address on record for them utilized by the Tax Assessor …”

Starbrook Drive residents Myles Glatter and Michele Mennucci sent a letter to the town manager and members of the council.

“We were away, and never received notification of the meeting,” they wrote. “All of our mail went directly to our house at that time and was not forwarded anywhere, so one cannot argue that it got lost in a forwarding process. The zoning board review was announced on short notice and the meeting was held in the middle of summer, which resulted in a poorly attended meeting. Additionally, there was no input from the Conservation Commission …”

Mr. Mattos is also questioning how the town’s zoning board could have granted approval for a home on a lot that he believes is sub-standard.

Mr. Mattos said the plan presented to zoning board members showed Ms. Jayne’s land as one solid parcel — one contiguous lot. But that is not the case, said Mr. Mattos.

The paper road, Seabrook Court, bisects her land, Mr. Mattos said. That point is echoed in a letter from Mr. Mattos to the town manager. He wrote that the engineers hired by Ms. Jayne presented a plan that showed her property cutting across the paper road, and that officials argued the town had abandoned the paper road.

He said the town does not abandon its property, especially a paper road that offers public access to the water.

A letter from Mr. Landry to the Barrington town manager cites the importance of the paper road. He wrote that it appears the zoning board, when making its ruling, "was not made aware that the property it purported to grant variance for was separated by a swath of land owned by the Town itself in fee, as deeded by Louis Romano by deed dated June 29, 1953 …”

The deed, recorded in the town’s land evidence book, was copied and sent along with the letter to the town manager.

In a recent interview, Mr. Mattos said that while he had the 0 Seabrook Court property under contract, he spoke to the prior building inspector Bob Speaker about the lot. He said Mr. Speaker told him that the property was "unbuildable."

"That's when we walked away," Mr. Mattos said.

Ms. Jayne does not agree. She said the town has always treated the property at 0 Seabrook Court as a buildable lot, and taxed it as a buildable lot also. Why should it be treated differently now, she asked.

Ms. Jayne pointed to testimony offered at the July 2018 zoning board of review meeting as evidence.

According to minutes from that meeting, Ray Simone, a real estate agent and longtime Barrington resident, said the town records showed the parcel at 0 Seabrook Court was 65,000 square feet in size and had been assessed by the town at $304,000.

Mr. Simone told the zoning board that the land’s prior owner, Reno DiMarco, had tried to have the property’s designation changed from a buildable lot to non-buildable "… but the town refused to do that.”

(After Ms. Jayne purchased the property, she had it surveyed. That survey showed the property was only 38,000 square feet; the town’s assessment was subsequently lowered to $151,000.)

A visit to Seabrook Court these days shows a short stretch of roadway that leads into a driveway for the home at 4 Seabrook Court. That parcel, owned by Joseph Caito, abuts the property owned by Ms. Jayne.

The property was claimed in 1973 through adverse possession, according to testimony offered by attorney Peter Skwirz at the 2018 zoning board of review meeting.

The construction of 4 Seabrook Court within Ms. Jayne’s property made her lot boundaries and resulting building envelope “very oddly shaped,” according to meeting minutes. “For that reason, this lot has been vacant and undeveloped for a long time,” Mr. Skwirz said at the meeting.

The testimony offered appeared to be strong enough to compel the zoning board members to approve the application unanimously.

Mr. Mattos believes the zoning board of review members were, in fact, misled. He said information provided to them was not entirely factual.

Mr. Mattos pointed to property drawings supplied by the engineering firm, Waterman Engineering. He said the company used a solid line to mark a section of Seabrook Court closer to Meadowbrook Drive, but then changed it to a dashed line when it bisects Ms. Jayne’s property.

“They hid the road,” Mr. Mattos said during a recent interview.

The drawings show Seabrook Court — the dashed line portion — extending out into the Barrington River and ending in what would have been an underwater cul de sac.

In a March 23 email to the town manager, Mr. Mattos references the plans drawn by Waterman Engineering.

“Waterman engineering discards the land that is owned by the town and includes it as part of the 0 Seabrook Court property, making it one contiguous lot instead of the two lots it should be, based on the 1953 deed,” he wrote.

Ms. Jayne said she has done nothing wrong, and there was no elaborate scheme to mislead the zoning board.

Permit requested

For months, Ms. Jayne has been asking the town to issue her a building permit, which she said she is entitled to.

At the July 27 council meeting, Ms. Jayne’s attorney, Anthony DeSisto, said the town would not issue his client a building permit until Barrington was granted a conservation easement. According to the lawsuit filed by Ms. Jayne, an open space conservation easement was given to Coastal Resources Management Council. The lawsuit states that Ms. Jayne’s request for a building permit “has been rebuffed on technical grounds — the conservation easement on record is to the CRMC, not the Town.”

The lawsuit further states that Ms. Jayne had a second easement “that conforms to the board’s decision,” and sent that to the town’s solicitor, who has failed to respond to Ms. Jayne or Mr. DeSisto.

Ms. Jayne’s case went before a judge earlier this month — the “writ of mandamus and injunctive relief was denied,” Mr. DeSisto said during a recent interview. Although the judge did allow temporary extension to the dimensional variance deadline, he said. That deadline, which was approaching in early September, would have signaled a likely end to the construction project.

Ms. Jayne said she has spent approximately $40,000 on legal costs, engineering fees and other expenses related to the property dispute.

“It gets to the point where I can’t sleep at night,” she said, referring to the stress caused by the situation.

“It’s been very difficult.”

Access to the water

Some neighbors worry that allowing the home to be built will result in the loss of a public access point to the water.

Mr. Crecelius sent an email to the town manager in March, stating … “there are few public access points to the Barrington River, and losing an access point based on this decision is unfortunate.”

Meadowbrook Drive residents Matt and Hillary Hollis also emailed the town manager.

“We are seeking to have this construction restricted, as the public access to the water this road provides is of great interest to the community,” they wrote.

Seabrook Court was not included on a town-researched list of public access points to the water; also, a portion of the paper road is blocked by Mr. Caito’s home at 4 Seabrook Court.

Editor's note: An earlier version of this article stated that the owners of 4 Seabrook Court were claiming the entirety of Ms. Jayne's property in an adverse possession complaint. The claim is for a portion of the property.