For yet another session, dating back to November of 2024, counsel representing the applicants of the "Settlers Green" housing development in town requested and were granted a continuance of their case before the Warren Planning Board.

The board approved the request at its April 28 forum. The matter, as it has now for the last several months, is next scheduled to be heard during the body's meeting on May 19. Note the date change. Rather than meeting on its usual fourth Monday of the month, the May meeting will be moved up a week due to the Memorial Day holiday on May 26.

"Settlers Green," as most are well aware, has been a source of consternation for residents of the area as well as for the town, which was forced into litigation over the proposal to construct 12 single family residences along with two, four-story apartment buildings on 16 acres of the former Bettencourt Farm site near Frerichs Farm on Kinnicutt Avenue and the Warren Reservoir.

The most recent delays have stemmed from the decision by parties to conduct an update study of the location, which is being done by Fuss & O'Neill, a civil engineering firm with an office in Providence.

Planning Board Chairman Fred Massie, as he has done during prior meetings, once again provided a brief explanation about the current state of affairs in regard to "Settlers Green."

"This continuance was requested by the applicant with the acceptance that there would be no, that this would not impact the timing for a decision based on this continuance," Massie said. The chair reminded the timeframe for the matter to be decided by the board remains 90 days upon submission of the proper documents.



Massie continued, "And the reasons for this was that Fuss & O'Neill, which is working for the town. It was determined, by the town administration and with the agreement of the applicant that there would be an engineering study conducted of the current plan done by Fuss & O'Neill, which is an independent engineering firm opposed to the applicants's engineering firm.

"And that was the reason for this continuance, because it was being worked out, how it would be done and how it would be paid for. So at this point, we're moving forward in the anticipation is that it would be done prior to the May 19th meeting. So that's where we are."


A motion was made to approve the continuance with discussion, during which alternate member Richard Matton, taking up a voting seat at the April 28 meeting due to the absence of other board members, intimated he would vote against.

Matton wondered aloud about the persistent delays, saying, "The meeting is only three weeks from now, and he doesn't have it ready now. He's not going to have it ready in three weeks."

Fellow member Blake Costa cautioned Matton about getting into specifics about the case, citing the aforementioned litigation the town has and could face if the board was deemed to be prejudicial prior to any future hearings.


"That's not for us to decide," said Costa, who said still another delay could be possible. "That's not our decision making process here. We may not form an opinion...This is a very sensitive case. This has a potential to be litigious, so, I think, first this, if you're gonna make that vote, be confident in your vote."

Matton countered, "It's already been litigious, and he's taking advantage of the board by looking for extension." 

Associate Town Solicitor Benjamin Ferreira, likewise, implored the members to refrain from offering up any opinions that could be deemed counterproductive.

"My recommendation, as your legal counsel is to approve the continuance for another month to preserve all our rights," Ferreira said, adding later referencing the legal process, "Procedurally, it's a little more complicated than just easy to explain status because the law changed in terms of how you appeal a decision by this (state superior) court."

Massie reminded his colleagues first the state housing board ruled against the town's initial denial of the "Settlers Green" proposal, then so, too, did a state superior court judge.


"It is important, though, when we have these decisions that you have a sound reason behind the objection, because if we don't, then it goes to court," Massie added. "In this case, we're not dealing with that right now, but we have dealt with it in the past, and the town has dealt with it in the past with other boards, where they've made a decision that is not supported by fact. And the facts of the case here are that the town itself wants this extension, as well as the applicant. So it's not a one sided. We're not being pushed around. We're not being coerced. 


"We're agreeing to a process that we'll hopefully give us a bit more leeway in terms of our discussions with the applicant. Without that study, we have less information upon which to make that decision...he intent would be that it would be done by May 19. 


Board member E. Jenny Flanagan contributed, "And the study gives us better grounds to evaluate the viability of the proposal. It gives us better grounds to discuss within areas in which we disagree. Without the study, we don't have good grounds to have that discussion. It's in our interests to have that study."

At the end of the discussion, Matton was persuaded. He changed his vote to the affirmative, meaning all five members present supported the continuance.