FALL RIVER — If you were betting that Judge Merita Hopkins would resolve Somerset’s North Street land controversy during last Friday’s Superior Court hearing, you lost.

Hopkins was ready to go, but the two parties fighting over the legality of the development — the Somerset Planning Board and the Somerset Zoning Board of Appeals — indicated they had done little to resolve the dispute since Hopkins ordered them to hammer out a compromise in July.

The suit involves questions over whether houses should have been built on the property without a special permit or variance.

It has generated unusual interest because the land was developed by Arthur Gagnon, a former member of the Zoning Board that is supposed to enforce such rules, and was co-owned by Eleanor Gagnon, the former selectwoman who has staunchly defended her husband’s actions. Neither is named in the suit.

Hopkins had said in July that if a resolution wasn’t reached by last Friday, she would spend that day hearing evidence and ruling on the case.

No such luck.

Both boards asked for more time to hammer out an agreement.

But Hopkins’ stint in Fall River ends Oct. 3, so the two sides promised to find a compromise by Oct. 1.

If a deal hasn’t been cut by then, the judge will spend her last day trying to sort through a controversy that has simmered in Somerset since spring 2004.

Since July, the two parties barely met on the issue and the Planning Board issued a last-minute letter to the homeowners with a vague invitation to come to the town offices to resolve any questions surrounding their property.

It’s not clear whether they’ll accept that offer.

David Sullivan, the Planning Board’s lawyer, said “a couple of homeowners have expressed a desire to come in.” But the Gagnons, who said they have been in touch with the homeowners, insisted during a break that Sullivan was lying.

Any compromise would likely involve agreement on whether Arthur Gagnon did, in fact, find a legitimate loophole that allowed houses to be built without special permission from the Planning Board. The properties are listed as being in Somerset’s Water Resources Protection District.

It would also require an agreement on whether the current homeowners, including Gagnon’s daughter and her husband, would need to get special retroactive permission from the town, something they’ve been loath to do.

And it would require drafting language to clarify the rules, a proposal that would have to be approved by voters at a town meeting.

“This was supposed to be done by today,” said Hopkins at the start of the proceedings on Friday. “I want to know if this is getting resolved and, if not, when.”

Sullivan said after another meeting between the two sides, at the courthouse: “It’s not as simple as modifying one portion of the bylaw.”

The disputed bylaw says that if a property owner and the building inspector disagree on whether a parcel is in the water resource district, the zoning board must make that determination.

Under Arthur Gagnon’s reading, that means if the two parties agree that the land is not in the district, district restrictions do not apply. He also contends that the map delineating the bounds of the district is inaccurate.

The Planning Board says that, in this case, Building Inspector Joseph Lawrence erred in granting building permits for the homes because the district clearly encroaches onto the Gagnon property, according to the town’s water resource map, and the bylaw applies only when the two parties disagree.

An investigation by then-Town Administrator John McAuliffe concluded that Lawrence exceeded his authority and exercised poor decision-making by issuing permits without a special permit from the Planning Board or a variance from the Zoning Board.

Lawrence has acknowledged that he made a mistake. He was put on probation for six months.

gemery@projo.com