Council continues hearing on Narragansett Casino beer‑and‑wine license amid remonstrance and parking dispute

The Narragansett Town Council on May 19 opened a public hearing on an application from Narragansett Casino for a Class B victualing (beer and wine) license at 11 Narragansett Pier and after more than two hours of testimony continued the matter to June 2 for further legal review and briefing.

Councilors voted 5‑0 to open the hearing. Later that night the council voted 5‑0 to continue the matter and direct Town Solicitor Alex Craven to review case law and administrative precedent related to statutory objections by abutting property owners.

Applicant counsel John Mancini told the council the applicant has submitted required documents, criminal background checks and paid taxes, and said the underlying dispute stems from a long running disagreement between the building owner and the ground‑lease holder. Mancini said arbitration determined the purchaser of the building, Narragansett Casino, is entitled to control the lease and operate the property. He urged the council to base its decision on the town’s licensing ordinance and the applicant’s submission rather than litigation strategy.

Mancini challenged an objection filed by three nearby property interests — SAH Hospitality LLC (the hotel owner), JT O’Connell Realty (operator of the Celeste restaurant) and Beachcomber Properties (landlord) — which claim that property owners within a 200‑foot radius control more than 51 percent of the land and therefore can bar the license under Rhode Island General Laws Section 3‑7‑19. Mancini argued that the statute’s plain text refers to a single “owner,” not a collective of owners, and that the objectors had misread the law.

Objectors argued instead that administrative precedent allows multiple abutting owners to combine their holdings to reach the statutory threshold. Attorney Patrick Doherty, representing JT O’Connell Realty and Beachcomber Properties, said he had cited Department of Business Regulations (DBR) decisions where multiple remonstrants combined to meet the 51 percent threshold and asked the council to recognize the objectors’ map and supporting engineered calculations showing roughly 77 percent of the 200‑foot radius is controlled by three objectors.

The hearing included extended testimony about property ownership, historical subdivision and common‑area parking. Objectors said that since earlier redevelopment transactions, roughly 130 parking spaces that once served the marketplace and cinema parcel have been deeded or dedicated away — 58 spaces were described as deeded to a liquor store parcel and 72 spaces as deeded to JT O’Connell’s parcel — and argued the loss of parking and easements would create public‑safety and congestion problems if a licensed indoor‑service establishment were permitted to operate at full capacity.

Applicant Michael Riley, who operates Narragansett Casino, told the council the business would serve beer and wine, operate seasonally adjusted hours (Riley said the business has been opening at about noon recently and that proposed hours were typically 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., with earlier closing in winter) and would not operate as a hard‑liquor bar. Riley said the venue is a retro arcade and small movie theater with about 305 event capacity listed on the application, and that concessions and a beer/wine offering were intended to support a family‑oriented business model.

Solicitor Callahan recused himself from the item because of a prior representation; the council seated Solicitor Craven for the hearing. Craven recommended the council continue the matter and directed the town solicitor’s office to research the DBR and case precedent about whether multiple abutters can combine ownership to meet the 51 percent remonstrance threshold. He warned that a failure to clarify the legal standard could invite appeals and additional delays.

Council President moved, and the council voted 5‑0 to continue the hearing to June 2, with Craven asked to report back on the legal question and any relevant DBR precedent. The council recorded the hearing record for use in any possible DBR de novo review should the matter be appealed.

The licensing application drew numerous procedural and substantive questions: who owns the land versus the building (the building was sold, while the ground lease has been prepaid and extended), whether prior special one‑day licenses and one‑day variances had been granted at the site, whether any evidence shows that a liquor license would cause parking or safety problems at the pier, and which legal standard correctly interprets R.I. Gen. Laws § 3‑7‑19.

Councilors and watching residents urged the council to base any decision on the town’s ordinance, the application record and clear precedent. The council’s continuation preserves the ability for both sides to file additional documents and for the solicitor to present an analysis of DBR decisions and state cases prior to the council’s next public action.