Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Liquor License topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Greenwich board keeps restrictions on Low Key Cafe but replaces police detail with private security and scanner requirement
Summary
Following a July show‑cause hearing that found multiple license violations, the East Greenwich Board of License Review modified conditions for Low Key Cafe: the council removed the town police‑detail requirement but imposed an independent private‑security contract and continued mandatory ID‑scanner use; the cafe will return at renewal in November.
The East Greenwich Town Council, sitting as the Board of License Review on Sept. 9, modified conditions on Low Key Cafe’s liquor license after a status review following a July show‑cause hearing that had found violations for allowing underage persons on the premises and serving them alcohol.
Attorney Sean O’Leary, representing the licensee, told the board that "there has been no incidents" since the July decision and argued the police‑detail requirement should be withdrawn. Owner Mr. Flanders also urged the board to restore a regular license, saying his operation had shown improvement and that staff use ID‑scanning technology and training.
Councilors who had participated in the July hearing pushed back, citing the record of previous violations and questioning the credibility of some prior testimony. Council members said the required police detail had been difficult to staff and imperfectly enforced — East Greenwich officers were present on only a portion of the nights the detail was requested — but they stressed the town must protect patrons and minors.
To strike a balance, the council voted to remove the formal police‑detail condition and instead require an independent third‑party private‑security contract (not a bartender or employee) on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sundays before holidays from 9:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., and to maintain continued use of the ID‑scanner that the establishment uses to check patrons’ IDs. The motion also requires the licensee to provide evidence of a security contract to the town and to return for license renewal in November for further review. The motion carried 3–1.
Council President (speaker 1) said the change reflected both enforcement realities and the council’s interest in an effective, not merely punitive, remedy. Several councilors warned that additional violations would be treated cumulatively and could lead to fines or suspension.
The board’s action replaces a police‑detail condition imposed in July with a requirement for an outside security provider and continued administrative oversight; the license will be re‑examined at renewal in November.
