Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Liquor License Renewal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

East Greenwich council denies Patio liquor license renewal after owner fails to present plan

East Greenwich Town Council · November 25, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After repeated extensions and a year of inactivity, the East Greenwich Town Council voted 3–0 on Nov. 25 to deny renewal of a Class B liquor license for The Patio at 431 Main St., citing the applicant's lack of a concrete reopening or zoning plan.

The East Greenwich Town Council voted 3–0 on Nov. 25 to deny renewal of a Class B alcoholic beverage license for the Patio, a restaurant at 431 Main Street, after the owner did not present a concrete plan to reopen or obtain necessary zoning relief.

President Mark Schwager opened the public hearing on the Patio's renewal and the town clerk reviewed the license's history: the license had been “granted but not issued” in a prior year because the business did not meet final inspection and state tax-clearance requirements. Applicant Angel told the council she wanted more time to decide whether to reopen the space herself or sublease it, and asked, “I would kindly ask if I could keep my liquor license so that I can have some more time to think over the concept.”

Solicitor comments and council discussion emphasized two constraints: under state law a liquor license cannot be leased to another party, and the council had previously told the business in July that it needed to be operating or have an actionable plan in place by the Nov. public hearing. The council cited the property's limited configuration (21 indoor seats, seven parking spaces) and the need for zoning relief for any expansion.

Schwager said the town had repeatedly extended time for the business and that the July hearing set clear conditions; he moved to deny the renewal, a motion seconded by another councilor and approved in a roll call of 3–0. The clerk indicated the applicant may seek an administrative refund from the clerk’s office, but the town typically does not issue refunds for annual license fees and urged the applicant to pursue that separately.

What the council required and why it mattered: Council members said a responsible grant or reissuance of a license requires a realistic, verifiable plan — including engagement with zoning, an architect and contractors — and that a license should be held by an operating business. The solicitor explained that if the property is later proposed for a different operator, that person must apply for the license and be vetted in the same formal public process.

Next steps: The denial takes effect as recorded in the meeting; the license will revert to the town and be available for future applicants under existing procedures. The applicant may appeal administratively regarding fees; any new applicant or transfer would need to come before the council and meet local and state requirements.