Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Retail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Top Shelf cannabis application put over after legal dispute over who holds the state provisional license
Summary
A Top Shelf Consulting Group application for a cannabis retail special permit in Bellport was held to May 14 after board members and competing attorneys disputed which entity holds the provisional state license and whether the applicant has authority to proceed; the board asked for sworn documentation.
The Board of Zoning Appeals on April 30 held over a cannabis retail special permit application from Top Shelf Consulting Group LLC after a contested exchange over whether the applicant or a separate corporate entity holds the state provisional cannabis authorization.
Attorney Jay Shea presented the application for a property on Sawgrass Drive in Bellport and said the site would comply with most of the town’s cannabis special‑permit criteria except the proximity to a place of worship (460 feet provided vs. 500 feet prohibited) and the 1‑mile limit to other cannabis retail uses. Town planner Michael Reed’s staff report noted those two criteria required relief and recommended conditions if the board were to grant approval: three‑year term, no building permit until a New York State license is obtained, retail only, and no indoor consumption.
During the hearing, a lawyer for another party — who submitted a letter to the board — argued that Top Shelf Consulting Group lacked authority to pursue the application on behalf of Top Shelf Aficionados Inc., the entity previously associated with the state provisional authorization. The applicants’ counsel countered that the controlling person with the provisional authorization (identified as Usman Way in the transcript) had applied to move the license to an entity he controls and that the BZA has previously accepted similar procedural arrangements where the special permit is granted in the property owner or contract vendee’s name while the license is held by another entity or individual.
The chair asked for documentary proof. The board asked the applicant to supply sworn affidavits, corporate documents, and any state licensing paperwork showing which individual or entity holds the provisional license and whether it is being transferred; the chair said oral argument alone was insufficient to resolve competing claims. The applicant asked for time to confer with clients. The board held the hearing open to May 14 and directed the applicant to provide the requested documentation for the record.
