Two East End towns went too far in restricting where legal marijuana dispensaries can operate, the state’s Cannabis Control Board has ruled.

The agency issued a pair of advisory opinions deeming local zoning restrictions in Riverhead and Southampton “unreasonably impracticable” in response to grievances from dispensary owners whose plans were stymied by town laws. Officials said the opinions are meant to provide clarity as the statewide rollout of legal cannabis continues.

“We are looking at what is reasonable rules for localities, and I think that these advisory opinions help establish a standard that we need to be doing,” cannabis board member Brad Usher said during Monday’s meeting.

The board found Southampton measures to be “forbidden” by state cannabis law, limiting dispensaries to only two of its eight commercial business districts and requiring special permits and fees.

By comparison, the board wrote that “liquor stores licensed by the New York State Liquor authority may operate in four Southampton business districts.”

Though state law allows local municipalities to govern “time, place and manner” for dispensaries, the parameters are limited to hours of operation, traffic control, odor, noise and architectural features.

“We kind of look at it as NIMBYism against the cannabis industry at large,” Remsenburg attorney Christian Killoran said in an interview on Tuesday. Killoran represents Brown Budda New York LLC, which sued the Town of Southampton in August. The lawsuit said the town created too many regulatory hurdles and attempted to block delivery services, according to court documents.

Killoran said the ruling “wholeheartedly supports the fact that Southampton should not have enacted or applied its local law in the manner that it did.”

Towns push back

Southampton Town Attorney James Burke said the two zones that allow dispensaries comprise “a pretty significant portion of town,” in an interview Tuesday.

“We feel that we haven’t been unduly restrictive,” Burke said. “We have to be protective of our home rule.”

Burke criticized the opinion as being one-sided. He said the document notes the cannabis board “relied solely on the facts and information” provided by the dispensaries. He also questioned the authority carried by the “advisory” opinion.

Riverhead Town Attorney Erik Howard said in a statement Wednesday the opinion was a “non-binding” interpretation that oversteps the agency’s authority.

Howard said the rulings by the state “effectively eviscerate the time, place and manner deference afforded to municipalities that chose to ‘opt-in’ to cannabis uses.”

Howard said cannabis businesses can pursue other sites in the town but are trying to open in areas not zoned for that use.

“Their allegation is that it is ‘unreasonably impractical’ to locate it where they want – but that’s what zoning is,” he said, adding that single-family homes are also not appropriate in commercial areas.

Criticism abounds

The opinion also cited a grievance filed by Mottz Only Authentic New York Style LLC, which is attempting to open in Hampton Bays but was denied after the town ruled it was too close to a church that hosts a day care.

James Mallios, who co-founded Charlie Fox cannabis dispensary, also filed a grievance with the state citing delays in the town review process. A judge ordered the dispensary to shut down after it opened in September without town permission.

Riverhead and Southampton are among the few Long Island towns that opted to allow recreational marijuana sales. Both faced criticism and legal action after businesses accused them of having overly restrictive rules. The CCB’s rulings reiterate that state law preempts, or supersedes, local cannabis ordinances.

The Cannabis Control Board ruled the Town of Riverhead exceeded its legal authority by “establishing or expanding required distance buffers between cannabis licenses and other businesses or organizations.” The town also overstepped by “specially prohibiting cannabis businesses from areas where other businesses may lawfully operate,” the board said.

Though state law sets a 500-foot buffer between schools and dispensaries, Riverhead’s code doubles the distance to 1,000 feet. The board also ruled that Riverhead’s proposed one-year moratorium on cannabis shops — first introduced in August — would be improper.

Earlier rulings

The cannabis board’s ruling deals another blow to Riverhead’s marijuana zoning, which has already been struck down twice in court.

In July, Suffolk State Supreme Court Justice Paul M. Hensley said the town’s rules, including that dispensaries be spaced 2,500 feet apart, is preempted by state law. That cleared the way for Tink & E. Co. to pursue plans for a dispensary in a former bank on Ostrander Avenue.

Hensley again ruled in favor of a proposed dispensary on Old Country Road that was rejected by the town Zoning Board of Appeals for being too close to school property. The licensee, Brian Stark, seeks to open his store about 735 feet from school property.

Hensley’s decision, handed down Sept. 24, says the town’s 1,000-foot buffer is “legally invalid” and preempted by the state’s 500-foot buffer and that Stark doesn’t need a variance.

The Riverhead Town Board voted Tuesday to appeal that decision.

Martha Reichert of the Riverhead law firm Twomey Latham, which represents Stark, said the town faces an “uphill battle” on appeal.

“Zoning isn’t supposed to be a way of vetoing licensees,” she said in an interview. “The state has an overarching interest in protecting the cannabis industry but also to ensure that cannabis is regulated uniformly and evenly across the state.”