A second shot for Kent

Kent is being tabled again.

The Clarenville Town Council has contacted Kent Building Supplies to invite them to a meeting where alternate solutions can be discussed.

The building supplies store requested permission from the Town to purchase four acres of land on Coish Place earlier this summer.

The application was rejected by Council in the June 22 regular meeting.

Town Manager Bob Hiscock said Council made preliminary contact with Kent last week.

“It was just an invitation to them to come back and sit with (Council),” he said. (Kent is) just wondering right now what Council’s position is as far as the last proposal and when we can get together.”

Kent’s application was initially rejected for logistic reasons.

According to the minutes of the June 22 meeting, the developer wanted to dead-end Coish Place in order to place the building facing Manitoba Drive. They also requested the Town agree to a “non-competition” clause in the sales agreement.

The application prompted a lot of discussion and consideration around the council table, but concerns were raised about the implications of dead-ending Coish Place and agreeing to a “non-competition clause.”

The issue brought out differing opinion among councilors.

“Although we welcome any and all development up there, we felt that their proposal to take in both sides of the road up there would essentially cut off access to future development behind that area,” said Councilor Keith Rodway during an interview in June. “(Council) felt that at this time, it wouldn’t be a wise thing to do.”

Rodway told the Packet that Council countered with a couple of other proposals, but the developer declined those options.

Councilor Frazer Russell didn’t share that opinion.

“… We’re always looking for development and sometimes you have to accommodate people,” he said during an interview in June. “Here was a company who wanted to come to Clarenville and buy a substantial amount of land and invest in our community.”

Almost two months later, Kent was brought up in a Council meeting again.

Hiscock said it’s being revisited because all options weren’t explored in the last go-around.

“The concern that we have is that Kent never really got Council’s true feeling on how we wanted to proceed,” Hiscock said.

“What we did when we reviewed the last application is that we refused what they had proposed at that time. However, we contacted them at that time and said, ‘Although we don’t agree with this configuration, we’d like to meet with you and see if there’s an alternative proposal.”

Hiscock noted that some councilors may have felt that message wasn’t clear enough.

Confirmation of a meeting between Council and Kent hasn’t been confirmed yet.

“We’d love to have Kent here, but we’re just wondering if there’s another approach to this,” he said.

Stew Valcour, Kent’s general manager, wasn’t available for comment before deadline.

mclarkson@thepacket.ca