Mayor rebukes Combermere residents for ultimatum against Bent Anchor

There was an elephant in the Zoom when Madawaska Valley Council met remotely on July 7th to consider the Bent Anchor’s application for rezoning to allow for a retail outlet. That elephant was the fact that it had become public knowledge that the retail store would sell cannabis products. This had provoked a backlash from a number of Combermere residents who used a social media campaign and a petition in order to stir up opposition to the application. One participant at the meeting, Peter Baklinski, was behind the campaign and admitted responsibility for demanding that residents boycott the Bent Anchor unless it abandons its wish to sell cannabis products. The Mayor, referring to that threat, said,

“I certainly have a concern that the neighbourhood is sort of holding ultimatums over this business the Bent Anchor … if you do this, we’re not going to come. I don’t think that’s the kind of community we are or should be. We are here to support our businesses…. I think, gentlemen, you have definitely worked hard to have good relations with your neighbours. I would really hate to see the Combermere community get out their pitchforks and be on this side or that of this issue.”

So far as the application itself was concerned the focus was on site specific planning issues, most notably the objections from neighbours Jonathan Pratt and Stephanie Park who own the access road, and Ray Pastway who also shares the same access road as the Bent. Pratt said, “We submit potentially that, cannabis or not, if it was purely a retail expanded use of the property, we would experience a lot of the same impacts to our peace and safe enjoyment of our property whether it was a retail outlet for sale of any other type of commercial goods as it might be for cannabis.” Pastway speculated that the level of investment could lead to year round retail operation by the owners of the business, and that he might have to “close [his] gate a lot more.” Another resident, David Henstock, joined the meeting and questioned why the OPP were not participating in it. In reiterating the threats that prompted the Mayor’s rebuke, Baklinski confirmed that he was dismayed by the prospect of there being a cannabis retail store. Despite Madawaska Valley having opted in for retail cannabis sale, Baklinski accused the owners of not respecting the community concerns about cannabis being available, saying: “The outrage was so visceral. People were saying we don’t want this in our community, we don’t want you to bring this here. The owners were given 72 hours to decide whether they were going to go ahead with their application or not and if they didn’t, then local residents would be boycotting the Bent Anchor – that’s how seriously they were perceiving this as a threat.” 

In response, Jameel Bharmal, one of the owners, emphasized that this was simply an application for a retail zoning amendment and that cannabis had no relevance to a by-law amendment. He confirmed that they had taken on board the issues of parking and separate entrance, and said that the owners had the will to work with the community to address these. He disagreed with suggestions that the operation would “suppress downtown Combermere.”

Members of Council were then asked for input. Councillor Mark Willmer stated that the property was not suitable for the proposed amendment because access is across residential land and this “should not happen.” Willmer did not explain why the same considerations had not applied previously over the many years that the Bent Anchor had been operated as a restaurant with live music. Councillor Ernie Peplinski, reminding listeners that he was “a former police officer,” criticized the dangers of the “large curve as you exit the village heading north into Barry’s Bay” but, like Willmer, failed to mention that this has been the case for as long as the Bent Anchor has been in business. He concluded by saying, “I’m not against promoting business; I’m all for it. But I don’t think this is the business that we need at this time in this location.” An observer might infer that his remark suggests that the “elephant” was very much a factor in his decision.

Councillor Carl Bromwich stated that the township is pro-cannabis and pro-development, but cannabis legislation is not the issue. He also referred to the driveway being an issue and said he would not support the application and that it was premature to deal with it until the owners returned with a site plan. Councillor David Shulist questioned the spirit of the original agreement between the original owners of the Bent Anchor and the owners of the road. He said it is not zoned commercial and he cannot support it, but if the owners bring a plan and a new driveway, “Who knows?”

After taking a break to consider their options of how to deal with the application, Council unanimously resolved to reject it with the Mayor reminding the owners that they had the opportunity to challenge it at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The Current spoke with the owners on July 11 when they stated that they were considering their options, including going to LPAT, but had not made any decisions at this early stage. They said that they were disappointed that Council did not defer their application to give them the opportunity to come back with a site plan and suggestions to address the other objections. Bharmal added, “But I am grateful that this is going to stimulate a larger conversation about what people want in this area. And also maybe it’ll be reflected in a more active municipal election next time.”