He said he and Kelly had discussed the details of his proposal “down to the exact use of the space, the build out, the patient base and what it was going to take for us to get a license.”
“He even went so far as to tell me he saw no issue with it, and that he has tenants do all kinds of things that he may or may not understand or agree with,” Terricone said.
At that time he felt he made it clear to the landlord that he would be presenting the location as a possible option to town leaders because “we wanted local support and harmony with the local government,” said Terricone. Among the strict regulations imposed by the state on the RMD licensing process, applicants must list a definitive location for the dispensary on their application.
Kelly acknowledged he toured the building with Terricone and his broker — “just like we would do with any potential tenant for our property,” he said when reached over the weekend. He said he was courteous to the prospective tenants but never indicated one way or another his position on a possible lease agreement with them.
Then following the tour he met with his other business partners to discuss the proposed use. They collectively determined a medical marijuana facility was not suitable for their building. They had no further contact with either Terricone or Holland after that but agreed that if Medical Evolution ever got back to them with a request to lease the space, they would turn it down, he said.
The next time he heard anything about it was when his property was mentioned in the article that ran in Friday’s paper. “For clarification, we neither issued any proposals nor a lease to Mr. Terricone and Ms. Holland’s group. We have no intention of leasing space at 12 Kent Way as any sort of medical marijuana facility,” he said.