Decoding 5 comments from the Chteau Laurier debate

The three-year debacle over the controversial addition to the Chteau Laurier hotel came to a quasi-end late Wednesday afternoon in a split vote, though procedural wrangling means the official finalehappens at a special council meeting this afternoon.

• Council upholds Chteau Laurieraddition, but will have to vote again Thursday
• ANALYSIS | ChteauLaurier debacle underscores gulf between public, city hall

During the two-hour debate, members of council madeemotional pleas to stop the project orlaid out their reasons why it should go ahead, even though all councillorsprofess not to like it.

But some of what they said needs a little more explanation and a touch of fact-checking.

Mayor Jim Watson

"We can't change the rules because we do not agree with the design choice."

The mayor is correct when he says that council can't dictate design, or order owners to change architects an argument he and others havemade numerous times.

However, in the case of a heritage building like the Chteau, council does have the final say over a design.

Owners of heritage buildings designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act must apply to the city for permission to alter their buildings.

It'scouncil that decides whether the changes are allowed to go ahead itcan reject the application, which canultimately influencethedesign.

As for the mayor's argument about not changing the rules, a city lawyer did confirm council is legally allowed to change its mind about this approval.

Rideau-Vanier Coun. Mathieu Fleury

"We gave a political direction to a staff report and it's hard for staff to interpret that political direction. That's why I believe this body is the right one to make the decision on [whether]the intent of the motion passed."

Fleury is referring to last year's ill-fated motion to approve theChteau Laurieraddition with three caveats, giving the authority to city staff to decide whether those caveats were met.

City staff did what they were explicitly asked to do they followed the written instructions, which in this case were pretty clear.

They did not try to interpret some sort of secret political meaning imbued in the motion.

The councillor leading the charge to halt the addition a project he originally and briefly supported likely meant that council, not staff, should have decided whether the conditions of the original approval were met.

In that case, he would have been better off echoing his colleague Coun. Catherine McKenney's admission that the previous council had "made a mistake," adding: "Dotwo wrongs make a right? They don't."

Innes Coun. Laura Dudas

"We could end up with a much worse design than what is what is before us today As much as I hate the current seven-storey design,I hated the 12-storey box even more."

This scenario is alarming.Except it really isn't true.

If council were to revokeLarco's heritage permit for the extension, the companywould likely appeal the decision andwin, according to Tim Marc, the city's own planning lawyer.

That potential legal battle could cost taxpayers between $100,000 and $200,000.

At that point, Larco would have to reapply to the city if it changes its design, with all the municipal and possibly provincial processes that entails.

Sure, the hotel owners could ask for 12 storeys, or even 25, but that application would have to be approved by a number of city committees.

So if the hotel did manage to get a 12-storey addition, it would be likely be because councillors voted in favour of it.

Orlans Coun. Matthew Luloff

"Who is the authority that issues a heritage permit?"

City staff: Council.

"Under what higher authority?"

City staff: Under the Ontario Heritage Act.

"Could the provincial minister responsible for that piece of legislation revoke a heritage permit?"

City staff: Short answer,no.

"This is an interesting new piece of information."

In one of Wednesday'smore puzzling exchanges, Luloffappeared to be trying to get staff to agree that local MPP Lisa MacLeod the minister responsible for the heritage act could revoke the Chteau's heritage certificate, leaving council off the hook.

It's an idea he floated around earlier this week on Twitter, but has since deleted.

He likely should have done a little more research before going down this path publicly.

To be fair, MacLeod could theoretically get involved in the file in other ways, but it would be complex, take a long timeand be a highly unusualmove that would need to be supported by the premier's office.

Stittsville Coun. Glen Gower

"We've all heard loud and clear from residents that the outcome they want is to stop this addition to the Chteau Laurier. And I really can't believe some of my colleagues who are continuing to peddle this motion [think it] actually achieves that. It doesn't. At best, we delay construction a few months while Larcogoes through an appeals process."

Gower is right on a number of fronts.

The public wants this stopped, and revoking the heritage certificate something no other municipality appears to have everdone may not dothat.

But the move would delay Larco more than just "a few months." A court challengewould likely drag on for many months, possibly years.

• Chteau Laurier owners threaten legal action if council rescinds approval

And during this time, perhaps Larco and the city could come up with a new plan that, while unlikely to please everyone, at least doesn't infuriate across the board.

Or at least that's whatCoun. Shawn Menardargued to his council colleagues:reject the motion to revoke theChteau approval, and it's clear what we'll get.

But we don't know what will happen if council votes for the motion.

"The question around the table is very simply, do you want another fighting chance to make sure that this represents what the residents of Ottawa want, or do you not?"

But it appears that this city council is done fighting for theChteau Laurier.