►
From YouTube: Ottawa City Council - July 10, 2019 - Part 1 of 2
Description
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas.
Part 2 of this meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt8mJIoKeOg
Consent Agenda Items: https://youtu.be/E8iIpsATtu0?t=548
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment - 10 Oblats Avenue: https://youtu.be/E8iIpsATtu0?t=1503
Fleury-Leiper Motion re: Chateau Laurier: https://youtu.be/E8iIpsATtu0?t=2294 (continues in Part 2)
A
A
A
A
A
Welcome
and
it's
nice
to
see
family
and
friends
here,
I'd
like
to
extend
a
warm
welcome
to
the
family
and
friends
and
associates
of
Russia,
who
are
here
with
us
today
and
good
numbers.
This
award
recognizes
people
who
have
demonstrated
an
extraordinary
commitment
to
making
our
city
a
better
place
through
volunteerism
or
exemplary
action.
Rajah's
recognized
for
volunteer
work
with
the
city
of
ottawa
and
in
the
albion
Hetherington
community
Rasha
has
been
a
volunteer
in
the
Hetherington
community
and
has
worked
tirelessly
with
neighbors
to
build
a
safer,
more
vibrant
and
welcoming
community.
A
B
G
F
B
Say
fluffy
you
see
counselor
King
here,
counselor
McKinney
present
counselor
leaper,
here
counselor
Brockington,
here,
counselor
Menard,
your
caustic
smoochy,
is
that
kasi
bleh
counselor
Drew's
here
counselor
Moffitt
your
counselor
meet
him
here.
Counselor
hubely,
yeah
mayor
watson,
see
no
crime
at
that
see
a
mr.
limo
Elsie.
A
Adopts
wonderful
sister
elbow
for
the
regular
council
meeting
of
June
26
2019
carried
a
declaration
of
interest,
including
those
originally
rising
from
prior
meetings,
necklace
yo
Nicole
feed
into
that.
No
none,
no
communications
and
petitions
as
presented
regrets
counselor
bleh
advised
that
he'd
be
absent
from
the
City
Council
meeting
of
July
10th
2019
motion
introduced
reports.
Most
importantest
intestinal
de
porco
see
Menard
a
pre-bout
coal
CA
DeRussy
Oh
plan
Thank.
A
The
motion
carried
adopt
a
LC
report,
city
clerk
and
solicitor
graffia
miss
patty,
a
vocational
planning
advisory
committee
appointment
committee
constituted
david
welna
min
SEO
member
residing
in
rural
area
of
Ottawa
T
Brad
Brooke
Smith
carried
Corporate
Services,
selfish
general
city,
debenture,
issuance
omission.
The
D'avanzo
de
la
ville
carried
committee
reports,
Agriculture
and
Rural
Affairs
Committee
report
number
five
grappling
the
middle
Sancta
committee.
A
The
leg
recruit
suet
is
a
farewell
item
number
three
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
part
of
three
one:
nine,
four
Donnelly
Drive
modification
irregular
mother's
own
ash,
Tuan,
FCAT,
promenade,
Donnelly
carried
audit
committee
report
number
four
Capone
a
little
cat.
The
committee
did
a
verification
office
of
the
Auditor
General
investigation
of
OC
Transpo
clothing
allowance.
Alcoholic
has
shown
definite
demand,
OC
Transpo,
Harry
item
number
five
office
of
the
Auditor
General
review
of
the
emergency
shelter
program,
use
of
specific
hotel
bureau.
Chief
edification
and
I'll
examine
the
program.
Did
Darryl
Jones
FL
small
hotel
visa
whole?
A
Is
it
several
questions?
Counselor
you
liked
it.
Okay,
we'll
come
back
to
that
item
six
office,
the
Auditor
General
investigation,
a
cast
cash
theft
incident,
Meriden
theatres
at
Meridian,
rather
theaters
at
Centerpoint.
Bureau
of
davidic
Atlantic
at
zola
incident
Ivaldi
fall
to
add
to
a
Meriden
de
sauntered.
A
The
center
point
carry
item
number
seven
office
of
the
Auditor
General
report
on
the
fraud
and
waste
hotline
bureau's
vilification
upholstery,
a
ling,
direct
the
fraud,
a
debuts
received
saved
I,
don't
number
eight
solid
waste
master
plan
roadmap,
fader
hoot,
the
plan,
delectable
delicious
Joan,
dataset,
solid,
carried
item,
number
nine
comments
on
the
reducing
litter
and
waste
in
our
communities.
Discussion
paper
come
on
tell
so
the
document
Ithaca
violets
will
they
dish
said
no
collectivity.
A
J
B
A
A
So
on
the
report
carried
at
update
charitable
bingo
and
gaming,
revitalization
initiative
progetto
vivid
possession
day
bingo
eid
is
european
vessels
carried
a
planning
committee
report,
number
10,
capone
abilities
to
committee,
the
level
bhisma
official
planet,
zoning
bylaw
amendment
10,
oblate,
salve
anew
and
sites
designated
mixed
use,
medium
rise
in
the
old
Ottawa
secondary
plan.
But
if
you
can
show
or
plan
official
irregular
Montes
on
Ash,
these
Avenue
o
blades,
don't
let
there's
no
snow
a
s
zone
duties
as
Champa
live
around
the
hotel
more
en
da
the
planned
second
L.
A
The
VA
Ottawa
is
all
that
item.
13
zoning
bylaw
amendment
2
5,
8,
Carruthers,
Avenue
modification,
regular
mando
zone
as
the
sank
with
Avenue
Carruthers
dissent
by
councillor
flurry
carried
dissent
by
Minard,
leaper
and
McKenney
item
14
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
16
and
20
Hamilton
Avenue
north
councillor,
harder
and
tyranny
have
a
technical
amendment.
If
you'd
like
to
introduce
that
councillor
harder.
Please.
K
Thank
you.
It
is
just
that
a
technical
amendment
therefore
be
it
resolved
the
document
to
be
revised.
By
replacing
the
text.
The
7th
and
8th
story
will
be
set
back,
9.0
meters
from
the
front
property
line
which,
if
mirrored
to
the
other
side
of
the
street,
would
represent
a
width
of
thirty
six
point.
Three
meters
replace
that
with
the
text.
The
seventh
and
eighth
story
will
be
set
back,
8.0
meters
from
the
front
property
line
which,
if
mirror
to
the
other
side
of
the
street,
would
represent
it.
With
of
thirty
four
point,
three
meters.
A
Okay
on
the
technical
amendment
carried
on
the
report
as
amended
descent
by
accounts
the
same
for
councillors,
both
in
council
early
egg.
My
apologies.
Okay.
Thank
you.
Item
number
15
zoning
bylaw
amendment,
seven,
one
six
and
seven:
seven:
zero,
Brookfield,
Road
modification,
irregular
mother
zone
sadnesses,
they
said
says
it'll,
show
me
Brookfield,
Harry
and
Chancellor
brockington.
A
If
wha
Apple
own
Avenue
Delphinus
rue
Bank,
a
promenade
done
skipper:
cement
lead
from
a
promenade
Kelley
farm
Avenue,
Robert
Brandt,
HMF,
fern,
prank,
promenade
Didsbury,
a
promenade
compo
shamash
Spratt,
a
Avenue
borer
bridge.
You
learn
a
lot
of
street
names
in
this.
This
committee
carried
that
update
item
19
removal
of
properties
from
the
Heritage
registry,
2016
2018,
special
on
the
property
Taylor.
As
you
slip
a
dream,
and
amid
this,
this
Demi
sighs
Adam
it'd
be
sweet
Carrie.
A
A
J
Yes,
Monsieur
use,
thank
you
for
for
the
substantial
report
and
glad
to
see
that
city
staff
agree
to
most.
The
recommendations
want
to
maybe
hear
from
you
specifically
relating
to
the
impact
matter.
So
there's
the
the
the
city
had
embarked
in
a
an
agreement
with
motel
and
the
motel
then
expanded
into
the
residential
zone.
J
And
in
you,
as
part
of
your
report,
you
talked
about
the
impact
but
I
wonder
if
you
didn't
I
didn't
hear
from
you
specific
matters
relating
to
the
the
various
authorities
that
the
city
has
and
the
oversight
of
of
that
when
those
decisions
are
made.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
could
maybe
elaborate
as
per
what
you
were,
meaning
on
the
comparison
between
a
residential
fee
and
a
commercial
fee
and
the
wider
implications.
L
Mr.
Barr,
through
you
to
the
to
the
councilor
I,
think
the
staff
and
council
are
aware
that
there
is
a
difference
between
the
the
methods
of
valuation
for
residential
properties
and
the
methods
of
valuation
for
commercial
properties,
as
well
as
the
tax
rate
for
residential
properties
and
the
tax
rate
for
commercial
properties.
And
what
what
we
were
suggesting
with
the
number
of
of
units
that
the
number
of
properties
that
were
being
used
to
meet
the
city's
needs.
L
J
L
Mr.
Mariner
recommendations
we
we
recommended
that
the
staff
ensure
that
the
that
the
property
is
being
used
were
in
compliance
with
property
standards
and
in
compliance
with
with
zoning
regulations,
and
we
know,
for
example,
that
that
there
were
discussions
between
between
the
auditors
and
staff
with
responsibility
for
zoning
and
responsibility
for
property
standards,
and
then
there
were
further
discussions
between
city
staff
and
those
responsible
for
zoning
and
most
responsible
for
property
standards.
Okay,
thank.
J
L
J
Mayor
question
to
staff
Madame
GREs:
we
we
met
this
morning.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
thank
you
for
responding
to
to
to
those
questions.
I
am
happy
to
see
the
city
take
the
step
of
conducting
an
RFP
I've
shared
with
you
that
I
believe
the
importance
of
doing
the
monthly
peace
but
I
the
Auditor
General
spoke
to
the
delegation
of
authority
and
I
want
to
hear
from
you.
I
mean
we
don't
want
to
create
an
environment
where
you
have
red
tape
and
that
people
families
are
left
on
the
street.
J
In
the
same
vein,
we
also
want
to
have
proper
reporting
on
those
spendings
and
those
families,
so
want
want
to
want
to
hear
from
you.
What's
the
plan
I
know
that
through
CPS
we
had
put
some
measures
relating
to
capturing
of
the
numbers
and
won't
want
to
see
if
there's
an
appetite
to
maybe
increase
increase
that
reporting
for
that.
For
that
issue,.
B
Mr.
maryk,
so
the
current
process
that
allows
us
to
move
into
the
RFP
is
really
going
to
give
you
the
added
control
that
I
think
you're
looking
to
for
for
value
for
money.
So
that's
a
big
piece
and
that's
what
we're
hoping
to
do
value
for
money
and
also
the
expansion
of
sites
that
we
are
residences
that
we
have
available
for
newcomers
in
our
city.
The
other
issue
is
around
the
delegated
authority.
B
Is
we
currently
have
a
direction
to
staff,
to
look
at
measures
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
housing
and
homelessness,
and
that's
coming
to
committee
CPS
in
the
month
of
August,
so
I
would
recommend
or
suggest
that
we
include
that
discussion
around
the
specific
measures
that
you're
looking
to
enhance
in
that
in
alignment,
as
well
with
the
housing
and
homelessness
strategic
directions
that
we
make
sure
that
councils
getting
the
strategic
measures
and
information
that
they
need
to
make
the
decisions
and
feel
confident
in
their
delegated
authority.
Yep.
J
We
jumped
the
queue
now
and
we're
it's
like
the
bait,
a
new
baseline
and
I
question,
my
my
role
and
the
role
of
committee
and
council,
as
per
the
reporting
of
that.
So
really
would
like
you
know
as
there's
a
change
in
landscape
numbers
and
costs
that
there's
also
the
appropriate
reporting
to
to
to
us
right
at
Council,
so
that
we
understand
the
plan
so
that
we
understand
the
delegation
and
the
cost
involved
with
that.
So
I
hope
that
you
take
the
the
measure
in
terms
of
reporting
into
into
directions.
J
So
floating
is
that
there
was
over
spill
outside
of
the
motel
into
residential
and
that's
been
clear
and
and
staffs
I've
spoken
to.
There
are
currently
eight
identified
properties.
I
want
to
understand
how
many
bedrooms
is
that
and
what's
our
plan
as
part
of
the
RFP
process
to
to
bring
in
corrective
measures.
B
Mr.
mayor,
so
the
intent
of
the
RFP
process
is
to
limit
the
scope
to
hotels
and
motels,
and
that
would
really
be.
The
focus
of
the
RFP
is
to
expand
our
capacity
so
that
we're
not
taking
residential
units
out
of
the
rental
market.
And
that
really
is
our
intent
to
be
able
to
reduce
the
number
of
those
rental
units
and
to
ensure
that
we
have
sufficient
capacity
to
deal
with
an
emergency
services.
So
those
units
are
currently
being
reduced
and
will
continue
to
be
reduced.
As
we
have
alternate
solutions
and
the
emergency
shelter
component.
So.
B
A
I
Yeah
thanks
very
much
mayor
I
feel
it's
important
to
provide
some
context
for
for
councillors
on
on
this
item,
the
community,
the
former
owners
of
this
land,
the
old
blade
fathers
Catholic
order,
st.
Paul
university
city
planners,
the
previous
head
of
the
Planning
Committee
fo,
10
and
other
consultants.
Mr.
Paul
Owen
had
engaged
in
a
four-year
process
and
thousands
of
hours
to
ensure
that
these
lands
were
talking
about
today
were
developed
with
care.
It
meant
26,
26
acres
of
previously
heavily
utilized
green
space
in
the
middle
of
an
urban
neighborhood
would
be
intensified.
I
The
community
did
not
fight
this
development
site.
They
they
welcomed
the
new
density
and
they
welcomed
on
the
site
both
tall
and
medium
sized
buildings
alike.
They
put
their
trust
in
a
city
process
to
ensure
that
when
it
was
developed,
there
would
be
a
plan
that
they
could
rely
on
and
be
respected.
I
I
In
fact,
they
adopted
it
with
promotional
material
prepared
by
themselves
the
3d
concept
in
the
display
center,
the
community
meetings
with
powerpoints
the
press
clippings,
which
all
showed
what
was
agreed
upon
in
the
area
in
front
of
the
most
historic
building
of
old
Auto,
East,
and
so
I
put
it
to
you
that
this
was
a
classic
bait-and-switch.
What
happened
in
this
community
and
so
to
be
clear,
this
isn't
just
one
building,
that's
being
changed,
we're
not
just
changing
a
building
here.
This
is
over
13
acres
of
land,
that's
being
changed.
I
I
This
is
being
done
under
the
auspices
that
the
current
secondary
plan
has
surface
level
ambiguity
or,
if
you
will
a
loophole
that
might
allow
for
this
to
occur.
But
do
you
know
what
our
professional
legal
staff
said
about
this
when
I
inquired
with
them?
They
said
that
it
is
very
likely
that
the
original
secondary
plan
would
stand
up
a
tell
Pat,
so
all
of
those
hours
of
work,
all
of
that
investment
of
time.
I
That
would
stand
up
a
tell
Pat
when
it
was
being
defended
now
I
know
some
of
you
may
be
in
the
more
laissez-faire
camp
might
think
yourself.
Well,
geez.
The
developer
owns
all
of
this
land.
What
is
the
big
deal
here,
but
you
should
know
that
st.
Paul
University
owns
a
huge
portion
of
this
land
and
they've
written
to
you,
they've
written
to
you
indicating
that
they
oppose
these
changes
and
they're
a
major
landowner.
So
why
are
we
doing
this?
I
What's
what's
the
point
of
doing
this
for
a
developer
when
another
major
institution
in
our
city
doesn't
want
this
change
to
be
made,
and
it's
sending
a
signal
to
the
public
we're
in
the
midst
of
an
official
Plan
Update?
We
want
the
public
in
our
communities
to
engage
in
that
process
and
feel
as
though
there's
weight
to
their
deliberations
and
more
teeth.
I
As
a
result
of
it,
how
does
it
look
to
be
allowing
an
amendment
ostensibly
because
the
developer
wishes
it
despite
years
of
understanding
and
agreement
between
multiple
parties,
you
can't
reasonably
go
back
to
residents
in
your
communities
and
tell
them
to
engage
in
community
design
plans
and
secondary
plans
or
even
on
the
official
plan.
If
this
goes
ahead
in
good
conscience,
the
urban
design
review
panel
has
also
signaled
their
concerns
about
relatability,
with
the
most
historic
building
and
old,
auto
East.
So
what
gains
is
this
providing
I'm
asking
you
when
you're
voting
on
this?
I
Why
are
you
voting
for
what
gains
do
you
think
it's
giving
the
city?
It's
not
new,
affordable
housing?
It's
not
increased
density!
It's
not
more
certainty
of
predictability
in
the
planning
process.
It's
not
encouragement
for
communities
to
participate
in
City
Planning
exercises.
So
what
is
it
that's
driving
you
to
approve
this
I
know.
The
developer
has
been
in
the
hall
he's
doing
a
good
job
of
lobbying.
They've
done
a
good
job
of
that
on
this
one,
but
I'm
asking
you
to
side
with
the
public
on
this.
K
Thank
You
mr.
mayor,
of
course,
I
wasn't
going
to
lead
off
with
anything,
but
after
that
last
comment
that
continued.
Since
the
last
meeting
that
we
had
at
planning,
in
particular
from
councillor
Minard
I'd,
have
to
ask
of
anyone
who
took
any.
We
just
passed
solid
waste,
I,
wonder
whether
anybody
from
any
environmental
group
unions
or
anything
else
that
might
be
associated
as
long
as
the
donations
that
we
take
are
legal,
there's
nothing
wrong
with
who
takes
what
and
I'm
not
challenging
anybody
else
who
votes
any
other
way.
A
K
Like
a
few
of
my
seconds,
back,
I
wouldn't
have
started
with
that
at
all
if
like,
if
the
confrontation
did
not
continue.
Mr.
mayor
I,
think
because
of
the
comments
that
he
makes
I
think
it's
really
important
to
set
the
stage
it's
very
early
in
this
in
this
term
and
I,
don't
want
to
see
a
repeat
of
this.
So
there
has
been
a
lot
of
commentary
on
this
application
which
Planning
Committee
approved
on
June
27th,
and
there
was
a
strong
turnout
of
residents
opposed
to
the
development.
So
again
we
have
the
mode
here
today.
K
Thank
you
for
coming.
Some
public
commentary
has
pushed
the
notion
that
every
development
application
of
City
Hall
gets
a
rubber
stamp
approval.
That's
really
not
fair,
it's
not
fair
to
planning
stuff,
and
it's
not
fair
to
the
members
of
Planning
Committee
and
this
council.
Every
week,
development
applications
at
City
Hall
are
refused,
but
the
public
never
hears
about
them.
Residents
and
companies
come
in
regularly
with
development
projects
of
all
kinds.
That's
the
right.
Under
the
Ontario
Planning
Act
City
Planning
staff,
listen
to
and
review
each
proposal.
They
work
with
the
applicants
and
discuss
a
project.
K
Certain
projects,
in
fact,
might
not
fit
with
the
city
and
the
provincial
planning
policies,
and
they
regularly
have
to
explain
that
these
plans
cannot
be
supported
or
approved,
but
these
refuse
projects
never
land
at
Planning,
Committee
and
council,
or
at
the
committee
of
adjustment.
Instead,
the
city
works
privately
with
residents
to
explain
planning
policies
and
why
development
can't
be
approved.
K
In
such
cases,
often,
the
would-be
applicants
end
up
not
filing
a
formal
application
by
doing
that,
early
consultation
or
planning
staff,
save
residents
and
Ottawa
companies,
many
thousands
of
dollars
and
a
lot
of
waste
of
time,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
these
are
all
development
ideas
that
are
turned
down
so
I
think
we
can
dismiss
the
notion
that
all
development
applications
get
approved
specifically
on
the
Greystone
village.
Application
on
1000,
blades
Avenue
I
will
note
some
facts.
K
The
question
is
whether
a
nine-story
building
at
this
site
makes
sense
in
light
of
the
city
and
provincial
planning
policies
that
staff
and
we
are
bound
to
follow
the
old
Ottawa
East
secondary
plan
is
unclear
on
maximum
height
for
the
site,
with
policy
suggesting
a
limit
of
either
6
or
9.
Storeys,
the
parcel
in
question
is
in
within
an
area
designated
for
mixed
use,
medium
rise
buildings,
but
there's
no
specific
wording
related
to
this
designation.
In
the
secondary
plan.
K
The
Official
Plan
amendment
clarifies
language
in
the
secondary
plan
to
permit
Heights
between
3
and
9
storeys
in
areas
designated
for
mixed
use,
medium
rise
buildings,
the
on-site,
the
site-specific
zoning
amendment
for
1000,
blades
Avenue,
includes
setbacks,
as
well
as
added
height,
changing
the
maximum
height
from
20
meters
to
29
meters.
The
plan
incorporates
setbacks
and
step
backs
to
minimize
the
impact
on
existing
buildings.
The
plan
for
the
building
locates
its
tallest
portion
away
from
the
6th
and
four-story
building
across
oblate
sava
new
known
as
coroner's
on
main
our
planning
staff.
K
Consider
the
proposed
redevelopment
consistent
with
the
urban
design
guidelines
for
traditional
Main
streets
and
with
the
Official
Plan.
It
proposes
infill
with
a
mid-rise
building
that
is
compatible
with
the
surroundings,
respects
the
height
transition
and
fosters
pedestrian
oriented,
developed
environment
and
active
frontages.
We
did
hear
from
mr.
Hoban
the
architect
you
know
as
to
why
he
had
the
shape
exactly
the
way
he
has
said
it,
and
it's
because
they
can
add
increased
parking.
K
K
A
B
B
B
F
B
A
Carried
emotions
of
which
notice
had
been
previously
given
motion.
Don't
vit
don
äôt,
l
ma
councillor
flurry
saying
about
councillor
leaper,
please
and
I
have
here
a
councillor
brockington.
Do
you
have
a
motion
that
you
want
to
introduce
depending
on
the
vote,
or
do
you
want
to
introduce
it
ahead
of
time?
Is
this
an
amendment
no.
L
J
M
J
The
following
recommendation
in
respect
of
the
redevelopment
of
the
chateau
laurier
at
one
Rideau
Street
that
council
one
approved
the
application
to
alter
the
chateau
laurier
one
Rideau
Street,
a
property
designated
under
part.
Four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
based
on
plans
received
on
May,
9th
and
30th
2018,
on
the
condition
that
staff
be
directed
to
work
with
the
applicant.
J
He
rich
palette
of
forms
see
altering
the
architectural
expression
on
the
north,
west
and
east
facades
to
introduce
fenestration
patterns,
details
and
geometric
proportions
that
are
specifically
drawn
from
and
relate
to
the
existing
chateau
laurier
elements
d.
The
applicant
revised
the
plans
received
on
may
9th
and
30th
2018
to
reflect
the
design
changes
outline
above
eat
that
the
general
manager
of
planning
infrastructure
economic
development
department
be
delegated
the
authority
to
approve
such
design
changes
to
the
Heritage
permit.
J
Whereas
the
chateau
laurier
is
an
iconic
prominent
and
much
beloved,
architectural
and
historical
landmark
in
the
city
of
ottawa
and
the
nation's
capital
region.
Whereas
the
Chateau
Laurier
is
a
historic
designated
under
part.
Four
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
a
National
Historic
Site,
and
an
irreplaceable
element
in
the
visual
setting
of
the
Rideau
Canal
unesco
world
heritage
site.
J
Visual
compatibility
with
the
astruc
Hotel
by
referencing
such
elements
as
patterns
details
and
proportions
of
the
Chateau
Laurier
by
ensuring
that
the
application
is
compliant
with
the
standards
and
guidelines
for
the
conservation
of
Historic
Places.
Be
it
resolved
that
Council
1
determines
that
the
applicant
has
failed
to
fulfill
the
condition
imposed
by
council
in
respect
of
the
application
for
approval
to
alter
one
Riedl
street
to
further
the
turret.
J
Determines
that,
as
the
conditions
have
not
been
fulfilled,
that
the
conditional
heritage
permit
issued
in
respect
to
a
shadow
lorry
redevelopment
at
one
Rideau
is
now
void
and
of
no
effects
and
three
revokes.
The
delegation
to
the
general
manager,
planning
infrastructure
and
economic
development
department
to
approve
design
changes
now
mr.
mayor
have
questions
to
staff
and
comments
and
I
want
to
wrap
up,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
have
a
right,
procedural.
J
J
A
J
J
A
A
A
M
J
Memo
to
counsel
based
on
the
applicant
threatening
counsel
of
lid
Court,
litigations
following
that
we
received
legal
counter
legal
arguments
from
the
Shadow
Lord,
but
never
received
your
legal
interpretation
of
what
that
meant.
Could
you
maybe
speak
to
the
position
of
counsel
relating
to
litigation?
Both
you
present
to
the
applicant
side,
but
from
community
appeals
process.
N
Mr.
mayor,
as
I
understand
the
councillors,
questions
he's
asked
that
an
answer
be
expressed
from
what,
from
a
city
perspective,
those
opposed
to
the
redevelopment
might
do
and
if
I've
misunderstood
that
I
apologize.
If
the
motion
were
to
carry,
then
I
would
speculate
that
the
community
would
not
feel
the
need
to
take
legal
action.
If
the
motion
were
to
fail,
then
those
opposed
to
the
development
might
wish
to
take
legal
action.
It's
not
clear
to
me
that
they
would
have
standing
to
do
so.
N
It
would
have
been
it's
a
decision
within
the
jurisdiction
of
counsel
and
therefore
I.
In
my
opinion,
it
would
be
very
unlikely
they
would
succeed
in
challenging
it.
The
way
they
would
do
so
is
they
would
launch
an
application
in
Superior
Court,
but,
as
I
said
mr.
mayor
I,
don't
see
it
as
likely
being
that
they
would
be
successful.
J
N
So,
with
respect
to
the
financial
aspect,
if
counsel
does
not
adopt
the
motion-
and
there
is
a
legal
challenge,
then
of
course
there
would
be
two
parties
who
would
be
in
opposition
to
the
community,
Larco
and
the
city
and
therefore,
and
the
city
would
be
able
to
rely
on
staff
advice
so
rather
than
the
hundred
thousand
dollars
that
I
estimated
for
legal
cost.
I
think
we'd
be
in
the
25,000
to
50,000
range.
J
Okay,
mr.
Willis
questions
relating
to
the
staff
time
and
the
costs
from
the
city
as
part
of
this
application,
so
we
received
in
somewhere
in
2017
the
application
your
team
has
done
their
best
to
to
ensure
that
councils
wishes
are
respected
and
I
want
to
thank
them
for
it.
But
I
want
to
I
want
to
hear
from
you
relating
to
how
much
this
applicant
has
cost
the
city
relating
to
their
staff
time
and
in
value.
M
J
O
J
I
want
to
understand
in
June
of
2018
there's
debates
relating
to
the
intents
of
the
the
motion
of
Canada
that
was
unanimously
carried
here
at
Council.
What
was
the
staff
interpretation
of
those
objectives
and
how
was
that
rated?
Because
I
I'm
confused,
we
staff
were
in
support
of
that
up.
The
application
council
was
trying
to
redirect
redirect
the
efforts
we
we
made
a
political
decision
to
pass
a
motion
and
then
now
its
staff
interpreting
the
political
component
of
that
motion.
O
Mr.
mayor
on
June
27
2018
Council
approve
the
issuance
of
the
heritage,
permit,
it's
important
to
note
that
that
permit
approved
the
footprint
of
the
building,
the
building's
massing
or
its
shape,
the
7-story
height
and
the
landscaping,
and
we
issued
on
July
3rd
2018,
the
conditional
with
a
three-year
expiry
in
setting
the
conditions
for
the
permit
dance
for
the
councillors.
Question
directly
staff
and
the
applicant
understood
that
what
needed
to
change
was
the
design
or
the
skin
of
the
building.
O
The
amount
of
limestone
breaking
up
the
northern
facade
facing
the
park
and
improving
the
compatibility
with
existing
heritage
attributes
of
the
chateau
laurier.
In
other
words,
council,
gave
us
in
the
applicant
direction
on
the
what,
but
not
the
how.
Since
the
beginning
of
the
application,
three
years
ago,
the
applicants,
the
architect
and
the
owners
of
the
property
have
been
firm
in
their
resolve
that
the
building
be
as
contemporary
as
possible,
while
being
respectful
of
the
Chateau.
O
Our
job,
with
increased
focus
with
your
direction
last
year,
was
to
work
with
the
applicants
on
achieving
compatibility
using
all
the
policy
and
design
tools
that
we
have
available.
We
do
not
have
the
authority
here
to
dictate
architectural
style
out
of
the
meetings.
There
have
been
countless
sketches
models
and
elevations
reviewed
by
city
with
the
planning
city
staff,
rather
planning
architectural
heritage
expertise,
and
what
we
have
before
you,
in
our
view,
is
an
amended
design
that
has
more
obvious
parallels
to
the
Chateau
achieves
of
the
materials
and
I
acknowledge
subtle.
O
O
P
Thank
You,
mr.
mayor
again,
just
to
reiterate
after
the
motion,
it
was
determined
that
there
was
three
major
directions
to
take
the
design
in
one
to
increase
the
use
of
Indiana
lambs
limestone
to
break
up
the
uniformity
of
the
North
facade,
that's
the
facade
that
faces
majors,
Hill
Park
and
to
alter
the
expression
of
the
addition.
So,
as
as
mr.
P
curry
mentioned,
there
were
a
number
of
meetings
that
were
held
with
staff
internally
and
with
the
architects
as
a
result
of
a
trip
to
Toronto
and
further
discussions
and
plus
the
you
DRP
also
looked
at
it.
So
in
the
end,
the
ways
in
which
the
the
conditions
of
the
heritage
permit
have
been
complied
with
is
that
that
the
amount
of
India
and
the
limestone
on
the
building
was
substantially
increased,
which
was
part
a
of
the
motion
and
on
conditions,
B
and
C.
P
P
So
now
that
there
is
a
clearly
legible
base,
middle
and
top
with
the
middle
of
the
east
and
west
pavilions
being
clad
in
stone
and
reflecting
the
vertical
expression
of
the
historic
building
which
is
defined
by
paired
windows.
Here,
it's
defined
by
the
use
of
stone
at
the
top,
the
the
between
the
the
middle
and
the
top
there
was
the
the
connection
between
the
two
was
made
much
more
complicated
to
reflect
the
complicated
roofline
of
the
chateau
laurier.
P
The
complexity
of
the
roofline
there's
been
darker
fins
added
to
the
upper
two
stories
that
reflect
the
dark,
the
dark
walls
or
the
dark
roof
of
the
of
the
original
chateau
laurier
and
provide
the
contrast
between
the
two.
They
there's
a
now.
A
cut
out
portion
of
the
East
pavilion
that
reflects
the
oriole
windows
on
the
west
on
the
east
and
west
facades
and
the
the
spacing
of
the
mullions
at
the
base
of
the
west
facade
echoes
the
the
the
spacing
of
the
ground-floor
windows
of
the
hotel.
P
So
these
were
and
the
again
the
building's
set
back
from
the
property
line
is
now
is
not
all
the
same.
Again
further,
reflecting
the
sort
of
there
was
a
the
uneven
character
of
the
walls
of
the
Chateau,
so
those
are
the
major
moves
that
were
accomplished
through
this
collaborative
design
process
and
through
the
recommendations
of
the
UD
RP,
and
that
is
those
all
those
design
elements
were
are
in
the
version
that
was
presented
to
committee
in
June.
Thank
you
thank.
J
You
I
have
two
further
questions,
one,
which
is:
how
do
you
perceive
the
NCC's
position
relating
to
the
flute?
Oh
and
there,
the
matter
which
they
chose
not
to
involve
themselves?
How
does
what
is
the
city
staff
perception
of
the
matter?
They
they
they
didn't
call
in
oversight
for
for
this
process.
Mr.
M
Mayor
factually
the
National
Capital
Commission
has
said
to
us:
they
have
no
authority
over
the
design,
except
as
it
relates
to
the
use
of
federal
land,
so
where
the
use
of
federal
land
is
required
for
some
of
the
connecting
points
where
the
use
of
federal
lands
required
or
any
point
of
construction
for
easements
or
access
that
is
their
authority.
They've
said
that
I,
don't
think
staff
can
speculate
or
comment
on
this.
That's
a
legal
matters
that
we
can't
speak
for
the
National
Capital
Commission,
okay
and.
J
My
final
question
relates
to
standard
11,
so
I
want
to
be
clear
and
understand
so
standard
11
is
something
council
approved
in
terms
of
a
set
of
guidelines
in
2008?
The
point
a
and
B
are
what
matters
the
conserve
the
heritage
value
of
the
existing
and
of
an
addition
and
be
that
it
be
compatible
and
subordinate.
Can
we
clarify
if
that
tool
was
used
and
respected
as
part
of
our
review
of
that
at
this
application.
P
Mr.
mayor,
in
terms
of
the
standards
and
guidelines,
Parks
Canada
standards
and
guidelines,
city
city
heritage
staff
uses
those
standards
and
guidelines
when
we
assess
every
application
to
a
hair
to
Ultra
heritage
building
throughout
the
entire
city.
So,
yes,
we
did.
We
did
look
at
standard
11
and
when
we
were
assessing
assessing
the
the
the
intervention
proposed
for
the
for
the
for
the
chateau
laurier,
and
in
this,
in
this
instance,
standard
11.
P
Just
to
reiterate
it
is,
it
has
two
parts
part
a
is
conserved
the
heritage,
value
and
character,
defining
elements
when
creating
new
additions
to
an
historic
place
again.
The
proposed
addition
is
separate
from
the
hair
to
from
the
Heritage
building
and
only
touches
it
lightly.
So
there
is
no
part
of
the
actual
physical
structure
of
the
hair.
There's
very
little
part
of
the
physical
structure
that
is
affected
by
by
the
addition
and
all
of
its
character.
Defining
elements
will
remain.
P
The
addition
is
attached
on
the
west
to
an
elevator
Bank
and
on
the
East
very
lightly
to
to
to
a
to
a
wall
which
cannot
be
considered
to
be
character-defining.
So
there
there,
the
application
meets
standard
11.
In
standard
as
a
instant
and
11
B
is
make
the
new
work
physically
and
visually
compatible
with
subordinate
to
and
can
distinguishable
from
the
historic
place
again.
P
The
application
meets
standard,
11
B,
because
it's
materials,
stone,
dark,
colored,
bronze
and
glass
are
compatible
with
the
stone
and
glass
of
the
stone
of
the
Chateau
and
the
the
bronze.
The
bronze
metal
reflects
the
the
the
the
roof
and
and
the
the
and
the
the
glass
portions
which
have
been
significantly
reduced,
as
the
introduction
of
the
original
design
again
are
compatible
with
the
materials
of
the
Chateau.
Maybe.
J
Maybe
mr.
mayor,
but
not
to
interrupt
I'm,
you
said
that
you
follow
the
guidelines
and
you're,
giving
very
clear
details:
I'm,
okay,
with
the
information
I,
wanted
to
clarify
that
you
had
used
a
standard
11
and
hopefully
you
know.
Maybe
colleagues
will
have
specific
questions
on
that,
just
to
wrap
up
on
the
context
of
the
motion
so
I'm
bringing
forward
a
motion
which
is
the
only
tool
that
would
give
us
the
opportunity
to
not
allow
this
application
to
go
forward.
J
A
J
Just
to
wrap
up
and
Siri
I
got
got
stopped
here,
but
the
reality
is.
We
gave
a
political
direction
to
a
staff
report
and
it's
hard
for
staff
to
interpret
that
political
direction.
So
that's
why
I
believe
this
body
is
the
the
right
one
to
make.
The
decision
on
was
the
intent
of
that
motion
passed.
Okay,.
F
Great
Jeff,
thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
mayor
and
I
have
a
bit
of
six
questions
here.
Maybe
seven.
First
of
all,
when
this
first
all
happened
back
in
2018
I
believe
it
was
a
decision
of
a
councillor,
Nussbaum,
Barry,
Podolski
and
I'm
unsure
of
the
councillor
for
the
area
flurry
this
motion
was
constructed.
My
question
is:
is
this
anything
out
of
the
ordinary,
because
I
find
it
a
very
weird
situation
that
it
was
so
open-ended.
M
F
F
M
Mayor
underneath
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
it
does
permit
the
approval
of
a
heritage
permit
with
conditions
the
fact
that
counsel,
not
takings
to
us
staff's
advice
set
their
own
conditions
is
correct.
It
is
allowable
I,
haven't
seen
the
situation,
but,
as
you
appreciate,
I
haven't
been
here
that
long,
miss
Coutts
and
who
has
been
here
the
longest
of
us
I,
don't
believe,
we've
seen
I,
don't
believe.
We've
seen
another
situation
like
that
mentioned:
she's
nodding,
yeah.
F
And
I
could
appreciate
that
we've
butted
heads
on
other
situations
of
heritage
value
like
bucking
road,
and
we
saw
what
happen
there,
so
I
won't
get
in
the
weeds
on
that,
but
when
it
comes
to
this
specific
application
or
any
application
that
enters
our
doors
as
ward
councillors,
typically
people
are
proponents
that
are
coming
forward
will
come
visit
with
the
councilor
and
discuss
the
item
in
advance
to
see
what
the
temperature
is
in
the
room.
Do
we
know
if
the
local
councillor
for
the
area
was
informed
and
actually
engaged
with
this
group.
M
O
F
F
A
M
F
And
that's
that's
fair
I'm!
Just
asking
the
question.
Unfortunately,
we
can't
debate
so
I
can't
ask
the
question
directly
when
it
comes
to
the
versions
that
were
proposed.
I
just
have
to
have
a
better
understanding
when
it
comes
to
built
heritage
subcommittee
that
made
the
decision
to
have
this
motion
forward.
There
is
five
revisions
so
for
every
revision
that
came
back
just
to
keep
it
in
plain
English.
What
happened
with
those
revisions?
Did
they
come
back
to
built
heritage
subcommittee
and
I'm?
F
M
O
You
have
to
turn
it
back
on
mr.
mayor
I
can
confirm
that
there
were
five
versions
that
were
public.
There
have
been
multiple
iterations,
as
I
said
in
my
earlier
remarks
of
sketches
elevations
that
have
been
shared
over
the
last
three
years
amongst
staff
and
review
internally.
We
have
gone
to
the
urban
design
review
panel
of
five
times,
so
we
went
prior
to
coming
forward
last
year
last
June
to
belters
subcommittee
and
to
two
planning
committee.
O
O
There
has
only
been
one
a
the
version
that
we
brought
forward
mayor
to
Council
last
June
that
came
to
bill
terror,
subcommittee,
planning,
committee
and
council.
That's
the
one
that
was
approved
subject
to
the
to
the
conditions
we
are
now.
We've
never
brought
forward
her
second
version,
but
those
are
the
only
two
that
have
ever
been
before
a
legislative
body.
F
Okay,
so
on
that,
supposing
this
motion
by
Councillor
flurry
passes
today,
this
may
be
more
of
a
legal
question.
What
are
the
implications
from
a
building
perspective
because
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
were
very
concerned
about
version
1
in
version
2,
the
number
of
rooms,
the
sizing,
the
mass
and
it's
reduced
dramatically
since
then.
So
what
what
will
happen
in
a
situation?
N
Mayor
there
is
no
appeal
right
that
exists
anymore.
With
respect
to
the
heritage
application.
There
was
a
referral
right
that
existed
last
June
if
Flaco
was
not
content
with
the
decision
of
counsel
that
had
to
be
exercised
within
30
days,
so
that
right
has
expired.
So
there
are
two
possible
well,
this
actually
the
three
possibilities,
and
that
was
outlined
in
the
memo
from
legal
first,
they
could
make
a
new
heritage
application
and
that
could
be
a
new
drawing
or
that
could
be
a
pass
drawing.
Secondly,
they
could
challenge
it
in
court.
N
At
this
point
and
on
the
basis
that
I
discussed
they'd
do
an
application
to
Superior
Court,
the
third
choice
would
be
they
need
to
go
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
in
any
event,
so
they
might
wait
till
they
get
the
kid
to
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
then
seek
a
building
permit
and
if
they
were
refused,
the
building
permit.
On
the
basis
of
this
motion,
haven't
succeeded.
They
could
then
appeal
that
to
divisional
court
of
those
three
options.
F
N
F
We
get
this
question
a
lot
from
a
lot
of
our
constituency
about
Lord,
Elgin,
hotel
and
I'm.
Just
saying
this
because
we've
gone
through
this
before
but
I
think
it's
important
to
say
they
built
an
expansion
onto
their
complex
or
onto
their
hotel.
It
looks
very
similar
to
what
they
have.
How
are
they
able
to
achieve
that
and
we
can't
force
the
Shadow
Lord
to
do
the
same.
F
P
F
P
Mr.
mayor,
that's
not
entirely
accurate,
it's
not
that
they're
not
allowed
to
is
that
there
are
the
standards
and
guidelines
that
are
applicable,
but
they
do
not
prohibit
any
any
particular
design
interpretation.
The
architect
of
this
particular
project
has
worked
in
a
more
modern,
modern
idiom,
and
we
responded
to
that.
If
an
applicant
had
come
with
a
more
historic
version
of
this
property
and
an
architect
had
put
that
forward,
we
would
have
judged
it
on
its
merits.
P
According
to
the
you
know,
internationally
accepted
guidelines
and
Parks
Canada
standards
and
guidelines,
so
there
was
never
any
prohibition
on
being
a
more
historic
building.
We
judged
this
application
based
on
what
we
received
in
terms
of
the
standards
and
guidelines,
and-
and
you
know
our
experience
in
heritage
buildings.
P
Well,
I
would
argue
that
the
mr.
Mary
that
the
Laura,
the
elegant
hotel,
is
not
almost
identical
and
it
is
also
not
a
hare
and
designated
heritage
building.
But
if
the
the
Chateau
had
wanted
to
more
closely
evoke
its
original
character
in
a
design,
we
we
would
have
looked
at
that
and
determined
whether
or
not
it
was
an
appropriate
intervention.
Great.
F
F
Yeah
I
know
it.
The
time
got
messed
up,
I
had
about
30
seconds
left.
So
is
there
any
opportunity
to
give
a
significant
tax
break
to
be
able
to
return
with
a
more
historic
design
to
the
chateau
laurier,
and
that
was
from
a
constituent,
I'm
asking
because
they
felt
it
was
a
good
idea
and
I
not
necessarily
support
it,
but
it's
something
I
think
we
have
to
ask.
N
M
N
Mr.
mayor
council
had
the
ability
in
June
of
2018
to
have
refused
the
application
if
it
was
not
satisfied
with
the
design
and
could
have
exercised
it
at
that
point.
Planning
Committee
had
the
ability
on
June
the
13th
2019
this
year
to
have
directed
that.
It
wish
different
elevations
to
be
submitted
and
in
either
those
instances
Largo
could
have,
and
the
one
instance
referred-
the
application
to
the
local
Department
of
Conservation
review
board
and
on
the
site
plan.
They
could
have
appealed
committee's
decision
to
the
Local
Planning
Appeal
Tribunal
for.
M
M
M
N
Mr.
mayor,
the
short
answer
to
that
is
no,
but
that's
not
a
fulsome
answer.
What
the
Minister
of
Tourism
sport
and
culture
can
do
is
they
can
issue
a
stop
order
for
60
days,
which
would
prohibit
any
construction
taking
place
during
which
time
the
province
could
decide
whether
or
not
it
wanted
to
designate
the
building
as
being
of
provincial
interest,
so
they
wouldn't
be
revoking
the
municipal
apartment
and
they'd
be
just
doing
something
on
top
of
it.
Mr.
Mann.
N
M
Mr.
Mehra,
to
add
mr.
mark
can
correct
me
if
I
don't
get
this
correctly.
The
Ontario
Heritage
Act,
which
is
the
governing
piece
of
legislation,
specifies
that
modifications
to
buildings
can
occur
with
Council's
approval,
provided
that
they
don't
detract
from
these
reasons
for
designation
in
the
original
form
of
designation.
This
is
a
very
old
designation
adopted
by
the
prior
City
of
Ottawa,
so
it
doesn't
isn't
a
contemporary
one
like
we
do
today,
so
it
has
limitations
in
its
lack
of
detail.
M
No,
we
would
do
today,
but
I,
don't
believe
that
the
acts
in
any
way
gives
us
authority
to
pick
a
design
style.
It's
it's.
The
policies
we've
adopted
in
the
official
plan
using
the
Parks
Canada
standards
and
guidelines
as
the
basis
to
make
our
decision,
which
council
would
ultimately
make
this
motion
passes
today.
How
does
this
play
out
legally?
How
does
it
play
out
in
your
opinion,
mr.
mark,
so.
N
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
mr.
mayor,
there
are
three
possibilities:
one
is
that
Larco
cements,
a
new
application
for
site
plan
and
heritage
permit,
based
on
new
drawing
so
based
on
past
fines
that
have
already
been
before
staff.
The
second,
which,
in
my
opinion,
is
the
most
likely
alternative
is
they
will
launch
an
application
in
Superior
Court
to
challenge
the
decision
of
Council.
The
third
option
is
a
sumithra
application
for
a
minor
variants
and
get
a
decision
on
that
and
then
apply
for
building
permit
and
when
that
is
refused,
they
go
to
court.
N
N
So
mr.
mayor,
no
City
of
Ottawa
would
not
be
fighting
its
own
lawyers.
The
city
motto
would
retain
legal
counsel
to
respond
to
a
corner
application
by
Larco.
The
city
would
also
need
to
retain
a
heritage,
planner
and
possibly
a
regular
planner
in
order
to
provide
affidavit
evidence
in
support
of
the
city's
position,
because,
of
course,
we
would
not
be
able
to
rely
on
the
advice
of
city
staff.
Q
Thank
You
Larco
has
clearly
indicated
through
its
lawyers
that
it
will
pursue
legal
action.
If
this
motion
passes
in
the
letter
they
sent
through
their
lawyers
yesterday,
it
argues
the
city
is
acting
in
quote
bad
faith.
If
this
motion
succeeds,
my
question
to
city
staff
is
I,
have
two
questions
in
fact,
but
my
first
question
is:
when
they
take
the
city
to
court,
because
it's
obvious
that
they
will
be
whether
it
be
Superior,
Court
or
El
Pat
or
both.
Can
they
ask
to
revert
to
a
previous
iteration
of
the
design?
N
Q
N
Mr.
mayor
Councillor
does
counsel
does
have
the
right
to
change
its
mind.
However,
it
is
very
likely,
as
was
outlined
in
the
correspondence
from
Larkins
representatives,
that,
if
they
get
if
they
in
the
event
that
they
launch
an
application
in
court,
one
of
the
arguments
that
they
will
use
is
bad
faith,
the
distinguishing
counsels
decision
of
2018
and
committee's
decision
on
the
site
plan
of
the
decision
on
the
motion
as
it's
another
arrow
in
their
quiver.
N
Q
Actually,
just
want
to
go
back
to
that
the
option
of
them
reverting
to
a
previous
iteration
I,
just
want
to
understand
what
recourse,
if
any,
if
they
decided
to
go
back
to
one
of
the
previous
designs,
the
ones
that
nobody
wanted
more
so
than
even
this
version.
What
does
that
mean?
Does
this
is?
Can
the
city
fight
back
on
that
at
all?
Can
we
push
back?
Would
we
have
any
further
options
to
us.
N
Yes,
mr.
mayor,
we
would
for
them
to
revert
to
a
previous
design
or,
for
that
matter,
a
new
design.
They
would
have
to
go
back
through
the
process,
so
they
would
have
to
apply
for
heritage
permit.
For
that
different
design,
they
would
have
to
apply
for
a
site
plan
amendment
based
on
that
design
and
in
that
circumstance,
then
I
anticipate
that
who's
ever
represented
in
the
city
from
legal
perspective
will
be
able
to
rely
on
planning
staff.
Q
Q
Know,
while
this
motion
is
admirable
in
a
tent,
is
it
it's
misguided
and
it's
it
misleads
the
public
as
to
the
level
of
authority.
Council
has
at
this
point
in
the
process,
the
previous
council
and
the
authors
of
the
original
motion,
which
set
the
criteria
for
design
had
the
opportunity
to
prescribe
stiffer
design
standards.
This
was
done
knowing
full
well
that
the
previous
four
design
iterations
did
not
represent
the
public's
wishes.
Q
Instead,
the
owner
and
their
architect
were
given
a
blank
check
for
design
by
the
previous
Council,
which
unanimously
approved
the
design
criteria
and
delegated
authority
to
city
staff.
Now,
as
a
result,
the
city
is
facing
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
lico
costs
borne
by
our
taxpayers,
and
our
city's
legal
team
has
determined
that
we
will
all
but
lose.
Q
I
am
concerned
that
if
this
motion
passes,
it
strengthens
the
owners
argument
that
the
city
is
acting
in
bad
faith
and
worse
when
this
goes
to
the
tribunal
and
Court
as
a
Largo
has
quite
clearly
indicated
it
will
pursue.
So
there's
no
question
about
that.
We
could
end
up
with
a
much
worse
design
than
what
is
what
is
before
us
today.
If
this
motion
passes
twelve
stories
or
some
other
worse
design
is
back
on
the
table.
There's
absolutely
no
question
about
that
as
much
as
I
hate.
The
current
7-story
design,
I
hated
12
story
box.
Q
Even
more
I
want
to
make
absolutely
clear
that
I
do
not
like
this
current
design.
I
in
fact
despise
this
current
design
I
think
it's
ghastly
I
think
it's
inappropriate
for
this.
Can
this
particular
building
I,
don't
think
it
respects
the
public's
wishes,
as
we've
heard,
however,
while
I
appreciate
the
desire
for
a
principled
stand,
I
cannot
in
good
conscience,
vote
in
favor
of
a
motion
that
I
know
will
cost
the
city
hundreds
of
thousands
of
taxpayer
dollars
and,
more
importantly,
produce
the
same
or
even
worse,
results.
Q
F
It's
a
pretty
important
point
that
the
chateau
laurier
is
privately
owned
and
that
it's
the
owners,
who've
engaged
the
professionals,
who've
developed
the
project
and
all
its
iterations
and
the
continuing
operation
of
the
shadow.
The
ongoing
maintenance
renovations
expansion
is
entirely
within
their
purview.
F
B
F
And
we've
seen
that
in
the
past,
in
Ottawa
and
we've
seen
that
in
other
cities
in
the
world
again,
the
city
cannot
require
a
building
to
be
built
in
a
particular
style
or
by
a
particular
architect.
And
it's
an
important
principle,
economic
development.
The
owners
will
be
spending
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
on
their
expanded
hotel.
That
will
generate
hundreds
of
construction
jobs
in
our
city
and
it's
easy
to
lose
sight
of
that
fact.
B
That
it's
a
drop
in
the
sea,
this
the
development,
economic
development,
but
each
job
is
important
for
our
residents.
This
investment
will
also
increase
the
economy
of
the
city,
and
the
Chateau
will
be
able
to
greet
more
delegates
and
there
will
be
more
conferences
in
the
downtown.
It's
good
for
tourism.
F
F
The
motion
that
we
have
from
councillor
flurry
is
to
withdraw
the
heritage
permit
that
was
issued
based
on
emotion
in
2018,
that
was
I,
think
drafted
partially
by
counsel
to
flurry,
along
with
former
councillor
Nussbaum
and
architect
pavlovskiy,
and
it
passed
unanimously
by
Council
with
the
support
of
councillor
flurry
and
on
that
basis,
the
motion
on
that
basis,
I
think
this
course
of
action
is
unfair
and
and
I
would
not
support
this
motion.
Thank.
G
Thank
You
mr.
mayor
I
was
on
council
last
term.
I
was
part
of
this
decision.
I
was
actually
also
a
member
of
built
heritage
subcommittee,
so
have
I've
been
on
this
file
for
quite
some
time
and
as
I
consider
what's
happening
here
today
and
what
we're,
what
we're
considering
today
and
some
of
the
arguments
that
I've
heard
from
some
of
my
colleagues
and
you
know,
maybe
in
particular
some
of
my
colleagues
who
weren't
here
last
term.
G
You
know
it's.
We
are
often
faced
with
decisions
that
are
not
easy
and
it's
not.
You
know
before
I
got
here,
I
really
thought
things
were
black
and
white,
but
when,
when
you
arrived,
there
are
many
nuances
and
we
have
to
you
know
on
a
daily
basis,
consider
that
and-
and
we
all
put
a
different
lens
on
on
our
decisions-
and
you
know
if
I
think
back.
If
knowing
what
I
know
today,
you
know
if
I,
if
I,
think
back
I
I
would
not
have
made
the
vote.
That
I
did.
It
was
a
mistake.
G
You
know
we
had
asked
that
this,
the
Larco
and
the
architect
to
go
back
a
couple
of
times
we
weren't
getting
back.
What
we
had
hoped
would
be
a
heritage
addition
that
would
be
distinguishable
from,
but
compatible
with
the
the
iconic
building
and
I
felt
that
at
the
time
they
were
likely
going
to
appeal
and
and
likely
going
to
win.
G
So
I
was
kind
of
where
we
are
today,
as
a
matter
of
fact
and
I
agreed
to
I
agree
to
this
original
motion
in
June
of
2018
hoping
for
something
better,
and
it
was
conditional
that
that
heritage
permit
was
conditional
on
the
you
know,
the
reduced
contrast,
enhancing
its
bond
with
the
with
the
existing
building
and
I
firmly
do
not
believe
that
those
conditions
have
been
met,
and
you
know
we
we
worry,
will
we
get
it?
Will
we
get
a
worse
design?
G
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
sure
we
could
get
a
worse
design,
I'll
be
honest
and
the
and
the
cost
to
the
city
I
mean
you
know
just
a
couple
months
ago
and
and
I
still
firmly
support
this,
but
we
agreed
to
you
know
that
the
city
would
spend
between
a
hundred
150
thousand
to
defend
a
legacy
agreement
in
Canada
for
the
cañada
Golf
Course.
It's
what
we
do.
We
have
to
make
difficult
decisions,
they're
often
nuanced.
There
are
a
lot
of
things
to
consider.
G
G
D
Thank
You
mr.
mayor
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
for
staff.
A
little
more
clarification
on
the
legal
one
is
in
regards
to
the
letter
from
mr.
Paulo
and
that
was
circulated
to
Council.
There
were
two
statements
in
it
and
I
wanted
to
get
comments
from
our
legal
staff
on
their
accuracy.
One
was
that
no
bylaw
was
adopted,
approving
the
delegation
of
authority
and
the
suggestion
that
delegation
authority
would
have
ended
at
the
last
at
the
end
of
the
last
term
of
council.
Can
staff
comment
on
the
accuracy
of
those
statements?
Please.
N
Mr.
Maron,
with
respect
to
the
first
matter,
it
is
not
clear
to
me
that,
as
an
internal
matter,
it
is
necessary
that
a
delegation
of
authority
be
authorized
by
bylaws.
So
that
would
be
my
first
challenge
to
that.
But
secondly,
as
members
of
council
are
well
aware,
the
last
item
on
the
council
agenda
before
adjournment
is
a
confirmation
by
law
and
the
reason
why
all
municipalities
pass
confirmation
bylaws
is
to
ensure
that
all
the
decisions
made
that
meeting
have
the
force
of
a
bylaw.
N
So
that
is
taken
care
of
all
the
decisions
that
you
are
making.
My
reports
today
are
all
confirmed
by
bylaw
at
the
end
of
this
meeting.
With
respect
to
the
question
or
the
matter
raised
with
respect
to
the
delegation,
perhaps
ending
on
November
the
30th
2018
I,
note
I
believe
it's
important
to
note
the
context
of
this
report.
The
context
of
the
report
adopted
by
Council
on
June
27th
2018
was
a
heritage
application,
and
one
of
the
other
conditions
that
were
within
that
report
was
the
heritage.
N
Permit
would
last
for
three
years,
so
it
was
within
the
contemplation
of
members
of
council,
as
they
were
voting
upon
the
report
that
Larco
had
a
period
of
time
to
get
the
drawings
and
while
it
was
no
doubt
I
desire
to
get
it
done
as
soon
as
possible.
They
in
fact,
were
given
a
three-year
period
to
finalize
that.
So,
given
that
context,
in
my
opinion,
the
argument
the
delegation
ended
on
November
30th
2018,
it's
not
well-founded,
so.
D
N
D
I
want
to
go
to
the
memo
for
mr.
Wallace,
mr.
curry,
mr.
O'connor
that
was
circulated
at
Council
on
Friday
I
believe
it
was,
and
the
legal
opinion
is
that,
given
the
opinion
of
planning
staff
with
respect
to
the
conditions,
it
is
very
likely
that
the
owner
would
be
successful
in
obtaining
a
declaration
that
the
three
conditions
have
been
fulfilled.
This
is
if
they
appeal
to
the
or
seek
a
declaration
of
the
Superior
Court.
Why
is
staff
so
confident
that
the
owner,
the
applicant,
would
be
successful.
N
Mr.
mayor,
you
have
heard
from
Mr
curry
and
miss
Coutts
the
extensive
involvement
that
planning
and
heritage
staff
have
had
on
this
matter
throughout
this
process,
but
particularly
since
councils
decision
of
June
27th
2018,
this
matter
has
had
a
review.
Mr
curry
said
that
he
felt
over
the
time
period
since
the
application
in
February
2017
that
it
had
had
the
equivalent
of
one
full-time
employee
over
that
entire
period.
With
that
kind
of
extensive
review.
N
D
Okay,
thank
you.
Some
comments.
I
have
we've
all
heard
loud
and
clear
from
residents
that
the
outcome
they
want
is
to
stop
this
addition
to
the
chateau,
laurier
and
I
really
can't
believe
some
of
my
colleagues
who
are
continuing
to
peddle
the
idea
that
this
motion
actually
achieves
that
it
doesn't
at
best.
We
delay
construction
a
few
months
while
Larco
goes
through
an
appeal
process,
but
the
motion
doesn't
send
the
applicant
back
to
the
drawing
board.
It
does
not
stop
the
addition
from
being
constructed.
D
It
does
not
wash
councils
hands
of
a
decision
last
year,
although
I
think
well
intentioned
it
does
not
wash
councils
hands
of
that
decision
and
even
worse
by
sending
you
to
the
courts,
we
give
counsel
in
the
city
even
less
control
of
the
outcome.
It
goes
to
a
single
judge
at
an
Ontario
Court
Council
did
set
the
bar
very
low
with
that
motion,
and
that's
what's
put
us
in
this
legal
and
procedural
bind
today
and
I.
D
Think
it's
an
incredible
disservice
to
the
public
that
some
of
my
colleagues
continue
to
suggest
that
by
voting
YES,
we'll
somehow
achieve
a
better
outcome
and
I'm
not
satisfied
with
the
design
it
does.
Capture
the
charm
or
the
spirit
of
the
original
I
said
the
same
thing
at
the
built
heritage
Committee
last
month,
it's
better
than
what
we
started
with
three
years
ago,
but
it
could
be
a
lot
more.
D
The
best
scenario
would
be
for
Larco
to
take
a
pause
to
cool
off,
to
reconsider,
to
listen
again
to
certainly
what
we're
hearing,
but
the
ability
to
create
meaningful
change
at
this
point
is
within
the
hands
of
Larco
and
their
willingness
to
do
that.
I'm
willing
to
continue
to
work
with
my
colleagues
and
work
with
the
applicant
to
achieve
that.
But
the
motion
in
front
of
us
today,
if
we
approve
it,
does
not
achieve
any
of
these
outcomes.
Thank.
H
You
mr.
mayor
I
will
be
voting
in
favor
of
rescinding
the
conditional
heritage
permit
for
number
one
Rito
Street,
while
the
shadow
Laurier's
continued.
Current
owners
have
a
fantastic
opportunity
to
expand
their
property
and
their
service
offerings.
Their
proposed
rectangular,
brutalist
style
box
design
must
be
acknowledged
to
be
incompatible
with
the
existing
building.
Their
addition
should
not
be
deemed
appropriate
for
the
site,
given
the
property's
importance
to
the
history
of
the
city
and
its
national
significance.
H
H
Most
constituents
have
noted
that
the
latest
interation
of
the
design
does
not
even
approach
universally
accepted
standards
for
an
addition
to
a
heritage
property.
But,
of
course
the
chateau
laurier
is
not
just
any
heritage.
Property
residents
view
it
as
a
preeminent
example
of
Canadian
iconography,
one
so
important
that
at
once
graced
the
back
of
the
1973
Canadian
banknote.
Residents
expect
that
such
an
important
property
should
be
given
the
proper
treatment
that
pays
homage
to
its
history,
siting
and
character.
H
Consequently,
most
of
the
residents
that
I've
had
contact
with
see
the
proposed
design
as
a
travesty
residents
have
also
told
me
that
this
issue
is
not
just
about
the
chateau
laurier,
but
also
reflects
the
undue
influence
that
developers
exert
on
our
city.
I
believe
we
need
to
listen
to
our
residents
when
they
speak
out,
but
our
zoning
and
planning
decisions
cannot
be
based
on
pure
emotion
alone.
H
They
must
be
based
on
policy
policy,
dictates
that
the
proposed
extension
on
the
northern
side
of
the
chateau
laurier
is
not
only
incompatible
with
the
existing
structure,
but
what
the
heritage
context
of
the
site,
which
is
in
proximity
to
Parliament
Hill,
the
Byward
market,
majors
Hill
Park
and
the
Rideau
Canal,
which
is
a
unesco
world
heritage
site.
Given
the
sensitivity
of
this
preeminent
space
in
our
nation's
capital,
it's
important
that
any
proposed
design
is
appropriate
to
the
location.
H
The
design
as
it
is
currently
proposed,
is
incompatible
with
the
historic
sight
lines
of
the
parliamentary
precinct,
as
outlined
by
parks
Canada's
guidelines.
Further,
the
design
does
not
meet
the
three
conditions
that
were
to
be
met
prior
to
of
site
plan
approval
number
one.
The
new
design
does
not
include
a
meaningful
increase
of
the
use
of
Indiana
limestone
cladding
on
the
building
exterior
to
reduce
its
contrast
and
enhance
its
bond
with
the
existing
building
number
two.
H
The
new
design
does
not
include
the
elements
that
are
specifically
drawn
from
and
relate
to
the
existing
chateau,
laurier,
rich
pallet
of
forms
and
number
three.
The
new
design
does
not
introduce
patterns.
Details
are
geometric
proportions
that
are
specifically
drawn
from
and
relate
to
existing
elements
of
the
building.
Due
to
this
non-compliance,
InDesign
City
Council
must
act
as
careful
and
inform
custodians
of
heritage
and
not
as
mindless
functionaries
of
process.
H
Countless
heritage
professionals
have
told
us
that
the
conditions
of
the
heritage
permit
have
not
been
met.
They
have
also
told
us
that
the
property
owner
has
not
respected
the
high
value
that
our
community
places
on
the
building
as
such,
for
a
landmark
so
iconic
and
beloved
I
believe
council
should
never
have
delegated
authority,
and
it
is
time
for
council
to
acknowledge
this
error
and
correct
it.
Consequently,
I'll
be
voting
in
favor
of
this
motion
to
withdraw
the
heritage
permit
and
delegation
to
Planning
south.
Thank
you.
So
much
now.
A
My
friends
in
the
audience
I
would
appreciate.
We
have
a
rule
that
requires
no
heckling
or
clapping
or
applauding
and
there's
still
three
or
four
people
that
continue
to
do
it.
So
please
respect
our
rules
and
respect
the
rights
of
the
individual
members
of
council
to
speak
freely
without
being
cheered
or
jeer.
So
councillor
Lieber
has
the
floor.
Please
Thank.
E
You
mayor
a
couple
of
questions
for
for
mr.
mark,
if
I
may,
the
the
first
question
mr.
mark
the
staff
memo
notes
in
point
two
that
you
know
the
owner
could
seek
a
declaration
in
the
Superior
Court.
As
stated
above,
it
is
the
opinion
of
planning
staff
that
the
conditions
outlined
in
the
three
specified
elements
to
be
changed,
etc,
etc,
etc.
It
is
the
opinion
of
planning
staff
that
the
conditions
have
been
met.
Is
it
the
opinion
of
counsel
that
the
conditions
have
been
met.
N
E
E
We
have,
as
a
council
heard
from
hundreds
of
residents,
thousands
I've
only
got
I.
Think
I've
got
400
emails
in
my
email
box.
We
have
also
heard
from
world-class
architects
and
we've
heard
from
heritage
experts.
Is
it
legitimate
for
us
to
listen
to
them
in
addition
to
staff
when
making
up
our
minds
as
to
whether
or
not
the
conditions
have
been
met.
N
E
You
can
treat
that
as
rhetorical.
The
sorry
mr.
mark,
assuming
and
I
agree
with
you
that
it
is
most
likely
that
the
applicant,
if
they
are
turned
down
with
the
heritage,
permit,
will
go
to
to
Superior
Court
I'm
guessing.
But
I
would
like
confirmation
that,
in
order
for
counsel
to
defend
its
opinion,
that
we
would
then
go
out
and
we
would
seek
those
experts
who
have
the
the
expertise
to
weigh
in
on
these
matters,
the
world-class
architects,
the
heritage
experts.
N
N
E
So,
colleagues,
we
have
heard
from
staff
that
they
consider
that
the
conditions
of
the
permit
have
been
met.
I
don't
feel
that
they
have.
The
built
heritage
subcommittee
has
weighed
in
our
heritage
experts
to
say
that
they
don't
think
those
conditions
have
been
met.
We've
heard
from
world-class
architects
and
heritage
experts
that
the
conditions
have
not
been
met,
and
we
have
heard
from
thousands
of
Ottawa
residents
that
the
conditions
have
not
been
met.
It
is
our
prerogative
to
hire
experts
to
defend
a
council
opinion
that
the
conditions
have
not
been
met.
E
E
I
think
we
may
have
in
the
last
term
of
council.
We
made
a
determination
that,
with
time
running
out,
we
were
going
to
put
the
critical
decision
about
whether
or
not
to
approve
a
heritage
permit
in
the
hands
of
our
staff,
but
we
put
in
place
some
conditions
that
would
ensure
that
the
design
that
would
finally
emerge
would
be
more
compatible
with
the
existing
structure.
I've
heard
from
no
one
around
this
table
that
you
consider
that
that
has
been
the
case.
E
You
have
the
prerogative
to
say
that
you
don't
agree
with
staff
that
it
is
not
more
compatible
and
the
city
will
defend
that
view.
Take
advantage
of
that
prerogative
ensure
that
it
is
council
who
makes
the
final
call
on
this
and
that
it's
not
left
solely
to
staff
step
up
and
accept
your
obligations.
We
don't
need
to
approve
this
and
I
hope
you
won't
Thank
You
counselor.
L
Thank
you.
Your
worship,
I
have
spoke
already
at
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
when
I
voted
against
the
design
and
the
seven
to
one
decision
and
I
voted
against
the
site
plan.
Planning
Committee
less
last
month,
so
I
have
spoke
on
this
matter
and
will
speak
briefly
again.
Today.
First
I'm
shocked
that
there
have
been
200
meetings
on
this
and
we
have
the
version
or
the
design
that
we
have
before
us.
L
I
have
seen
a
number
of
pictures
from
a
number
of
different
angles
and
I
keep
thinking
back
to
as
if
I'm
standing
in
major
Hills,
Park
and
I'm
looking
southbound
I'm
looking
at
the
newly
built
design
and
I
see
that
giant
wall
and
I
can't
stop
I
think
how
this
doesn't
detract
from
the
current
hotel.
We
heard
mr.
L
Willis
say
that
these
types
of
expansions
cannot
detract
from
a
Heritage
Site
and
yet
I
can't
see
how
any
rational
person
can
conclude
that
this
is
complementary,
because
it
isn't
everyone
that
has
seen
those
renditions
of
the
expansion
from
the
park.
Looking
south
has
have
been
shocked
at
what
they
see.
This
is
not
complementary
to
the
hotel
and
for
those
who
fear
legal
ramifications.
In
my
mind,
it's
quite
simple:
we
have
a
million
people
in
this
city
and
we've
heard
legal
bills
could
be
250,000,
so
that
is
25
cents.
L
It's
reasonable
to
expect
that
the
people
of
Ottawa
are
willing
to
chip
in
a
quarter
for
potential
legal
bills.
The
built
as
I
said,
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
voted
7
to
1,
and
they
did
not
believe
that
the
conditions
set
out
in
the
June
2018
motion
were
met
and
I
just
want
to
remind
council
that
we
appointed
for
heritage
experts
to
sit
on
the
built
heritage
subcommittee
to
join
for
elected
members
of
council.
L
I
am
one
of,
and
the
four
people
appointed
by
this
body
to
provide
advice
to
this
body
on
heritage
matters
said
it
was
not
compatible.
So
please
let
that
sink
in.
Why
is
this
important?
It's
a
Heritage
Site!
It's
within
the
parliamentary
precinct.
It
borders
the
Rideau
Canal
a
UNESCO
World,
Heritage
Site.
L
We
have
an
obligation,
forget
the
argument,
whether
it's
private
or
public.
We
have
an
obligation,
whether
it's
privately
or
publicly
owned
to
ensure
that
a
new
build
or
an
expansion
or
renovation
is
respectful
of
the
heritage.
That
is
our
obligation
for
those
who
are
critical
of
the
June
2018
direction
to
staff.
You
can
be
critical
as
much
as
you
want.
I
supported
that
delegation
and
I
stand
by
it.
I
believed
at
the
time
that
that
was
the
right
decision.
L
We
were
going
in
circles
with
versions
and
there
was
a
fear
that
it
was
going
to
be
approved,
something
that
we
did
not
want
at
that
time.
We
need
a
time
to
get
both
sides
back
together
with
specific
criteria
and
expectations.
I
was
the
only
person
who
spoke
at
Council
in
June
of
2018
counselor
Minh
had
asked
a
process.
Question
I
said
to
mr.
curry,
I'm
looking
for
significant
changes.
I
said
that
repeatedly
and
it's
on
their
record.
It's
a
lark
on
the
owner.
L
L
The
Fleury
motion
passes
I,
have
a
motion
waiting
in
the
wings
that
talks
about
establishing
a
four-person
working
group
that
would
work
with
staff
and
the
local
reps,
and
the
goal
would
be
to
help
articulate
what
we're
hearing,
what
we're
looking
for
further
financing,
sorry
finessing
the
compatibility
and
the
respect
of
the
current
hotel
design,
obviously
with
modern
Flair
councillor
Gower,
who
says
passing
this
today,
does
not
guarantee
a
new
version.
He's
correct.
It
does
not,
but
defeating
the
flurry
motion
certainly
doesn't
get
us
anywhere.
It
will
be
effectively
game
over.
L
So
there
is
some
slim
opportunity
if
this
passes
that
we
will
potentially
see
improvement.
So
colleagues
I
ask
you
many
of
you
said
you
hate
the
design.
You
don't
like
the
design,
even
critical
of
the
history
here
or
one
of
my
colleagues.
Please
allow
the
opportunity
to
advance
this
file
one
more
appropriate
design.
Please
vote
in
favour.
We
do
have
that
opportunity
before
us.
Thank
you
answer
me
in
please.
B
You
mr.
mayor
I'm,
going
to
vote
in
support
of
this
motion
today,
and
my
reasons
are
really
quite
simple.
Everyone
Larco
has
been
clearly
a
tone
deaf
to
what
this
community
will
accept
as
an
addition
to
our
iconic
chateau
laurier,
which
is
dot
which
dominates
our
downtown
landscape.
It's
an
historic
building
that
we
clearly
love
200
meetings,
five
iterations
of
the
design
but
Larco
quite
clearly
with
each
iteration,
demonstrated
that
they
had
no
real
willpower
to
change
the
design
significantly
to
reflect
what
we
as
a
community
would
accept.
B
The
residents
of
Ottawa,
rightly
or
wrongly,
feel
that
Ottawa
City
Hall
and
the
developers
in
this
city
do
not
respect
what
they
want
and
we've
been
hearing
quite
clearly
over
the
last
couple
of
weeks.
What
people
in
the
city
expect
us
to
do
today.
So
quite
clearly,
this
issue
could
end
up
in
the
courts.
B
I
understand
that,
but
I
really
believe
that
the
greater
damage
is
to
ignore
what
so
many
people
in
our
community
want,
and
that
is
for
us
today
to
protect
in
any
way
our
iconic
Chateau
Laurier,
and
the
only
way
we
can
do
that
today
is
by
voting
in
favor
of
this
motion
tell
the
residents
we
understand-
and
we
understand
by
voting
for
this
motion
today.
It's
the
least
that
we
can
do
for
the
residents
of
this
city
and
for
our
beautiful
Chateau
Laurier
councillor.
S
You
thank
you
your
worship.
Three
decades
ago
yesterday
my
wife
and
I
got
married
and
we
held
a
reception
at
the
chateau
laurier
and
we
stayed
there
room
671
and
we
were
going
to
go
back
there
right
now,
but
we're
gonna
wait
for
the
vote
and
we're
gonna
wait
for
the
court
proceedings
to
be
ended
and
I.
Think
what
that
saying.
Is
you
really
should
be
focusing
your
your
desire
for
a
change
to
this
design
on
the
owners?
The
owners
are
the
ones
who
have
the
power
outright
to
make
a
decision
to
change
and
I.
S
Think
people
should
focus
on
that.
It's
remarkable
to
me
that
they
have
gotten
away
without
people
around
the
country,
focusing
on
them
boycott
of
the
hotel.
Whatever
it's
going
to
be
is
going
to
be
far
more
effective
than
any
of
the
various
authorities
trying
to
get
involved
here,
and
the
reason
is
when
it
comes
to
a
planning
issue
and
heritage
planning
issue
the
city,
the
City
Council
does
not
choose
the
style
or
design
we
can't.
We
normally
can't
get
into
that.
That's
normally
left
to
the
owner
to
do.
S
The
reason
is
pretty
simple:
if
I
was
putting
addition
on
my
house,
the
last
thing
I
would
want
is
Jim
Watson
to
tell
me
how
it
should
look.
You
know
it
should
be
done.
It
should
be
done,
independent
of
that
it
should
be
done
according
to
the
prescribed
requirements.
So
we
normally
don't
look
at
look
when
we
decide
the
the
future
of
an
application.
But
let's
remember
how
we
got
here.
Last
June
we
were
facing
a
perfect
storm.
S
We
had
an
applicant
who
had
the
right
to
demand
a
decision,
or
at
least
a
proceeding,
and
we
had
the
last
meeting
of
built
heritage
committee
for
the
whole
summer,
followed
by
a
time
when
there
was
very
little
likelihood
you
could
get
a
quorum
during
the
election
period
and
then
the
lame-duck
period.
So
you
had
a
six-month
period
where
council
was
going
to
be
in
default
of
the
application.
S
If
we
have
been
in
default,
that
application
would
have
gone
to
L,
Pat
and
the
proponent
could
have
asked
what
would
have
been
asking
for
version,
3
or
4,
or
even
two
when
they
went
to
Al
Pat.
So
the
only
way
a
counselor
could
try
to
get
a
better
outcome
in
reality
was
to
prescribe
what
counsel
thought
would
be
the
better
outcome
it
turns
out.
They
haven't
produced
a
better
outcome,
so
I'm
stuck
with
this
question.
S
You
have
a
very
solid
principle
as
to
why
you
don't
get
involved
in
the
look
and
design
of
a
project
as
a
city
councilor
as
a
planning
committee
or
as
a
heritage
committee,
but
at
the
same
time
you
have
this
very
exceptional
case.
Where
you
had
a
perfect
storm.
That's
not
likely
going
to
face
anyone
else
in
the
future.
In
a
future
application.
You
had
counsel
believing
that
they
were
going
to
get
a
better
outcome
by
laying
down
the
parameters
that
they
expect
it
to
be
me,
and
that,
and
now
the
options
are
approved.
S
The
flurry
motion
end
up
with
an
appeal
against
it
to
the
court,
which
may
well
say
go
back
to
l-pad.
First,
so
you
go
to
l-pad
and
you
spend
money.
The
alternative
is
you
defeat
the
flurry
motion
and
somebody
again
appeals
it
on
the
other
side,
and
we
end
up
in
the
forum
on
the
other
side.
So
to
me,
the
parameters
that
we
required
weren't
met,
but
at
the
same
time
we
can't
reasonably
expect
to
be
involved
in
the
actual
look
and
design
that
that
gets
finalized.
B
B
Sorry
for
the
last
council,
but
that's
what
happened
they
tried
to
put
in
some
rules
of.
If
they
met
that,
then
you
know
it'll
be
good
and
it
didn't
work.
It
didn't
work
because
you
can't
you
can't
design
by
committee.
It
didn't
it
didn't
spark
if
I
want
to
quote
Marie
Kondo.
If,
if
it
doesn't
spark
joy,
then
throw
it
out
and
I
think
that's
what's
happening
here,
I
think,
despite
the
attempt
to
make
something
different
to
make
something
more
palatable,
it's
just
not
getting
the
message
through
and
I.
B
Think
Larco
has
to
be
sent
a
message
that
you
got
to.
You
got
to
start
again
that
you've
got
to
do
something
bold
and
interesting
and
I.
Don't
think
necessarily
it
has
to
be
exactly
like
the
current
one.
In
fact,
we
have
models
out
there
that
do
something
different.
Look
at
the
Louvre
pyramid
where
they
did
something
completely
different
and
yes,
it
was
a
bit
controversial
at
the
time,
but
it
was
bold.
It
was
interesting.
It
made
a
statement,
we're
not
doing
that
and
I
think
that
that's
why
it's
really
important
and
I
believe
mr.
B
I
You,
mayor
I
just
have
a
few
questions
for
for
staff
and
then
a
couple
of
comments
I
just
want
to
clarify
on
something
that
was
said
that
that,
if
this
motion
passes,
will
they
be
able
to
simply
move
forward
in
a
couple
of
months
and
I
guess
the
camp?
The
question
is
mr.
mark.
Is
it
really
true
that
this
motion
passes
it'll
just
be
a
couple
of
months
or
might
the
process
be
be
longer
the
that.
N
Mr.
Mehra
I
have
to
say
I,
don't
recall
it
having
been
said
that
if
this
motion
passes,
anyone
could
move
forward
in
a
couple
months.
If
this
motion
passes,
then
there
are
the
the
three
options
that
are
outlined
in
the
memo
and
any
of
those
are
going
to
take
time,
and
mr.
Mehra
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
correct
an
answer
that
I
gave
a
while
ago.
I
said
that
council
could
not
make
a
grant
to
lock.
N
I
Very
good
to
hear,
because
it
gives
us
some
more,
it
gives
us
time
and
so
I
also
wanted
to
raise
councilor
Tierney's
question
as
well
and
I.
Guess
that's
two
of
his
coots
I
think
I
heard
correctly.
Could
could
the
owners
of
the
property
bring
a
design
that
more
closely
evokes
its
original
character?
And
you
would
have
considered
that
at
the
time?
Is
that
what
I
heard
in
the
question
related
to
I
think
it
was
Lord
ogen.
P
P
Sometimes
when
we're
looking
at
a
smaller
construction,
all
that
we
require
is
business
or
a
band
of
glass
that
announces
the
the
beginning
of
the
new
application.
So
are
the
new
alterations
so
again,
there's
a
wide
range
and
what
don't
want
is
exact
mimicking,
but
we,
but
then
that
and
and
what
we
do
want
is
something
that
is
compatible
with
and
subordinate
to.
So
it's
you
know
again
a
balance.
Okay,.
I
So
I
think
I
heard
that,
yes,
that
they
could
have
come
with
a
design
that
more
originally
Caesarea
folks,
the
original
character
of
it
and
that
it
would
have
been
fairly
considered
at
that
time.
Its
comes
okay,
thank
you
and
then
three
mister
mayor
there's
been
additions
to
the
chateau
laurier
in
the
past.
This
we
didn't
have
what
it
looks
like
now
right
from
the
get-go
we've
had
additions
to
it
in,
in
the
past
those
those
additions
that
were
formulated
in
the
past.
What's
your
comment
on
those?
P
The
1920s
edition
was
again,
the
building
at
the
time
was
not
much
older
than
ten
years
old,
so
it
came
about
as
a
expansion
of
an
existing
building.
It
was
not
a
heritage
building
at
the
time
Ottawa
was
a
growing
city,
etc,
etc.
It
was
a
business
decision
and
it
was
made
again.
The
next
major
addition
was
the
parking
lot
which
did
not
have
any
respect
for
any
heritage
regulations,
because
at
the
time
the
the
building
was
not
designated
under
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
There
are
some
smaller
editions
since
then.
P
One
is
the
front
port
I
think
where
the
zoe's
or
you
know
where
the
bar
is,
that
was
reconfigured
in
the
80s
that
went
through
a
process
here,
at
the
time
we
hadn't
adopted
the
law
or
the
standards
and
guidelines
hadn't
been
written,
but
I
won't
share
an
opinion
on
that.
It
went
through
a
process,
and
so
so,
though,
again
like
many
large
buildings
like
this
building,
it's
been
the
subject
of
incremental
incremental
growth.
P
I
think
that
the
worst
addition
was
the
garage
and
now
it's
gone,
it
had
no
regard
for
anything
pretty
particular
except
or
serve.
You
know
it
was
very
useful
for
the
operators
of
the
hotel
so
that
again,
very
typical
growth
pattern
a
little
bit
here,
a
little
bit.
There
ends
up
in
something
and
then
there's
a
you
know
a
need
at
a
certain
point
to
for
renewal,
and
so
the
current
owners
came
in
with
the
application
which
has
led
us
to
today.
Okay,
thank.
M
Mayor,
if
I
may,
on
that
one
legal,
what
our
experience
has
been
in
almost
any
situation
that
goes
through
a
tribunal
is
it
could
go
on
any
one
of
two
ways.
One
way
is
you
have
an
applicant
who
has
no
interest
in
talking
to
us
because
they
believe
their
chances
of
success
are
through
illegal
means
and
you've
heard
legal
staffs
opinion
of
the
relative
chances
of
success
under
the
circumstances.
And
then
you
have
other
owners
who
wish
to
negotiate
settlement.
M
I
Agree,
I
agree
wholeheartedly
that
there
is
no
guarantee
either
way
with
what
we
end
up
doing.
If
we,
if
we
don't
support
the
motion,
you
know
what
the
outcome
will
be.
If
you
don't
support
the
motion,
you
know
exactly
what
it'll
be,
but
you
don't
know
what
the
outcome
will
be.
If
you
support
the
motion,
it
gives
you
a
fighting
chance.
It
gives
the
public
who
has
been
asking
for
this
a
fighting
chance,
whether
it
be
a
court
or
negotiation
or
another
way
that
mr.
I
Marquez
has
outlined,
and
so
the
question
around
the
table
is
very
simply:
do
you
want
another
fighting
chance
to
make
sure
that
this
represents
what
the
resident
want,
or
do
you
not,
and
if
you
do
then
I
urge
you
to
vote
for
the
motion.
This
is
something
that
is
of
utmost
importance
and
I
worry
about
the
city.
If
we
don't
listen
to
residents
in
this
case,
the
lack
of
engagement
that
that
type
of
thing
to
Sesa
Tate's
in
the
future
is
a
real
risk
here.
I
There
has
never
been
something
like
this
and
since
I've
been
following
City
Councilman
councillor
for
a
little
while,
but
I've
followed
City
Council
for
over
a
decade
now
and
I,
don't
know
that
there's
any
issue,
that's
a
you
know.
Had
this
many
emails,
this
many
phone
calls
come
in
this
much
attention.
I
wish
there
were
some
others
on
affordable
housing,
others,
but
I
don't
think
there
has
been.
So
you
know
we
there's
a
real
risk
here
by
not
passing
this
motion.
A
C
Okay,
there
we
go
I,
think
mr.
mayor
to
start,
let's
be
clear
and
transparent
and
truthful
about
what
this
motion
can
and
cannot
do.
It
cannot
change
the
design
proposed.
It
can
only
reject
it.
We
cannot
force
the
shadow
to
support
to
submit
rather
a
different
design
or
to
hire
a
new
architect.
It
cannot
magically
make
the
extension
and
Andrew
King
picture.
C
It
can
delay
the
process
it
can
put
the
city
in
court.
It
can
cost
the
city
money.
It
cannot
guarantee
that
the
possible
new
design
will
please
all
members
of
the
public
and
it
cannot
determine
the
taste
or
the
aesthetics
of
the
project.
We
simply
do
not
have
that
authority.
I
was
talking.
I've
talked
to
many
residents
about
this,
and
I
recently
had
a
conversation
with
the
resident
about
why
you
so
focused
on
due
process.
C
C
C
You
do
and
we
want
you
to
go
and
do
your
job,
so
we
gave
them
delegated
authority
and
I
think
quite
rightly
so,
to
go
off
and
come
back
and
tell
us
give
us
their
best
professional
expert
opinion
as
to
whether
or
not
the
terms
of
the
motion
had
been
met
or
not,
and
they've
done
that
and
I
thank
them
for
that
many
many
hours,
many
many
staff
lots
of
time
lots
of
effort
put
into
it.
I.
Thank
them
for
that.
C
What
we're
really
talking
about
here
today,
I
think
and
I,
don't
disregard
it
and
I.
Don't
describe
the
strong
feelings
that
people
have
such
as
my
colleague
who
had
his
wedding
reception
there
and
many
have
had,
and
many
have
had
grads
there
and
birthday
parties
and
and
a
variety
of
other
things,
and
but
we're
really
talking
about
look
aesthetics.
C
That's
what
we're
talking
about
and
I
frankly,
don't
think
it's
the
job
of
city
councilor
to
determine
the
aesthetics
of
a
building.
Moreover,
putting
on
my
lawyer
hat
again,
we
don't
have
the
legal
authority
to
do
that.
I
know
a
number
of
my
colleagues
who
said:
let's
go
to
court
and
fight
the
good
fight
and
I'm
fine
with
that.
I
fought
the
good
fight
for
22
years
in
court
on
behalf
of
variety
of
clients,
but
this
is
not
necessarily
a
good
fight
because
to
have
a
good
fight,
you
need
a
solid
foundation.
C
I
think
our
staff,
our
lawyers
have
spoken
to
that.
We
don't
have
that
foundation.
The
law
is
what
the
law
is.
We
may
not
like
the
design
we
may
like
the
design.
It
doesn't
matter
from
the
perspective
of
the
law.
We
don't
own.
The
property
Larco
owns
the
property,
they
have
certain
rights
as
a
result
of
owning
that
property.
We
may
not
like
those
rights.
We
may
not
like
how
they
exercise
those
rights,
but
they
have
them,
and
you
know
the
sort
of
sinister
they're
threatening
to
take
us
to
court
again.
C
C
I
am
a
little
concerned
that
a
number
of
residents
have
hailed
in
and
said
raise
my
taxes
to
fight
this
fight,
but
I
haven't
heard
them
say
to
raise
my
taxes,
so
we
can,
you
know,
find
homes
for
the
homeless
or
we
can
put
more
police
on
the
street,
but
to
make
it
a
prettier
nicer,
better
building.
Let's
do
that
so
that
does
concern
me
a
little
bit
but
again,
this
is
about
process,
it's
about
process
and
it's
a
trusting.
C
The
experts
that
we
hire
and
and
work
for
us
to
do
their
jobs
I
think
they
have
done
their
jobs.
I
think
that
our
options
are
limited
going
forward
and
that
this
motion
doesn't
fix
the
problem.
It
takes
the
band-aid
off
very,
very
slowly,
but
it
doesn't
fix
the
problem
and
we're
going
to
be
back
at
this
with
another
design
somewhere
down
the
road.
If
it's
successful
and
some
people
aren't
going
to
like
that
design
and
I
haven't
heard
from
anybody,
what
that
final
arbiter
will
be
to
determine
that
that
designs?
C
Okay,
but
this
one
isn't
so
we're
just
getting
on
that
merry-go-round
and
going
round
and
round
and
round
at
some
point
we
have
to
move
on
with
the
business
of
the
city.
We
made
a
decision
last
term.
This
is
not
the
chamber
of
do-over.
This
is
City
Council.
We
have
to
move
forward.
We
have
a
job
to
do
and
and
I'm
quite
happy
to
vote
against
this
motion
today.
So
we
get
on
with
this
the
work
of
running
the
city,
Thank.
T
You
very
much
mr.
mayor.
Well,
as
many
of
my
colleagues
have
said,
the
importance
of
the
chateau
laurier
that
landmark
to
this
city
cannot
be
overstated.
It
is
the
oldest
most
iconic,
most
recognizable
building,
second,
only
to
the
Parliament
Buildings
in
our
city.
It
is
much
loved
by
residents,
by
Canadians
and
by
visitors,
to
this
city
and
I
would
say
to
members
of
council
that
we
are
the
custodians
of
our
heritage
and
the
Chateau
Laurier
is
one
of
the
most
important
elements
of
that
trust.
The
public
almost
universally
reject
the
expansion
plans
proposed
by
Larco.
T
That
is
abundantly
clear.
The
arguments
against
revoking
the
heritage
permit
I've
been
listening
very
carefully
to
those
arguments
around
the
table.
I've
certainly
heard
the
personal
attacks
on
our
colleagues
councillor
flurry
who,
by
the
way
I
think,
are
very
unfounded
and
unfair,
he's
doing
his
job
as
a
member
of
Council
and
as
the
ward
councillor
for
that
area,
and
it's
been
a
very
complex
file.
T
I've
heard
that
we
don't
want
to
spend
money
on
a
legal
challenge,
because
that's
money
wasted
I,
don't
believe
it's
money
wasted
I,
believe
the
public
are
very
happy
to
make
a
contribution
because
they,
the
chateau
laurier,
is
their
beloved
chateau
laurier,
and
they
don't
want
to
look
at
a
monstrosity.
Therefore
time
and
memoriam
and
they're
willing
to
pay
that,
and
if
it
was,
if
that
was
the
only
impediment,
I'm
telling
you
they
could
raise
the
money
and
a
GoFundMe
campaign
in
two
days
to
do
that.
T
Legal
challenge,
because
that's
how
much
the
public
care
about
this
and
I
have
also
heard
that
we
could
never
find
a
design
that
everybody
will
like.
Don't
agree
with
that
at
all.
I
I,
don't
think
the
public's
being
unreasonable
at
all.
The
designs
have
been
terrible,
they're
incompatible.
It
doesn't
take
an
architect
or
a
design
expert
to
look
at
it
and
say
it
doesn't
work,
it
doesn't
work.
T
It's
not
the
right
design
and
all
we're
asking
for
is
something
that
we
can
all
be
proud
of
as
we
move
forward
together
in
this
city,
when
I
voted
last
June
much
like
councilor
McKenney
I
expected
a
better
outcome.
If
I
could
rewind
the
clock,
knowing
what
I
know
now,
knowing
that
those
conditions
would
not
be
met,
bring
us
to
the
place
I
expected
I
would
I
would
not
have
voted
for
it.
I
thought
we
would
have
a
better
outcome
and
I
regret
that
vote,
because
it
put
us
in
this
place.
T
So
if
I
could
have
that
vote
back,
I
would
change
it,
but
in
a
way
we
do
have
the
vote
back
that's
today.
This
is
our
opportunity
to
try
and
move
forward
in
a
more
positive
way
and
I
see
no
logical
reason
why
we
wouldn't
take
that
opportunity,
and
the
one
thing
to
me
that
has
been
missing
in
all
of
this
in
over
800
days
is
leadership.
T
We
can
call
the
people
from
Alstom
to
come
into
the
mayor's
office
and
talk
about
trains,
but
why
can't
we
call
the
people
from
Vancouver
that
Marco
and
ask
them
to
come
here
and
meet
with
community
leaders
and
meet
with
the
mayor
and
meet
with
our
heritage,
people
and
work
out
a
better
deal
and
if
it
takes
more
than
if
it
takes
another
800
days.
Well,
then
take
the
time
to
get
it
right.
Nobody.
T
Nobody
says
that
Largo
shouldn't
have
an
expansion,
go
ahead
and
have
your
expansion,
but
do
it
in
a
way
that
is
respectful
of
the
community
in
which
you
own
that
building,
because
they
might
be
the
owners
of
the
building,
but
we
all
feel
some
ownership
of
the
chateau
laurier
and
that's
why
so
many
people
are
here.
That's
why
so
many
people
have
written
to
us.
That's
why
so
many
people
care
so
deeply
about
this
decision,
and
that's
why
members
of
council?
There
is
no
good
reason
not
to
support
councillor
flurry
and
making
this
decision
today.
T
R
Probably
in
the
last
since
the
occasions
been
put
and
been
true,
I
know
that
there
is
many
many
meetings
and
many
many
hours
and
lots
of
time
spent
around
those
five
design
that
they
presented
to
us.
Do
we
always
have
the
corporation
and
working
with
developer,
like
Clark
O's
group?
Do
we
ever
every
time
we
ask
them
for
a
changes
or
any
time
we
we
ask
for
modification,
there
was
any
hesitant
or
we,
our
relationship
and
working
with
them
was
very
smooth
all
the
time
from
from
a
business
perspective,.
O
R
I
know,
that's
probably
you
can't
answer
the
question.
I
just
want
to
remind
remind
my
colleague
at
this
table
that
those
doesn't
come
for
free
every
time.
Largos
do
changes
and
submit
a
new
design
that
all
cost
money
and
people
around
the
table
who
run
business
and
understand
business
and
understand
corporation
of
the
world.
R
These
are
lots
of
money
and
time
not
only
on
lark
asides
only
on
the
series,
city
staff
and
our
time
also
and
committee
and
staff
and
council
member
I
just
want
to
remind
is
funny
I
have
a
I
want
to
thank
the
staff
that
they
provide
me
with
those
days.
I
ask
how
many
days
would
been
on
that
application,
and
the
number
is
one
thousand
two
hundred
and
thirty-one
days
since
then,
councillor
Moffat
I,
see
I
think
he
introduced
two
new
member
to
his
family.
R
This
is
just
to
put
it
in
context
almost,
but
but
put
everything
aside,
you
know
I
heard
it
I
heard
it.
We
heard
this
afternoon
from
lots
of
member
on
council
that
now
we
have
an
opportunity.
Well,
you
had
the
opportunity
in
the
last
one
thousand
and
two
hundred
and
thirty
one
days
we
did
had
the
opportunity
last
June
we
did
had
the
opportunity.
R
R
You
know
what
I'm
sorry
to
say
that
counsel
flurry
and
many
other
counselor
that
they
said
on
the
only
Heritage
subcommittee.
They
had
opportunity
to
put
their
feedback.
We
had
an
opportunity
to
work
with
them
in
the
last
1012
231
day.
I'm
not
gonna,
hamper
a
lot
on
that,
but
there
is
one
things
is
I
want
to
remind
everyone.
R
If
I
am
lard
coast,
I
wouldn't
spend
100
million
dollar
in
Ottawa
to
invest
in
this
hotel
that
you
guys
all
call
in
at
iconic,
Hotel
iconic
world-class
service,
and
yet
we
allow
them
to
demolish
their
parking
lot.
That
was
looking
like
I
sort
in
the
whole
community.
We've
been
working
with
them
on
the
last
1231
days
and
yet
were
not
really
be
able
to
find
common
ground
for
them,
500
construction,
job
other
than
the
job
creation
that
create
in
our
community.
R
So
we
keep
talking
about
a
council.
Gower
brought
a
great
point.
All
what
we've
been
doing
really
delaying
the
process.
It
doesn't
matter
how
it
goes
it
doesn't
matter.
We
agree
on
this
motion
or
disagree
on
the
motion.
This
motion,
it's
nothing
but
delaying
and
blaming
all
Council
of
member
here
on
the
forth
and
failure.
How
did
they
deliver
to
the
community?
I
am
really
disappointed
with
some
of
my
colleague,
because
they
they
go
out
to
the
public
and
their
start
point
pointing
finger.
We
are
all
responsible.
R
We
failed
in
delivering
a
good
product
and
good
application,
two
hours
to
our
resident,
but
we
sit
on
that
table
and
we
own
up
to
it.
Councillor
McConnell
made
a
great
point.
I
agree
with
her.
She
is
a
person
of
principle.
She
did
agree
that
we
did
mistake,
but
you
know
what
we
have
the
opportunity
to
be
able
to
work
with
our
partner.
I
know
that
building
is
not
bad.
We
had
five
designs
so
far
do
I
like
it.
That's
that's
my
personal
preference,
but
we
need
to
move
on
and
we
need
to
move
forward.