Council upholds Chteau Laurieraddition, but will have to vote again Thursday
Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson argued and voted in favour of controversial hotel extension
City council narrowly defeated a last-ditch attempt to block a controversialaddition to the Chteau Laurierhotel on Wednesday afternoon, but aflurry of procedural shenanigans at the end of the debate will see council vote again on Thursday.
After two hours of debate, council voted 14to 9againstCoun. Mathieu Fleury's motion to revoke the heritage certificate that allows alterations to the historic building in downtown Ottawa.
Council members who voted against the motionin favour of theaddition were Mayor Jim Watson and councillors Tim Tierney, Keith Egli, Glen Gower, George Darouze, Jan Harder, Eli El-Chantiry, Matthew Luloff, Laura Dudas, Jenna Sudds, Jean Cloutier, Allan Hubley, Scott Moffatt and Rick Chiarelli who only voted against the motion for strategic reasons.
Coun. Stephen Blais was absent.
But in anunusual turn of events after the vote, Coun.Diane Deanstabled a notice for reconsideration.
When moved right after a vote is taken, reconsideration only needs eight votes to be successful, and Deans's motion passed.
Reconsideration would have seen theChteau Laurierissue brought up at the next council meeting at the end of August.
However, Mayor Jim Watson seemed ready for Deans's manoeuvreandimmediately moved to holdan emergency council meeting onThursday at 2 p.m.
The reconsideration motion must be movedofficially at Thursday'smeeting by a councillor who voted with the majority the first time around. BecauseChiarelli voted with most of his colleagues against Fleury's motion on Wednesday, the College ward councillor can be the "switcher" who moves for reconsideration.
Chteau Laurieraddition likely upheld
Despite the lack of anofficial decision Wednesday, Fleury's motion to revoke the approval for the addition is all but sure to lose.
The mayor saidhe called a member of the Lalji family whose company,Larco Investments, owns the hotelon Tuesday to ask if they'd be willing to make changes to the design.
- 'Grotesque' Chteau Laurier addition clears planning committee
- Analysis: ChteauLaurier debacle underscores gulf between public, city hall
"It remained clear to me they are not prepared to spend time and money on a sixth design," Watson said, adding he didn't want to spendtax dollars on what wouldlikely result in a legal fight if the approval was rescinded.
He saidtheChteau Laurieris private property, not a government building,and that the city does not have control over the design of the addition. However, as the hotel is an official heritage building, council is legally responsible for allowing alterations.
'Designs have been terrible,' Deans says
Thecouncillors who voted in favour of the motion to revoke the designsounded most like the members of the public who have been loudly decrying it.
"A yes vote means we listened to the community," said Fleury, adding that revoking the approval could have given the community more time to work with the hotel owners on a more compatible addition.
"The designs have been terrible, they've been incompatible ... it's not the right design," saidDeans. "All we're asking is a design we can all be proud of."
A number of councillors who voted to uphold the addition's approvalsaid they do not like the addition, but were unwilling to try to block it.
Coun. Dudas, for example,called the addition "ghastly," but said she'sworried that if council revokedthe approval, and the hotelowners won a court challenge, the city could end up with a worse version of the addition.
But Tim Marc, the city's planning lawyer, essentially said that'snot accurate. A new plan would have to go through the city's usual process, including council approval.
Council made a mistake,McKenneysays
Coun. Catherine McKenneycalled last year's decision to approve the hotel addition a "mistake," but added "it was one made honestly."
She and other councillors who voted to revoke the approvalWednesday saidthe former council thought last year's decision would result in a more compatible design, whichdidn't happen.
"Two wrongs don't make a right," said McKenney.
That view was echoed by recently elected Coun. Rawlson King, who was not part of last year's decision.
"I believe council should never have delegatedits authority, it's time to correct this error," King said.
Darouze also agreed that council "failed" in its decisionlast year, but voted against the motion Wednesday because it wouldn't be fair to revoke the approval from a business ownerthat has been working with the city in good faith for years.
Late Wednesday, councillors Jenna Sudds, Glen Gower, Matthew Luloff and Dudas who all voted against the motion to revoke the approval sent a letter to Larco ask that the owner withdraw its application, appealing to the Vancouver-based firm as the "stewards of a treasured landmark."
_(720p).jpg)
 OFFICIAL HD MUSIC VIDEO.jpg)
.jpg)
