The Chateau Laurier file has been underway for 1231 days (over 3 years) and for the last 889 days deemed complete. LARCO, a private business that owns a private building, has followed all the rules set out for them to appease City and public requests. They have willingly removed parking from their property with no questions asked, paid their designers and architects for over 5 different designs as well as multiple edits spending millions of dollars in the process.

Most farmers and private home owners would rather the government stay out of their personal lives and even created “Government Back Off” signs that we still see today. Yet the overwhelming sentiment from that same public is asking City Council to step in. Many of you when going through a city application process have come to me stating that this is a long, costly process and feel the city is too involved in their property. I ask you now, how you would feel if after multiple edits, thousands of dollars spent and an approval in hand, were told to start all over again?

It’s important to know that the City of Ottawa has received a letter that if their Heritage Certificate was revoked, the owner will bring the city to tribunal and court stating that we, the city, have acted in bad faith as their application is in fact complete. Our own legal team has reviewed the history of this file and advised that we will lose if this happens. This result in costing the city tax payer hundreds of thousands in legal staff time on top of the staff hours already spent in over 200 meetings discussing this matter. What’s more concerning is the courts would likely allow LARCO to use their earlier designs which were larger, less favourable to the public but most cost effective for them.

Councillor Dudas was correct in stating that when the requirements were laid out, that the parameters should have been more specific, with less room for interpretation. However, those general guidelines from the Built Sub Heritage Committee have led us to where we are today. This concept drawing does meet the given requirements (height, width, materials, shape, etc.) given to the company by the committee and therefore, we do not have the right to request another expensive design from a private business nor is that an option at this point.

The only question being asked was: do we revoke an already approved permit that has met its required criteria? While I do not like the design provided this is still not the decision placed in front us. Therefore, I cannot, in good conscience vote in favour of retracting the permissions previously given to a business that has fulfilled their side of an agreement, just to waste tax payer money in court knowing we will lose because of people’s emotional attachment to a building. I also believe that it sets a poor example to any business that may wish to work with our city, as it would only go to show we cannot make clear decisions and that it is difficult to work with our policies.

In the end, the application guidelines have been met by LARCO and it was the City of Ottawa’s lack of attention to detail and unclear instructions that failed in this process. I hope that we as a City, along with staff, committees and council will learn from this experience and avoid these kinds of mistakes in the future.