Breadcrumb Trail Links
- Local News
Published Sep 17, 2025 • Last updated 2 days ago • 5 minute read
Kenora City Councillor Graham Chaze defended the proposed development at 34 Minnesota Street on Tuesday night at City Hall, before also taking aim at some of the project’s opponents, which he suggested have acted unacceptably by making baseless accusations. Photo by Bronson Carver
Article content
All systems are go for the new 32 unit apartment complex set to be built at 34 Minnesota Street, but some recent legislative rumblings may shake the building’s foundation.
Advertisement 2
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
At their Sept. 16 regular meeting, Kenora’s City Council voted unanimously in favour of approving the sale of a small portion of Minnesota Street to the Manitoba-based company EdgeCorp, which is planning to develop a multi-storey building that will feature not just housing for hospital staff, but also a ground floor daycare run by the Kenora District Services Board.
With the City of Kenora’s Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) having already approved the actual building’s construction last year, recent weeks have seen controversy swell at City Hall once again, this time around the developer’s need for some of the road for parking spaces, which was essentially the final roadblock in the way of construction commencing.
Advertisement 3
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Opponents of the project – which have included neighbours, a former mayor and several past and present city planners – have argued that the proposed development is too large, to the point of contravening the municipality’s Official Plan and other local bylaws, and also that the development might infringe on Norman Park, all of which the City of Kenora denies.
The back and forth between both sides has at times gotten particularly ugly, with some opponents of the project going so far as to make serious allegations about municipal staff, the developers, and the PAC, albeit all without substantiation.
On Tuesday evening, it was Coun. Graham Chaze who largely ran point against the backlash by delivering some prepared remarks outlining how he believes the 32-unit building “benefits the greater good of the community.”
Advertisement 4
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
During his time in the spotlight, Chaze acknowledged the “passion and effort” displayed by those who have been opposed to the development, but not without also suggesting that some have been “the loudest voices in an echochamber . . . who want control of what gets developed around them.”
“Our role . . . is to weigh all of the views in the best interest of the community as a whole,” Chaze said, speaking to his and his colleagues’ duties ahead of the unanimous vote.
“Our decision tonight is not about taking something away from the public – the section of road allowance in question is not a park, it is not a public land and it is not a part of the existing travelled roadway. We must recognize that sometimes, holding onto small or underused road allowances is less valuable to the public than converting land into housing, community amenities and neighbourhood improvement.”
Advertisement 5
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Regarding the conduct of the opponents, Chaze fired a shot across the bow, saying “we’ve seen unprofessional and outright unacceptable accusations against our staff, against members of our PAC, against the developer, and against members of this council.”
“There has been nothing short of throwing as many arguments as possible, coming from a small group of people in an attempt to preserve the status quo and stop yet another development that will benefit the community at large,” Chaze continued.
According to Chaze, who also works in the real estate industry, both the City and the PAC have gone by the books and followed every rule to a T, and there are no legitimate challenges anyone could make about the development by using either the municipality’s or the province’s laws and bylaws as evidence.
Advertisement 6
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
While there was a window of time for the opponents to officially file an appeal with the Ontario Land Tribunal about the development, Chaze added “no appeal was filed and that period is now closed.”
As far as he understands it, the only viable option to challenge the development from this point out would be for the opponents to seek a judicial review through one of the province’s superior courts, which he said would cost them “tens of thousands of dollars with no guarantee of success.”
“Pursuing that path, frankly, is a waste of everyone’s time and money, and I don’t want to see residents misled into spending even more of their hard-earned money and energy on a fight they cannot win,” Chaze said.
Following Chaze’s remarks, Mayor Andrew Poirier concurred with him, saying that he agrees with “everything” his fellow councillor had just said.
Advertisement 7
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
According to Poirier, private sector real estate development is critical to support the public housing starts the municipality wants to continue pursuing and “you can’t have one without the other.”
The Mayor then added that going back to the development of the adjacent Island View Condominium building, the nearby intersection and Lakeview Drive and other nearby infrastructure should have been upgraded a long time ago, which he suggested would have per-emptively helped alleviate some of the opponents’ traffic and safety concerns.
“We’re going to fix that issue next year, we’re going to spend close to a million dollars to upgrade that intersection (and) we’ll also look at other components on Minnesota Street and (how) we can tie it with the development,” Poirier said.
Advertisement 8
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
“We really need to make some of those investments and I will push and pursue that through the budget process leading into 2026,” he added, meaning that the bill may very well reflect on next year’s property taxes.
Beyond the purview of the City of Kenora, it should also be noted that a recent tragedy has seemingly provoked change at the provincial level that could, in one way or another, affect the future of the 34 Minnesota Street development.
On Sept. 10, a toddler was tragically killed in Richmond Hill, ON by a 70-year-old driver who had been parked outside of a childcare centre. With the driver having also struck seven other children with their vehicle, Ontario’s Education Minister Paul Calandra has since said the province will move to ban all parking outside of childcare centres, period.
Advertisement 9
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
With the 34 Minnesota Street development set to feature a KDSB-run daycare on its ground floor, it is not clear what will happen moving forward if the province does indeed ban parking in such a way, as in theory, parking on the road that Council sold for that very purpose may become prohibited and illegal.
The Miner and News reached out to the KDSB about this issue, prompting a representative to confirm that the “KDSB is working with the province, and planning is underway in light of the tragic event that occurred in Southern Ontario.”
The KDSB also confirmed that “all licensed child care centres in Ontario are to prevent the use of parking spaces that pose a risk to children’s safety” and that “any parking spaces that are directly adjacent to child care facilities . . . with the exception of accessible spaces, should be blocked off and not used until additional safety measures have been put in place.”
While the organization said it has been instructed to “discuss the measures that can be put in place to better protect children,” the representative also affirmed “at this time, the KDSB can only speak to child care centres that are currently operational and in existence.”
Article content
Share this article in your social network
