Dear Mr. Bouma,

I am writing as a resident of Brant to express my concerns about the profound lack of transparency regarding the Provincial Facilitator process for the potential Brantford Municipal Airport Land Annexation boundary adjustments.

Lack of Information

The appointment of a Provincial Facilitator following a motion passed by the Brantford Municipal Airport Board with no City of Brantford or Brant County staff reports, studies or reviews brought forward for discussion is highly unusual. Decisions of this magnitude directly affecting residents and their community warrants evidence-based information and decision making.  No information has been forthcoming.  Annexation has serious financial impact on residents as their taxes increase significantly and services they receive decrease significantly.

Misleading Intent

The Brantford Municipal Airport Board and City of Brantford’s sudden jump from negotiating cost sharing agreements with Brant County for airport improvements to land annexation is an extreme deviation.  This is a backdoor attempt to acquire Brant County land for other City of Brantford planning objectives.  One of which is the West Brant Access Route (Formerly Oak Park Road Extension, formerly BSAR, formerly Ring Road) which Brantford, Brant County and Six Nations residents have opposed since its inception.  The February 26^th public meeting on the West Brant Access Route had overwhelming attendance.  Residents attended looking for answers on city councils’ sudden reversal on this issue.  The consultant chairing the meeting could not provide answers but he did tell residents it was a done deal which was misleading and he shut down the public meeting early when residents became frustrated with the public engagement. Only one City of Brantford elected official attended the meeting, and they did not take questions from residents at the meeting.  City councils lack of accountability to residents was astounding and a wakeup call for more transparency and the need for civic accountability.  

Behind Closed Doors Decisions

Many county residents attended the May 28^th Brant County Council Meeting looking for answers about the Provincial Facilitator process and the potential boundary adjustment discussions.  County Elected officials could not provide any information to residents as the meetings are taking place in camera behind closed doors. County officials clearly communicated the process was forced upon them and they were advised if they opted not to participate in the process the Provincial Facilitator and City of Brantford would conduct the negotiations without them.  It’s astonishing to learn the City of Brantford can be handed the power to determine the fate of residents in a neighbouring municipality.  There is no transparency in the process when decisions are made behind closed doors and residents can’t get any information or participate in the decision making.  There is no accountability.  There is no democratic process.  

Rushed Timeline

The Provincial Facilitator set a very short deadline for the negotiations deliberately limiting public input and scrutiny.  A clear indictor this process is based on political influence rather than fair, evidence-based, responsible planning and input from county residents.  Other influences are in play.  A local land developer has been meeting with a City of Brantford elected official lobbying the city to acquire agriculture zoned lands within Brant County so they can benefit financially.  One wonders what the elected official was promised in return.  

Lack of Public Mandate

Airport Annexation Boundary changes were not a part of the previous municipal election campaigns.  Elected officials were not given a public mandate to pursue boundary changes as in 2017 the city annexed 2,720 hectares of land from the county to accommodate long term residential and employment development growth through to 2051.  The mass majority of that land has yet to be developed so clearly the city is not lacking land for residential or employment development.  

Loss of Productive Farmland, Food Security and Farm Income

Taking local farmland out of production impacts local domestic food security both in accessibility and affordability.  It increases the carbon footprint as reliance on imported food increases.  It also impacts the lively hood of farming families such as ours located along Robinson Road.  When farm lands are taken out of production it also impacts a loss of habitat for local wildlife.  The section of the Grand River that backs up to our farm is provincially designated as “Exceptional Waters” and should never be developed. 

I am respectfully asking the province:

1. To remove the use of the Provincial Facilitator process to mandate annexation discussions behind closed doors, bypass the democratic process, enforce land developer driven agendas and be used as a weapon by municipalities. 
2. Allow county and city staff to review all options for the County and City to work out cost sharing options for airport improvements so both municipalities can mutually benefit.
3. Allow open public consultation where all local residents are heard and can participate in decisions affecting their livelihood, property taxes, governance, municipal services and sense of community.

With regards,

Kellie Stright

Reply from MPP Will Bouma to Kellie Stright, May 19/26

Dear Kellie,

Thank you for your email.  The matter of the Brantford Airport lands have been in discussion for years now.  Both the City of Brantford and the County of Brant have approached me to help break the impasse.  I was asked to request for a Provincial Facilitator through the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing – that is exactly what I did.  As both parties are in a state of mediation/negotiation, it is not appropriate for my office to have any involvement or make public or private comments. 

Thank you

Letter to Brant County Council May 22/26 re MPP Bouma’s response to her letter

Good morning Mayor Bailey and Brant County Councillors,

I am sharing MPP Will Bouma’s response to my letter concerning the Provincial Facilitator process for the potential Brantford Municipal Airport Land Annexation boundary adjustments.  Please note In his response he states he was asked to request for a Provincial Facilitator.  To get some clarification I would like to respectfully ask the county the following questions.

Did Brant County formally support the City of Brantford’s request for a Provincial Facilitator?

Did Brant County formally request the Provincial Facilitator directly through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or through MPP Will Bouma?    

With Regards,

Kellie Stright

Please accept this letter as our formal objection to the proposed Airport Land Annexation andany subsequent transportation corridor (West Brant Access Route/ Oak Park Road Extension/ Brantford Southern Access Road). We’ve reviewed the proposed Airport Land Annexation map that the city presented to the Kirby family on June 18th, and it’s very clear the inclusion of our farms (Stright farm, 11 Robinson Lane and Kaczur farm, 8 Robinson Lane) has nothing to do with developing the airport. Our farms are located beside the Grand River and Brant Conservation Area furthest away from the airport. There are nine farms between the airport and ours.  This is a well orchestrated, backdoor land grab initiated by some elected city officials and wealthy land /real estate developers to grab more agriculture and environmentally sensitive land from the county for the proposed West Brant Access Road /OPRE/BSAR and urban sprawl. Despite the city having already acquired the land for the West Brant Access Road /OPRE/BSAR transportation corridor through the expropriation of sections of our farms in 1993. And despite the city having already acquired 6,746 acres of land from the county in the 2017 annexation to accommodate long term residential and employment development growth through to 2051. At our OMB expropriation hearing the adjudicator warned the city not to come back for more land, yet here we are again.

Public opposition to the proposed transportation corridor WBAR/OPRE/BSRA has not waivered since its inception over 40 years ago. There continues to be fierce opposition from Brantford, Brant County and Six Nations residents as demonstrated by overwhelming attendance at the recent Feb 26th, 2026 public meeting.  The meeting was abruptly shut down early due to the public’s vocal opposition.  Bad planning doesn’t go unnoticed.  Residents can’t afford higher property taxes for unnecessary costly projects that subsidize wealthy land/real estate developers and degrades their own property values, quality of life, and neighbourhoods, or threatens their greenspaces.

Public opposition to the proposed Airport Land Annexation to develop prime agricultural land and environmentally protected areas along the Grand River corridor within the County will also not waiver.  Developing environmentally sensitive areas that play a vital role by cleaning the air, filtering our water, regulating temperature, supporting fish and wildlife habitat and providing quiet forested greenspaces for the physical and mental wellbeing of local residents is very bad planning. Taking local farmland out of production and threatening farmers’ livelihood is also bad planning. It impacts local domestic food security both in accessibility and affordability increasing the carbon footprint and reliance on imported food.  Bill 109 Protecting Ontario’s Food Independence Act which recently received 1st reading is a major shift that will restrict speculative foreign and domestic corporate entities from purchasing agriculture land and secures Ontario farmers access to farmland.  Only 5% of Ontario’s land mass is prime farm land.  Of that only 0.5% is class 1. Ontario looses 319 aces of farmland per day due to roads, aggregate and urban sprawl. Once farmland is gone it’s lost forever.  On June 11th Prime Minister Carney announced the National Food Security Strategy to build a stronger more affordable food system and boost domestic food production.  Canadians face the highest grocery costs in the G7 nations and a nation that can not feed itself becomes both dependent on and vulnerable to other nations.

In addition to our land expropriation, we also experienced a land occupation by members of Six Nations who blocked the construction of laying sewer pipes on the Grand River riverbed.  The city was forced to abandon that option.  Following that the city spent millions on option 2, Directional Drilling.  That also failed due to the underground tunnels crumbling and collapsing.  We can not stress enough the risks and financial liability associated with another land occupation or Karst geology incident.  We’ve started a journey to heal broken trust with Six Nations through Truth and Reconciliation, but it’s fragile and will be tested as we approach the Haldimand treaty negotiations. Unless you experience your land being taken away from you and you’ve experienced a land occupation you will not understand how painful and heartbreaking it is and how long it takes to heal.  We stand with Six Nations because we’ve shared a common path. Please do not let history repeat itself.  This is not the legacy you want on record.  You have options. We are respectfully asking you to remove our farms from the proposed Airport Land Annexation, and pursue other alternative transportation options.

To the following:

Clerk Brant County council, Mayor David Bailey, Individual Councillors of the County of Brant

We are writing out of concern for actions that apparently might be taken by Brant county council and the city of Brantford which appear to be not at all clear to us and others resident in the Oakhill Drive / Robinson Road area. Others have written to voice their concerns and we concur with all that they have written.

Our concerns in addition to those which have been stated by others are as follows.

There will be additional pressure on farming. Farm land is already very expensive to buy, especially for young but really for any aged farmer, though even more so for some one just starting out.

It is important to protect and even to enhance farms close to urban areas and to provide corridors to connect these farms to ones much further from the built up urban area.

Increased traffic along Robinson Road will affect some of the farms located there. But us farmers will simply conduct our affairs as we have done before and will not really be too tolerable of more cars and trucks. This will probably lead to clashes with motorists slowed by farming equipment on the road. Robinson Road is a rural road, not primarily a way to get from one point to another but a road for the residents and farm along the road. Find another way; that is what highways 53 and 24 are for. I’ll repeat for emphasis; Robinson Road is a rural road.

Development in the Shellards Lane area and along Rest Acres Road north of Highway 403 has been made with no apparent thought for public transit. People should not be moving primarily by private automobiles. This is extraordinarily inefficient and is a great contributor to increased air pollution and to accident, injury and death. It is also very expensive, consuming money that would be better spent on the development of public transit.We personally farm on this road and intend to keep farming here regardless. We are not going to accept roads running through our land nor airport runway expansion taking away from us.

Finally there are many environmental concerns. More roads and more moving vehicles are deadly to insect populations which are already suffering dramatic declines in numbers. Insects are important as a food source for birds, bats, aquatic life and even some mammals. Insects are very important to farms as pollinators and for many farms as controls on other insects destructive to crops.

More traffic puts pressure on many species; lots of different birds as well as rabbits, marmots, deer, coyote. Many do manage when urbanized but are better off in a farm and rural setting.

I am sure that I have forgotten to include other concerns.

We as I have said are here to stay. This is not just a not in my back yard thing. It is a not in any one’s backyard. This is no good for anyone. It is not in any one’s best interest to build more roads and put more cars on roads and more aircraft in the sky. All this needs to be done differently. Brant County and the City of Brantford can show leadership on transportation changes that actually work in the interests of all of us.

Thank you.

Robin, Marie, Aerron and Maggie Kirby

Dear Sirs and Madames,

Thank-you for the opportunity to speak before you on the issues and risks pertaining to the West Brant Access Route (WBAR), at the council meeting on June 23, 2026.  However, the mayor and members of council were expected to address the concerns raised within my delegation, which were essentially a summary of some of the information contained within the detailed reports; forwarded to each of you the week prior to this meeting.  To recap, the primary concerns/risks raised during the delegation were as follows:

• lack of safe crossing for the deer (and other wildlife for that matter); thereby creating a significant risk – In addition to the deer itself, the human impact may range from vehicle damage to potential injury and possibly death.
• risk to wetlands and potential risk of increased flooding if any part of these is destroyed – If one looks carefully at the Parson’s map, it will become clear that it is not possible to ‘wiggle’ around all the wetlands.
• risk of building in areas of historic gypsum mines; including PPS sections which prohibit building in such areas without proper rehabilitation and/or mitigation of risks 
• risk of building on known karst landscapes; including PPS sections which prohibit developing in hazardous areas, such as karst topography
• risk to the drinking water; in light of close proximal distance upstream from the intake

Subsequent to this delegation, there was a dialog between council and staff pertaining to the cost of cancelling the project at this time.  Let us be clear here.  No amount of money can be placed upon life itself.  It was truly astonishing to bear witness to the blatant dismissal of that which was presented; not to mention saddening.  Why were such pertinent concerns so cavalierly avoided?  (Please note that I am grateful to those who did ask pertinent questions.  Thank-you.)

In addition, to assert that the proposed WBAR would remain the preferred option, regardless of what is discovered, requiring mere re-alignment if needed, suggests a clear pre-determination of the conclusion; even before the EA is completed.  To quote a portion of Ms Elliot’s response to Councillor Sullivan, “The purpose of an EA is to remove that bias and that political will, which is what’s been going on through the last 40 years of studies…..”  Never have I heard of an EA being characterized in this manner.

Ms Elliot also referenced the following, “Through the 2024 alternative transportation study, we did look at many different alternative routes.  It did pull us back towards this location, this corridor, this area.”   Was there an additional transportation study in 2024 that discussed vehicular traffic?  The only 2024 study I was able to locate pertained to public transit improvements and in fact, the new bus route between the Shellard Lane development area and the NW Industrial area would presumably result in a reduction in the number of vehicles travelling between the 2 areas.  

Not every car turning from Lorne Bridge onto Brant Ave. comes from the Shellard Lane area, nor is every car that turns onto Brant Ave. heading up to Hardy Rd or the 403.  I think we all know this, yet this is referenced as a problem area over and over again; with the simultaneous assertion that creating the proposed corridor will resolve the ‘situation’.  Really?  How?  Building the proposed WBAR will NOT resolve current traffic issues that may exist within the City of Brantford.  The level of destruction being proposed, in spite of the myriad of risks is to accommodate a perceived need 25 years from now?  Why not wait and see what needs arise as the future unfolds.

What about the impact of creating a whole new road through a natural corridor of a neighbourhood?  There are homes on Jennings Road, which have never been mentioned.  The current serenity and beauty of nature would be replaced by a noisy monstrosity.  What about the impact to the homes on Oakhill between which the proposed road would be crammed?  What about the home that is being built on that same parcel of land off Oakhill?  How should they feel about having a 4-lane road beside their bathroom window?  What about the homes on Wildewood and Glendale?  Kerr Shaver?  What about the other people throughout the area who would bear not only the unsightliness, but also the noise?  All for a road that might be needed in 2051?  The entire character of the area would be ruined.

In answer to a question by a councillor, surrounding another option, the response was that county land stood in the way of pursuing that option.  However, this argument was mute, as the city had already decided to annex county land in the area of the proposed WBAR.  The 2 farms that are within the study area are on county land, as is Jennings Rd, as is the little parcel on Oakhill.  What about the home that is beside Brant Park?  This too is county land.  The proposed road would replace much of their backyard, which is currently a beautiful treed landscape.  The people who live there are elderly, one of whom was raised from childhood in that home.  Is it ok to drive 4 lanes of traffic through their backyard, creating all manner of noise, ugliness and air contamination?  Is this what they deserve in the latter years of their lives?  In a childhood home filled with memories?  For a road that is currently not needed?

Let us move onto the financial impact to those who rely upon the tourism of the most beautiful part of Brantford.  Brant Park and local tourism have seemingly slipped under the radar.  Brantford is regarded as the cycling hub of Ontario.  What would happen if a 4 lane traffic bridge/road were to replace the spectacular Carolinian natural corridor that currently exists?  Who would want to ride or walk on the trails of an area that would become nearly devoid of trees, vegetation, birds and other life forms?  Planting some tiny saplings that would take decades to grow would not replace what exists now.  Who would want to camp at Brant Park?  People go there to connect with nature.  They want to hear crickets, frogs, birds and the flow of the river.  And what would happen to the local businesses who rely on summer tourism?  eg. bicycle shops, restaurants, etc.  For a road that a computer ‘model’ says may be needed in 2051?  This whole thing begs sanity.  

Then, there is the cemetery.  At present, this truly is a peaceful place, but the ugliness, noise and toxic smell of a 4 lane traffic road would forever change it.  This is a place where people seek healing and pay tribute to their passed loved ones.  People who are mourning need quiet solitude, where they can reminisce and listen to birds, not the air brakes of transport trucks.

On June 23, 2026, I asked if council could guarantee that the river and drinking water for more than 100,000 people would not be at risk.  I also asked if council could guarantee the stability of a 4-lane traffic bridge on known karst.  These questions went unanswered.  Instead, the focus shifted to money….$300,000.  Again, what is the value of life??  Btw, as a reminder, the failed sewer crossing attempt in the 1990’s cost more than $4 million and of course, this was in addition to the subsequent cost of building the truss bridge.  

Notwithstanding all of the above, it was noted by a few of the councillors that the decision on whether or not to continue with the WBAR proposal would rest with the council being voted upon in October 2026.

As of October 2026, new council will be responsible for decisions pertaining to the WBAR; including the review of any and all transportation needs and alternatives in Brantford, as a whole.  The proposed annexation map includes the aforementioned lands that are clearly in direct correlation to the facilitation of the proposed WBAR.  Given current council’s recognition that, in 2027, new council will be addressing decisions pertaining to the proposed WBAR, then in the spirit of this principle, the need or lack thereof of lands connected with this proposal should also rest with new council.  It is akin to placing the cart before the horse to annex this land from the county at this juncture.  Why spend the money of Brantford citizens, this close to the end of your tenure, on land associated with decisions that will be made outside of your tenure?  

It is requested that all land that is included in the proposed annexation, for the purpose of building the WBAR, be excluded from annexation.  This includes Jennings Rd, the separated parcel on Oakhill and the farms that have been included in the study area.  Since it is agreed that next council will decide on whether or not to move forward with the WBAR, then it is reasonable to also let next council decide upon the annexation of lands directly correlated to that proposal.

For those who have forgotten what it is to be human, it is time to start remembering.  We are all co-creators on this Earth and we are all responsible for each and every thing we do.  This is what we take upon our souls, not the money, not the titles, not the material possessions.  We take with us our deeds.  The ancient Indigenous had a simple rule, whereby all decisions were to be made with the next seven generations in mind.  How different things may look if everyone thought this way today.  Nature does not need us.  We need nature.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Wrench

Dear Sirs and Madames,

Please see the following link to the City of Brantford’s June 23, 2026 meeting. During this meeting, I delegated on the West Brant Access Route (risks pertaining to proposed road/bridge) at the 35 minute mark; the City’s response to which may be heard at the 1:08 mark (one hour and 8 min’s).

With regard to the proposed annexation, the map makes it very clear that the city is requesting certain lands for the purpose of building the WBAR; specifically Jennings Road, the little parcel between Oakhill and Colborne, and the farms that lie within their study area.

At the June 23rd meeting, I requested that the WBAR be cancelled. However, City Council decided to continue with the current EA, BUT as part of their dialog, they also conveyed at various intervals, that the decision of whether or not to continue with the WBAR, will lie with future council. In other words, they have publicly stated that the decision will not be theirs to make. As such, I have also written to them, requesting that based on this very principle, all lands that correlate to the WBAR be removed from the current annexation proposal. (I also called them to task for not responding to the direct questions pertaining to the risks brought forth.)

The annexation was originally characterized by media to suggest that the City desired only the airport lands; yet somehow the County and the City negotiated a sweep of all that lies between, along with lands that fall within the study area of the WBAR. It has been a tremendously stressful time for many of the citizens within the areas under threat and also to others who understand the definite and potential impacts of building the proposed road/bridge.

In the spirit of leaving the WBAR for new council to decide upon (with meaningful input from the public), the desire, or lack thereof, to annex any portion of County land within the WBAR study area should also be deferred to future council(s).

Sincerely,

Stephanie Wrench

80 Jennings Road

June 1, 2026

When I first saw Jennings Road and the home that was for sale in 2022, I fell in love. Even before venturing into the house for a look inside, my heart had already spoken. Never had I been to these parts before, nor to Brantford and I knew not a soul in the area. Yet, it felt like home… and still does.

Jennings is a beautiful, small country road with a gentle wind as it makes its way to Brant Conservation. It backs onto a spectacular section of Carolinian forest, which unlike so much of our Carolinian forest, has not seen the end of a bulldozer. It is serene and peaceful in the winter, but when spring arrives, it comes alive with cyclists, pedestrians, and campers heading into Brant Conservation so that they too may enjoy the healing and quiet serenity of connecting with nature. There are birds of many colours singing, insects buzzing, the smell of flowers and trees, the chattering of squirrels. There are also deer and wild turkeys who cross the road to explore the other side and drink from the river. The Carolinian flora is almost reminiscent of a tropical zone and is purported to be the most diverse in all of Canada (and also home to many threatened/endangered species).

Jennings is more than just another road. It is a little piece of heaven. Each and every day, I feel grateful to live in such a special place and although I have lived in many places, Jennings Road of Brant County is the most magical of all. It is the place that my spirit calls home. So often, I awake in the morning and say out loud, ‘I can’t believe that I actually live here.  How blessed I am. Thank-you Spirit.’

The proposed annexation is a devastating thought. Although I live a humble life on a retired income, it is not the inevitable property tax increase that concerns me. It is the idea of such a splendid piece of Brant County becoming swallowed up by the City.  Cities do not annex land just to have it. Their intent is always of a monetary nature, which means tearing up roads, knocking down trees and paving over the homes of the many other living beings we share this Earth with. What would happen to the birds, the deer and other animals, the trees and other flora, the insects? And to us… the people?

Jennings Road has a deeply intrinsic value; a special energy that cannot be measured with money. It is a precious gem that is part of a bigger jewel, where people lived thousands of years ago, where ancient voices still whisper of a time when we hadn’t forgotten that all is one.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Wrench

To Whom It May Concern,

Please accept this letter as my formal objection to the proposed annexation of approximately 1,317 acres of County of Brant land—specifically encompassing the Brantford Municipal Airport—by the City of Brantford, as well as any subsequent infrastructure developments, including the West Brant Access Route.

I am writing this not only as a deeply concerned resident of the Oakhill community but as someone who has dedicated their entire professional life to the concepts of ethical leadership, accountability, and the eradication of systemic bullying. For thirty-three years, I have taught leadership skills to youth across Canada and internationally. I am a TED speaker, a bestselling author of six books on leadership and youth empowerment, and have been formally recognized by the Governor General of Canada for my service with the Meritorious Service Medal, the highest honour for a civilian. Most recently, I was acknowledged and commended by Prime Minister Mark Carney for my work across Canada, the United Kingdom, and Europe in equipping children with leadership attributes and anti-bullying skills.

It is precisely through the lens of leadership and anti-bullying that I view the current municipal restructuring process. True leadership requires transparency, empathy, and a commitment to protecting the vulnerable. Instead, the rushed, provincially facilitated negotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has left local citizens feeling utterly disregarded.

Many residents in Oakhill and the surrounding county communities feel that they are being structurally bullied by an aggressive municipal expansion that overrides their democratic input. Forcing rural homeowners into city boundary lines without robust, transparent public consultation is an exercise in raw institutional power, not collaborative leadership.

Beyond the direct impact on local residents, this process represents a profound failure of ethical leadership regarding our relationship with neighboring Indigenous communities. I object to this annexation and the broader infrastructure plans on the following specific grounds:

• Profound Disrespect for Indigenous Concerns, Values, and Sacred Grounds: The proposed land transfers and infrastructure expansions directly intersect with areas of immense cultural and historical significance to the local Indigenous community. Proceeding with plans that threaten to disrupt a known or suspected burial ground is deeply disrespectful and violating. To push forward without authentic, meaningful consultation, and without completely accounting for Indigenous values, violates the core tenets of truth and reconciliation. A project built on the desecration of sacred ancestry is entirely unacceptable.
• The West Brant Access Route Backdoor: There is deep, justified concern that this 1,317-acre land transfer is a tactical maneuver to secure the land corridors necessary for the heavily contested West Brant Access Route (historically the Oak Park Road Extension/BSAR). This project has faced fierce, sustained resistance from county residents, city residents, and Six Nations community members for years precisely because of its severe environmental, cultural, and treaty-right implications. Using an airport annexation to advance a stalled highway project lacks political and moral integrity.
• Destruction of the Oakhill Neighbourhood and Community Identity: Oakhill is defined by its quiet, rural character. Residents intentionally invested in this area for its larger lots, lack of urbanized infrastructure (such as sidewalks), and reliance on well and septic systems. Forcing urbanization and city-level property tax rates onto these households alters the very lifestyle they have financially and emotionally committed to.
• Severe Environmental Degradation: The lands surrounding the airport and the projected corridors for the West Brant Access Route contain vital agricultural acreage and delicate ecosystems. Expanding airport infrastructure and constructing a major transportation corridor will result in the loss of prime agricultural soil, disrupt local watersheds, and destroy natural habitats.
• Irreparable Impact on Property Values and Noise Pollution: Transitioning the airport to city control with the explicit intent of expanding runways to invite commercial and cargo traffic will introduce severe noise pollution directly over residential zones. This, coupled with the potential construction of a heavy-traffic access route, will systematically erode property values for families who paid a premium for a peaceful environment.

A true leader listens to the community and honours the sacred heritage of the land before drawing lines on a map. I urge both councils and the provincial facilitator to halt this annexation process, reject the current MOU, and initiate an open, transparent, and authentic public consultation process that genuinely respects Indigenous rights, environmental boundaries, and the well-being of local residents.

Thank you for your time and serious consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Scott Graham, M.S.M., 8 Blythwood Heights, Brantford,

http://www.kids4kids.ca, http://www.scottgrahamspeaker.com

I delegated to the Brant County Council and have attended the poster board session hosted by the City of Brantford. I still have concerns regarding the proposed boundary adjustment and am opposed to it. 

In a 2014 report in @betterbrant by Ella Halley on the OMB hearing  about protecting the Brantford/Brant County Green Ribbon there is a map (labelled Provincial Law  Bill 120) designating permanent agricultural and rural uses. The proposed boundary adjustment affects some of these lands. The City of Brantford indicated that while there are currently no plans to adjust land use they also mentioned this will create opportunities for the city. They indicated there is no immediate need for residential nor employment lands, however, once this land is within city limits it will become easier to alter this. There is a desire by the province, county and city to preserve agricultural endeavours. I feel the County of Brant to be in a better position to understand and support the maintenance and stewardship of these agricultural lands.

The rapidity of the boundary adjustments (months versus years for the last adjustment) whilst there is an ongoing municipal election leaves room for errors in this process. I implore the current council to request that this adjustment be tabled for the new councils of both the county and city to undertake. A new council may have different ideas for development that no longer fit with those of the departing councils.  They have the responsibility of implementing any changes going forward.

Jim Stephenson

5 August Ave.

Good Morning,

I am writing you concerning the airport annexation proposal and respectfully requesting that the township votes against accepting the MOU at the July meeting. My main reason, that I believe is shared by many township residents, is the feeling that the process has been rushed and lacks transparency.

 I would like to share my personal experience with the timeline. I heard rumblings about the proposal from neighbours so decided to follow up by contacting my MPP and council representative. I was told that no information could  be shared as it was out of local politicians’ hands. I was so concerned that I delegated at a township meeting where I expressed my concerns. Again I was told that no information could be shared. I would like to clarify that I certainly do not attach any blame to the township council-I was warmly and respectfully received and I felt councillors truly regretted that they were unable to ease citizens concerns. However, this lack of concrete information was   unsettling. 

The first week in June I received a letter with the proposed map and related information. I attended the open house the afternoon of June 11th and spoke to many of the city representatives. The message I received over and over was that I shouldn’t be concerned to see large areas of farmland and natural habitat annexed as it  was potentially 5,10 even 15 years down the road and require extensive meetings before the land designations could be changed. I also wasn’t  given any definitive answers about what those future designations might be. Having seen the rapidness and lack of transparency over this current process, I certainly don’t feel confident over the way the city will handle this in the future.

My suggestion is, that if all of this is for changes possibly 10 years in the future, why would it hurt to slow the process down and look at it more mindfully? I have talked to many citizens over the past few weeks and many of us feel we have taken all the proper steps to participate as involved shareholders in the democratic process with little success and our voices have been unheard.

I would like to thank the council members who attended the meeting Thursday-your attendance was appreciated. 

Yours respectfully.

Jayne Lucente

2 August Ave.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed airport expansion and the potential loss of agricultural land and green space in our community.

Brantford and Brant County are fortunate to have valuable farmland, natural areas, trails, and river systems that contribute significantly to our quality of life and local identity. Once farmland is removed from production and developed, it cannot easily be replaced. At a time when food security, environmental sustainability, and responsible land stewardship are increasingly important, I believe preserving productive agricultural land should be a priority.

While I understand the importance of economic development, I have yet to see clear evidence demonstrating that extending the airport runway and converting farmland will provide benefits that outweigh the long-term loss of these community assets. Before moving forward, I would encourage Council to provide residents with detailed information regarding the projected economic impacts, anticipated costs, expected return on investment, and long-term benefits to taxpayers.

I am also concerned about the speed of the consultation process. Residents were notified on June 2, with the only in-person consultation opportunity scheduled for June 11, and discussions of a potential vote occurring shortly thereafter. This timeline does not appear to provide sufficient opportunity for residents to become informed, ask questions, and meaningfully participate in the decision-making process.

In addition, I would appreciate clarification regarding:

• The role of the Province in this process and whether there are provincial interests influencing the proposed expansion.
• Whether the runway extension would allow larger cargo aircraft to operate from the airport.
• Whether increased passenger traffic or general air traffic is anticipated.
• The projected impact on traffic volumes along Colborne Street West, Rest Acres Road, and surrounding areas.
• Expected increases in noise pollution for nearby residents.
• Potential impacts on local ecosystems, wildlife, and green space.
• Whether studies have been conducted regarding the effect on neighbouring property values and community livability.

Growth should be balanced with protecting the characteristics that make our community desirable in the first place. Brantford’s farmland, natural landscapes, and open spaces are among its greatest assets. I respectfully ask Council to carefully consider whether the proposed expansion serves the long-term interests of residents and to ensure that any decision is supported by transparent data, comprehensive environmental review, and meaningful public consultation.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Beth Lucente

To Mr. Bouma,

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed annexation in our area and the long-term impact it will have on our farmland, forests, wildlife, and rural way of life.

Our property and surrounding lands are not simply vacant spaces waiting for development. They represent generations of family history, hard work, stewardship, and commitment to preserving the agricultural character of our community. For many families like ours, farming is more than an occupation—it is a legacy that has been passed down through generations with the hope that future generations will continue to care for and live on this land.

The proposed annexation threatens productive farmland that plays an important role in our local food supply and rural economy. Once farmland is lost to development, it can never truly be replaced. The gradual disappearance of agricultural land also weakens the farming community as a whole and changes the character of the countryside permanently.

In addition to the farmland itself, our forests and natural areas provide important habitat for wildlife and contribute to the environmental health of the region. These woodlands support birds, deer, pollinators, and countless other species that depend on uninterrupted natural spaces to survive. The preservation of these forests is critical not only for wildlife but also for maintaining clean air, natural drainage, and the beauty of the rural landscape.

Living in the country offers a lifestyle centered around open space, nature, peace, and community. Many residents chose to build their lives here because of these values. Expanding urban boundaries into rural areas risks replacing that environment with increased traffic, noise, infrastructure pressures, and development that does not reflect the character or needs of our community.

Growth and development are important, but they must be balanced with responsible planning and respect for agricultural land, environmental preservation, and the families who have invested generations into maintaining these properties. I respectfully ask that careful consideration be given to the lasting consequences of annexation before decisions are made that cannot be undone.

I urge council and decision-makers to protect our farmland, preserve our forests and wildlife habitats, and respect the rural heritage that defines this area.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Norm and Kathy Parsons

May 18, 2026

To the Councillors of the County of Brant,

My partner and I have lived at 21 Kirby Cr in Brant County since 2017. At that time, we knew both the property and the house required significant investment, both time and money. However, we could see the potential, including the natural beauty of the surrounding area.

Our property is on a small dirt road with 5 houses, surrounded by forests, hills and farm fields, and we abut onto one of the Grand Rivers many meanders. Our property, and more specifically the house is directly in line with the Brantford Municipal Airport’s main air strip, northeast of the airport itself. 

We knew about the airport before we signed the purchase agreement. We considered it as a positive because of the variety of small aircraft that frequent overhead. The planes typically land from east to west based on the natural wind patterns, so we are used to the pilot school planes with identification codes C-GAPS and C-GINS for example. Many times, the planes are landing low and slow enough where you could count the rivets on the underside while sitting on the back deck.

The largest crafts we see are the planes that shuttle students to the W. Ross Macdonald School on Sunday afternoon, usually 3 in quick succession. These planes are loud and can catch you off guard, but we accept the disturbance because of the benefit they bring to the students onboard.

Overall, we are both supporters of the Brantford Municipal Airport in its current identity. We support the small businesses that it houses, including the Skyway Cafe. We are grateful that it gives local pilots the opportunity to learn and develop the required airtime, including landing practice both during the day and night (planes regularly land after 9pm). We root for its ongoing success.

However, we do not support any air strip redevelopment or expansion that would allow larger crafts to regularly frequent this airport. There has been little, near zero public information that has been brought to our attention with regards to future planning. As a concerned citizen, we are left to ask hypothetical questions. Is there a plan to add a logistics hub for UPS, FedEx, DHL or equivalent in the same manner as the John C. Munroe Airport in Hamilton? If so, those planes regularly land early in the morning (~3am). This is a concern as it will affect sleep, ultimately affecting our health and well-being. We do not want cargo jets landing overhead late at night and early in the morning, when we are used to 4 passenger Cessna prop planes.This can logically be extrapolated out to future home buyers as well. This proposal, which we can only assume has been orchestrated by the City of Brantford and the Province of Ontario, would negatively affect our future home value if we were to sell. The increased air traffic would limit the market and weaken any offer price that they may make.

We are both under 40, and we were able to pay off our mortgage in under 8 years. In a time when many of our peers are unable to buy a home due to the increasing affordability crisis, we are proud of our achievement. We have put in an immense number of resources, both time and financial, to transform the property into our own. This includes a permit recently approved for a new deck and outdoor structure. If our province and our neighbouring city is to change the operation of the airport without proper consultation and compensation, our net worth will be directly impacted and may never truly recover.

Now, because of the poor communication from the Airport Board, the City of Brantford and the Province of Ontario, I recognize that this may be confabulated. What is clear is that both the residents and the municipal government in the County of Brant are confused, under informed and upset with the actions being taken by the parties listed above.

The clearest example comes from our MPP Will Bouma. Stories shared both at council meetings by Delegates and interpersonally within the community tell conflicting stories. Officially his office does not know about the proposal, even though multiple parties have contacted them with questions. This is either a direct lie, as he is in the party that has a majority government (and one that has had little remorse for the local population when it’s come to development), or it’s a dereliction of duty where he is not fighting for his constituents. Politically, it may be because he’s in a historically safe riding, but the perceived lack of action on this matter will not get our future votes.

Furthermore, we were in attendance for the April 28th council meeting (which was at capacity thanks to local organization). Mayor Bailey reiterated many times that the proposed airport redevelopment and the proposed annexation (of a rumored 3,400 acres) of Brant County to be absorbed into Brantford including Kirby Cr, are separate items and should be considered as such.

As a child, I grew up in Flamborough. I remember when Wentworth County was absorbed into the City of Hamilton. I remember the distaste with the residents when this happened. 20+ years later the effects could not be clearer. Flamborough and the surrounding rural land/residents are nothing more than an afterthought to the Hamilton municipal government. The taxes are ridiculously high, with regular increases year over year while the services provided are not proportional. Roads go under plowed in the winter and poorly maintained in the summer, surely leading to vehicle property damage for the locals. Hamilton has not been enforcing illegal dumping of foreign soil on private property leading to the flooding of neighbours (and roads in the case of Safari Road, east of Kirkwall Road). Locals also suffer from a poor electricity grid. Many rely on backup generators due to the regular outages. These residents do not have municipal water, gas or sewer and do not have fiber internet, yet are taxed disproportionately high. This is taxation without representation.

As a rural resident within the Country of Brant, we understand that services will be limited. But the County understands rural residents because many of them have a history of being one. It is an unwritten agreement between the population and the government. Is it perfect? No. But it is guaranteed to be a better option than relying on Brantford. We are 100% opposed to being absorbed into the City of Brantford because I know firsthand the neglect that will occur.

In summary, we do not consider ourselves to be anti-development. We understand how heavily weighted the provincial economy is in development. Hypothetically, if the proposal (again, we have not seen it) is for business development on the airport land without increasing air traffic or craft size, AND it lead to expansion of Colborne St and Rest Acres Rd/Hwy24 into 4 lanes with adequate turning to manage the increased traffic, we would be in support.We will however wholeheartedly oppose any airport redevelopment that increases air traffic or craft size because it will ruin our enjoyment of our rural property, degrade our physical and mental well-being, and ruin our property value and our heavily linked net worth. We will also oppose an amalgamation into the City of Brantford due to the inherent negligence that we will surely experience though future councils.

As voting citizens, we demand that our Provincial government listens to and respects our municipal government, and our neighbors who have taken time to express their concerns. As a taxpayer, we demand that our government does not negatively impact our financial situation without adequate and equitable compensation. All avenues will be explored to ensure our interests are protected.

One final note: We are aware of a letter that was signed by many of our fellow neighbours,including the families of 17 and 53 Kirby Crescent, respectively. We were unable to sign onto this letter, but we would have if the opportunity was available. 

Sincerely, as concerned citizens, 

Thomas Marshall P.Eng. and Alex Desforges

21 Kirby Crescent

Dear Councillors,

As we all know, municipal elections are the foundation of our local democratic process. Through that process, residents entrust elected representatives with the responsibility of making informed, independent decisions that serve the long-term interests of the entire community. Those decisions should be fiscally responsible, reflect principles of good governance, and demonstrate that the voices of residents have been heard and thoughtfully considered. Most importantly, decisions should be grounded in evidence, applicable legislation, municipal policy, and the broader public interest—not political expediency or incomplete information.
For matters as significant as the City’s annexation of County airport lands, major development within these lands, or substantial infrastructure investments such as the southern access road, a councillor’s responsibilities include:

• Listening respectfully to affected residents;
• Considering expert advice together with meaningful public input;
• Weighing local impacts against municipality-wide implications;
• Ensuring compliance with applicable legislation and planning policies; and
• Ultimately voting according to an informed and independent assessment of the public interest.

With these five guiding principles in mind, I respectfully ask that you consider whether Council is presently equipped with the information necessary to approve a revised annexation map. I understand that Council will be meeting in-camera to consider revisions to the proposed annexation boundaries. It appears that these revisions have resulted, at least in part, from input received from selected stakeholders. This raises an important question: has Council received sufficiently comprehensive information and community input to make a fully informed decision?

Here are some underlaying comments based on the five principles above:

• Listening Respectfully to Affected Residents

The residents most directly affected by annexation are the landowners whose properties,
businesses, and generational family farms may be permanently altered.
Why have all affected landowners not been contacted directly by City staff or members of
Council to obtain their views? I understand that Devon Farms was advised by the City’s Chief
Administrative Officer that its property would be removed from the proposed annexation area. If direct engagement was appropriate in that instance, why has the same opportunity not been extended to every impacted landowner?

A fair and transparent process should ensure that all affected property owners are afforded the same opportunity to be heard.

• Considering Expert Advice and Public Input

Council’s upcoming decision should be supported by comprehensive professional analysis. With respect to the Brantford Airport:

• Has a comprehensive business case been prepared evaluating the airport’s long-term financial sustainability and future expansion?
• What independent expert advice supports the conclusion that airport expansion represents the best long-term use of these lands?
• Were alternative options evaluated, such as the County purchasing the airport, relocation
  of future institutional uses such as a new hospital, or other ownership (privatization) and
  operational models? One could envision a new hospital on the airport lands providing
  emergency airlift opportunities, ease of access to the Hwy 403 surrounded by supporting
  services for the benefit a growing community.

With respect to the Oak Park Road Extension, the proposed annexation map captures County lands along Colborne Street West as well as includes the Kazur and Stright farm properties. These lands are geographically the furthest away from the airport. This land grab appears to relate to the proposed southern transportation corridor and having no bearing on Brantford’s airport expansion. By including these lands in the annexation map creates an element of confusion. Given the extensive research materials provided to Council by Stephanie Wrench, the evidence is overwhelming that these unrelated lands embedded into the airport annexation map should be removed. Council is also aware that the City will spend the balance of $300K to complete an Environmental Assessment for this southern access road corridor which will not be finalized until the first quarter of 2027. Thus, Council to fully understand and be informed on the environmental, engineering, transportation, and financial implications of including these lands within the annexation area won’t be known until sometime in 2027. So, on what basis can Council make an informed decision next week?

• Weighing Local Impacts Against Municipality-Wide Interests

Major infrastructure and annexation decisions require balancing local impacts with the long-terminterests of the municipality. Without the benefit of the completed Environmental Assessment and supporting technical studies, important questions remain unanswered, including:

• the potential loss of productive agricultural lands;
• anticipated traffic volumes and transportation analysis;
• environmental and water resource impacts;
• emergency response to potential drinking water contamination
• noise and community impacts;
• long-term servicing requirements; and
• the overall financial implications when considered alongside other major municipal
  priorities, including future hospital planning and other infrastructure investments.

These are not minor considerations. They are fundamental components of responsible municipal decision-making.

• Complying with Applicable Legislation and Planning Policies

Annexation carries significant legal, environmental, and planning obligations. Before any future airport expansion and development can proceed, numerous legislative and regulatory requirements will need to be addressed, including matters relating to:

• protection of agricultural lands;
• significant wetlands and natural heritage features;
• the unique Karst area topography, including sinkholes, caves, and underground drainage systems;
• impacts on the Grand River water corridor and any future river crossing;
• registered Indigenous interests and consultation requirements;
• submission to the required agencies that the City of Brantford will be required to circulate for comment and/or approval, all of those government agencies, boards, commissions and ministries that have a legislative interest and/or responsibility associated with what is being proposed which includes the GRCA if lands are within the Grand River water shed.; and consistency with the City’s own Official Plan and provincial planning policies.

These matters require detailed technical analysis before Council can fully understand the long-term consequences of annexation including the southern access road.

• Voting in the Public Interest

Ultimately, each councillor must vote according to their informed judgment and in the best
interests of the public.

At this stage, however, significant technical studies remain incomplete, important public consultation has yet to occur with all affected landowners, and key evidence necessary to assess the long-term impacts of annexation is still outstanding. For these reasons, I respectfully submit that approving a revised annexation map at this time would be premature.

Delaying approval until the outstanding studies are completed and meaningful consultation has occurred would not represent a failure to act. Rather, it would demonstrate prudent governance, respect for due process, and a commitment to making decisions that are informed, transparent, and capable of withstanding future rigour of public and legal scrutiny.

The decisions made by Council regarding annexation will shape our community for generations. I respectfully request that you defer approval of the revised annexation map until the outstanding technical studies have been completed, all affected land owners have been meaningfully consulted, and Council has the evidence necessary to make a fully informed and defendable decision in the public interest.

Respectfully submitted,

Daryl Sage

As a citizen of brant county, I am encouraging you all to postpone any further work on the projected expansion of the airport. The timing of this is not appropriate. There have been no meetings of the airport board whose job it is to support the airport. It appears that the city is taking advantage of this situation. To add to this is the summer break followed by municipal elections in the fall where both mayors are not running for reelection. I strongly encourage you to halt all discussions until a new council is in place and the people of Brant can have input. 

Thank you. Rose Huysentruyt-Closs

June 4, 2026

Brantford City council is planning an industrial corridor right along the edge of the Grand River. Rather than back off on the construction of the West Arterial Road and Bridge (formerly the Oak Park Access), which will destroy what is probably Brantford’s most beautiful green space along the river, they’re doubling down with plans to further ruin Brantford’s best feature. 

If Brantford Council has any desire to make and keep Brantford an attractive city for residents and visitors they should be planning walking trails, river accesses and public lookout points along the Grand River, not industry.

One of this city council’s primary future objectives is to build a massive aviation business park, which will include a flight school. The airport is very close to the city. If this goes through, Brantford residents can expect a lot of low flying planes passing overhead in the future with the noise pollution that comes with them from constant takeoffs and landings. Keep in mind that they have to practice flying at night. It will not be pleasant.

The Brantford City Council wants to rush massive structural changes through in the next two months, all of which will result in major tax increases for Brantford residents and many of which a majority of residents might consider undesirable. Demand your councillors put off the vote on these changes until the general public has a chance to learn about them and the effects they will be subject to if the changes go through. Demand your democratic right to weigh on these highly consequential council votes through the elections that will be held this coming fall.

There are many other more desirable alternatives to what the Brantford Council is currently proposing that would enhance Brantford’s attractiveness as a city to live in and visit. There are councilors who prefer these alternatives. Let them have a voice on a new council this fall.

Ian Munroe