Let's talk about the Brantford Airport

Thank you for attending the open house and for taking the time to share your observations and questions. We appreciate the opportunity to respond directly to what was discussed at the session and to the concerns you've raised.

On the term "opportunity," this word refers to the City's ability to plan for the airport's long-term future, not to any current or hidden plan for development. Long-range municipal planning is, by definition, about preparing for needs and possibilities that may arise years or decades ahead, not only about what is being built today. Part of responsible municipal governance is ensuring that the City has the planning authority and tools in place to respond to future opportunities and challenges as they arise, particularly for an asset like the airport that the City has owned and operated for decades. That is the role of long-range planners, and it is the reason jurisdiction matters even when no immediate development is planned.

On the need for the land, the boundary adjustment is not about acquiring land for housing or employment development. The City's position, consistent with what was shared at the open house, is that this proposal is specifically about the airport facility and surrounding lands. The Brantford Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Brantford, but the airport currently sits within the County of Brant's jurisdiction. That means the City is responsible for the airport's planning, maintenance, leasing, and long-term management, while the land beneath it falls under a different municipality's planning authority. This proposal would bring jurisdiction over the airport lands in line with the City's existing ownership and operational responsibility. It does not, on its own, change land use, designations, or zoning.

On services, you're correct that the County currently provides certain services to the airport lands. The boundary adjustment, and the related restructuring agreement, would address how servicing, roads, water, and wastewater matters are handled going forward, consistent with how previous boundary transitions in this region have been managed.

On the agricultural designation under the 1980 Brant/Brantford Agreement and Provincial Bill 180, lands within the proposed transfer area would retain their existing agricultural and natural heritage designations and protections under the County's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The proposed boundary adjustment on its own does not remove or override these protections.

Regarding the timeline, discussions related to this boundary adjustment have been underway for several years between the City and County. The MOU reflects the outcome of that extended process, not a sudden or compressed decision. The current engagement period is the public-facing phase of that longer process.

To your direct question of what is not being shared, there is no undisclosed development plan, no hidden land use change, and no current proposal beyond the boundary adjustment itself. If and when any future development proposal is brought forward, it would go through its own complete planning process, including environmental review and public consultation, separate from this proposed boundary adjustment initiative.

We hope this response has provided clarification on the important issues you have raised.

Thanks for your question. The City is reviewing several feasible options for financing the proposed boundary adjustment and will be presenting the optimum option to Brantford City Council at the Statutory Public Meeting anticipated to be held during the week of July 6th. Once confirmed, the dates of both Municipal Council statutory public meetings will be promoted publicly. 

Hi Beth. Thank you for your detailed submission. As what you describe are natural assets that are unique to our community, the value you place on farmland, natural areas, trails, and river systems is widely shared, and your questions deserve clear and direct answers.

To start with the most important clarification: the current proposal is a municipal boundary adjustment only. It does not approve, fund, or commit to an airport runway extension, expanded operations, or any conversion of farmland to development. The boundary adjustment changes which municipality has jurisdiction over the airport and surrounding lands; it does not change land use, zoning, or agricultural designations. Those protections remain in place under the County's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. If or when the lands are formally brought into the City's framework, comparable designations and protections would still apply.

Because runway extension, cargo or passenger operations, and farmland conversion are not part of this proposal, the economic impact, cost, and return-on-investment information you're asking for does not currently exist as part of this process. There is no specific development proposal to evaluate. If and when any such proposal is brought forward in the future, it would go through its own planning process, which would include a public economic analysis, environmental review, and significant public consultation opportunities specific to that proposal.

Addressing your specific questions:

On the Province's role, Provincial involvement is a legal requirement of any municipal boundary adjustment under the Municipal Act and final approval of a proposed boundary adjustment rests with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. This is standard procedure for boundary changes between any two Ontario municipalities and reflects a procedural requirement, not a Provincial interest in airport expansion.

On runway extension and cargo aircraft, no runway extension is proposed or approved. On passenger and general air traffic, no increase in passenger service or general air traffic is part of this proposal; any future change to airport operations would be a separate matter subject to Transport Canada oversight and its own regulatory and consultation requirements.

On traffic on Colborne Street West and Rest Acres Road, on noise, and on impacts to ecosystems, wildlife, and green space, none of these are projected impacts of the boundary adjustment itself, because the boundary adjustment does not authorize any activity that would cause them. If a future development proposal were ever brought forward, traffic, noise, and environmental impact assessments would be required components of that separate planning and public engagement process.

On property values and community livability, the City is not aware of studies specific to this proposal, as the proposal does not change land use or trigger development. The City's Economic Development Strategy does identify long-term potential for the airport, including a possible aviation business park, however; any such proposal, now or in the future, would require the full evaluation, environmental review, and consultation process described above, with its own opportunity for public input and would not be advanced through this proposed boundary adjustment.

On the pace of consultation, the engagement period is not limited to the June 11 open houses. The engagement campaign launched on May 27th and remains open for questions and comments until the end of June. All input will be part of the formal engagement record presented to Council ahead of any decision regarding a proposed restructuring agreement. The statutory public hearings anticipated for the week of July 6th are a further opportunity for public participation.

We hope this response has provided clarification on the important issues you have raised.

Thank you for your feedback, and for the care reflected in how you've framed these questions. You are absolutely correct in that the shared connection across the Grand River watershed and the Carolinian forest systems is without boundaries, and it is appropriate that you would have an interest in this important issue. 

On Natural Heritage System protections, both the City's and County’s Official Plans identify and protect Natural Heritage System (NHS) features in a similar manner, and both require that any proposed changes affecting these features be studied carefully with appropriate protective measures applied. Under the proposed boundary adjustment process, Agriculture and Natural Heritage System lands would continue to be designated and zoned under the County's Official Plan and Zoning By-law until they are formally brought into the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law over time. At that point, comparable designations and zoning provisions would be applied to transition these lands under the City's planning framework. This is not a gap in protection but rather the standard mechanism by which jurisdictional change occurs while maintaining continuity of land use designation.

We understand your concern is rooted in the 2017 experience, where lands previously designated as Core Natural Areas were later redesignated. To confirm, any future proposal to change a Natural Heritage System designation, whether under County or City jurisdiction, now or after any potential future transfer of jurisdiction would be required to go through its own comprehensive evaluation process, including conformity with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, professional environmental study, and public consultation through statutory processes. That requirement exists independently of which municipality holds jurisdiction. Your request that these protections be made explicit and tested now, rather than assumed, is a reasonable one, and it is the kind of input that should inform the restructuring agreement discussions that remain ahead.

On Six Nations of the Grand River and the Haldimand Tract, we recognize the significance of this consideration and that it carries weight beyond standard municipal planning processes. Indigenous consultation obligations are an important component of planning and environmental processes in Ontario, and this is a matter the City takes seriously as discussions continue. We are not in a position to detail specific consultation activities through this platform, but we acknowledge that this is an important and distinct consideration raised in your submission.

On timing, we recognize the request to defer any decision until after the October 2026 election so a newly elected Council can weigh in. As noted in other responses on this platform, the work toward this MOU reflects a multi-year process between the City and County, and should the proposal be approved by both Councils, any future land use or development decisions affecting these lands, including any changes to Natural Heritage Systems or Agricultural designations would be separate matters requiring their own evaluation, environmental review, and public consultation. Those future decisions would fall to whichever Councils are in place when they arise, including a newly elected Council.

We recognize that a forest and river corridor, once altered, cannot be replaced, and that this is precisely why the protections and processes described above matter. Your submission, including the specific requests regarding binding protections, upfront environmental assessment, and Six Nations consultation, will be included in the engagement record presented to Council.

We hope this response has provided clarification on the important issues you have raised.

Hi Christian. Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns in detail. The issues you raise about the pace of the process, farmland, natural heritage, community trust, and long-term intentions are important and deserve a response.

On the question of timing and meaningful consultation, the public engagement process related to this matter began on May 27^th and is not complete. The MOU has been signed, but no final restructuring agreement has been approved, and no boundary adjustment has taken effect. Public engagement through this engagement portal, the open houses, and statutory public hearings will be part of the formal record presented to both City and County Councils before any final decisions are made. Residents are also invited to participate directly in the statutory public hearings anticipated during the week of July 6. 

It is also important to provide context on how this process arrived at this point. Boundary adjustment discussions related to the Brantford Municipal Airport have been underway for several years. The MOU represents the outcome of that extended period of work and negotiation between two municipalities, both of which are equal parties to the agreement. 

On long-term development intentions, the City's Economic Development Strategy does identify long-term economic development potential at the airport, including a possible aviation business park. That is a matter of public record. What the proposed boundary adjustment does not do is approve, fund, or predetermine any of that. Any future rezoning, development proposal, or change to land use would require its own individual planning process, environmental assessment, and public consultation each time, with meaningful opportunity for residents to participate. Those decisions would lie with whichever Councils are in place at that time, including newly elected Councils. The boundary adjustment changes jurisdiction. It does not hand any Council or any developer a blank slate.

On farmland and natural heritage, existing agricultural designations and environmental protections remain in place unless and until a future separate planning process changes them. Provincial policy, including applicable land use policy frameworks, continues to apply to these lands regardless of which municipality holds jurisdiction. The boundary adjustment does not remove those protections.

On the question of who this proposal serves, the City's position is that aligning municipal jurisdiction with ownership of the Airport and operational responsibility for an asset the City has owned and operated for decades is a legitimate and necessary step for long-term planning and governance. We recognize and respect that not all people share our view. What we can commit to is that the concerns raised here about farmland, rural character, community voice, and transparency are part of the public record and will be presented to both Councils as part of this process.

We hope this response has provided clarification on the important issues you have raised.

Hi Jo-Anne. Thank you for taking the time to write and for attending the open house. Your concerns are noted and this submission will be included in the formal engagement record presented to Council.

We want to address several of the specific claims raised, as we believe the public record warrants clarification.

The characterization that the MOU was developed without County of Brant involvement or input is not accurate. The MOU is a document signed by both the City of Brantford and the County of Brant. It reflects terms that both municipalities agreed to through a process that involved staff and elected representatives from both sides. The County is an equal party to the agreement and retains an equal voice in whether a final restructuring agreement moves forward. No proposed restructuring agreement can proceed without County Council's consideration and agreement. To suggest the County was deceived or excluded from a document it signed is a characterization the City respectfully disagrees with.

It is also important to provide context on how this process reached this point. The boundary adjustment discussions related to the Brantford Municipal Airport have been underway for approximately six years. This discussion did not emerge suddenly or without foundation. Reaching the point of a signed MOU represents years of work, discussion, and negotiation between two municipal governments. 

On the question of democratic timing, current Councils on both sides are duly elected and carry full authority to make decisions throughout their term. That is how municipal governance in Ontario functions. The upcoming election does not suspend the responsibilities or legitimacy of either Council.

On concerns about generational farms, natural heritage, and what the future holds for these lands, we want to be clear that the proposed boundary adjustment does not approve development, remove agricultural protections, or change land use designations. Those protections remain in place. Any future proposal affecting farmland, natural heritage systems, or land use including any airport-related development would be subject to its own individual planning process, environmental assessment, public consultation, and Council approval. Each of those decisions would be made separately, transparently, and with meaningful opportunity for public input. Critically, those future decisions would lie with whichever Councils are in place at that time, including newly elected Councils. The boundary adjustment does not hand any future Council a blank slate but rather, it changes jurisdiction, not land use.

We hope this information has helped provide clarification on the important issues you have raised.

Hi Mike. Thank you for sharing your perspective. The values you are describing including farmland, greenspace, rivers, trails, and the character of a community are not in conflict with good planning, and your view matters in this process.

To be clear, the boundary adjustment does not approve the removal of farmland, the extension of runways, or any development on the lands you are describing. Existing agricultural designations and environmental protections remain in place. Any future proposal affecting those lands would require its own planning approvals, environmental assessment, public consultation and Council approvals. Nothing in the current proposal bypasses or predetermines those processes.

On the broader question of what kind of community Brantford should be, that is exactly the kind of conversation that long-term planning processes are meant to reflect. The City's planning framework includes policies intended to protect agricultural land, natural heritage systems, and greenspace. The perspective you are offering is a legitimate and important one, and it is the kind of input that should inform how future planning decisions are made. Thank you for your input. 

Thank you for taking the time to raise these concerns thoughtfully. There are several distinct questions here and each deserves a direct response.

On the question of how the Provincial facilitation process began, the City is not in a position to characterize the County's experience of that process as that would be a question best directed to County of Brant representatives. What we can confirm is that the Provincial facilitation process is an established mechanism under Ontario's boundary adjustment framework, and that the MOU now signed between the City and County reflects terms that both municipalities agreed to. The City is committed to ensuring that all affected residents, including those in the County have a meaningful opportunity to ask questions, raise concerns, and provide feedback through this public engagement process. 

On the map and the lands shown, the map accompanying the proposal shows the proposed transfer area, which includes the airport, surrounding lands, and a broader land area identified through the boundary adjustment review. Designations shown on the map reflect existing land use designations. To confirm, they are not a development plan or an approval for development. The lands you describe as family farms, woodlands, and conservation areas retain their current designations. Any future rezoning or development proposal would require its own planning approvals, environmental review, and public consultation entirely separate from this proposed boundary adjustment.

On the question of why the boundary adjustment is necessary if no immediate changes are planned, the airport is owned and operated by the City but sits outside City boundaries, which creates real and ongoing challenges for governance, financing, servicing, and the City's ability to plan and invest in the airport over time. The purpose of this proposed boundary adjustment is to align jurisdiction with ownership and operational responsibility. It does not trigger development but rather removes barriers that currently constrain the City's ability to plan responsibly for the airport's long-term future.

Your concerns about farmland, natural heritage, and community voices are important and are exactly the kind of feedback this process is designed to capture. Thank you for sharing your feedback. 

Thank you for your question. The proposed boundary adjustment would not affect the operations of Brant County Fire Station #2. Emergency services serving the area would continue to operate as they do today. Should the process move forward, existing service arrangements are addressed through the restructuring agreement and related agreements between the City and County to ensure continuity of service for residents.

Thank you for sharing your concerns. The values you describe are legitimate and important, and your concern about what the future may hold for this area is understandable.

To clarify, this process does not predetermine what comes next. The proposed boundary adjustment does not change zoning, approve development, or alter land use designations. Any future development on the transferred lands would require separate planning applications, rezoning approvals, environmental review, and individual public consultation processes. To clarify, none of these processes are predetermined by this proposal. Those future decisions would also require Council approval, and the public would have several opportunities to participate in public consultations related to any proposed future planning decisions that affect this area.