Councillor Kelly's Statement As ARAC Supports Recommendations For Two Solar Projects in Ward 5
- Clarke Kelly
- Oct 2
- 4 min read
On Thursday (Oct. 2), the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee voted in favour of the staff recommendation to provide a Municipal Support Resolution for the two solar applications in Ward 5.
You can watch the video (bottom of page) or read the statement below if you’d like to understand how and why I arrived at the decision to support the recommendations.
This has been one of the hardest decisions I’ve had to make in this job. It’s something I’ve reflected on daily since I first became aware of the application.
I will admit my immediate reaction was not supportive. I was concerned about the scale of the project and the fact that it was being proposed on land that is currently being farmed.
When I put my name on the ballot in 2022, one of my key motivations was to help keep our community rural. A big part of that for me was supporting and preserving our local farms. If you had asked me about this proposal just two months ago, my answer would have been a firm no.
The use of farmland, the quality of public consultation, and the direct benefit to local residents were my top concerns—something that will not surprise those who’ve been following these projects over the past few years.
Many in our community were understandably upset when prime agricultural land was used years ago for the solar farm at Galetta Side Road and Highway 17.
In this case, however, the land in question is not zoned Agricultural (AG) and falls outside the city’s designated agricultural resource area. That distinction was critical in my decision-making.
And I want to be clear—my support for this application should not be seen as a signal that I’ll support all future proposals like it. There’s still a lot of high-quality farmlands being used for agriculture today that deserves protection, and I believe we need a deeper conversation—at both the city and provincial levels—about how we’re zoning and protecting agricultural land.
In this particular case, the applicant made a public commitment today that they will not use concrete to anchor the panels. That means, at the end of the project’s life, returning the land to agricultural use will remain a viable option.
I’ve also taken time to learn about what’s happening on other solar sites—both in Ward 5 and elsewhere. In many of these locations, farmers are still working the land through cover cropping or grazing animals. Some are being paid to do so, and landowners are still earning income. In some ways, this diversification creates new financial opportunities for local farmers and may even enhance biodiversity.
I also spoke with the leadership of our local chapter of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They didn’t have an issue with this application, and it aligns with the OFA’s provincial stance that solar projects should not be permitted on prime farmland.
So, from an agricultural perspective, I couldn’t find a strong reason to oppose this proposal.
Another key factor for me, one that I always consider in all situations, is the quality of public consultation. While the first meeting had its challenges—especially for those who had trouble logging in—I do give credit to the applicant for how they responded.
They quickly organized a second session, in-person this time. They engaged directly with local landowners, and, in my view, made a genuine effort to find ways to benefit residents most impacted by the project. I know that’s not always easy to do, but the willingness and effort is there.
Westbridge even reduced the overall size and footprint of the project in response to city and community feedback. That kind of willingness to adjust is exactly what I’ve been pushing for in past applications over the years, and I think it would be unfair not to acknowledge and support it when it finally happens.
To summarize:
There was meaningful public consultation, with community feedback reflected in the new plan.
The size and footprint of the project were reduced.
The net impact on agricultural activity appears minimal.
Now, I want to speak directly to those residents who live closest to the proposed site. I hear your concerns. I understand the uncertainty you're feeling. If I lived in one of those homes, I can honestly say I wouldn’t want this right behind me either.
But I hope you can take some comfort in the changes made—especially the reduced footprint—and in the fact that the applicant has shown a willingness to work with you, with me, and with city staff to find ways to reduce any impact. You will still have your beautiful view of the Gatineau Hills, and I will continue to advocate for mitigation measures wherever possible.
It’s also worth noting that the land behind your homes is zoned Rural Countryside and has been for many years—even before amalgamation. That zoning permits many other types of development.
Another thing to consider is that these IESO procurements are going to keep coming. The province has identified a need for more energy, and whether we like it or not, the companies who provide that power will continue to respond to the RFP process.
Our area has the transmission line capacity to support projects like this. Other parts of the city, such as Orleans South-Navan, don’t. So if we oppose every project, we must also ask: what might come in its place? Wind turbines? Battery Energy Storage Systems? In my view, those could have a much greater impact than this project.
This technology is not new. We already have solar projects in Ward 5 with no documented negative impacts. These panels don’t combust, they don’t contaminate, they don’t affect groundwater. And this particular project won’t stop the land from being farmed in the future.
For all of these reasons, I’ve made the decision to support the staff recommendation to provide a Municipal Support Resolution for this project.
The video below features my questions for the two applicants at Thursday's ARAC meeting. The one that follows contains my full remarks and why I supported these projects:
