By Andrew Martins
Staff Writer
JACKSON – Opponents of a solar energy project on property owned by Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson that would require the clear-cutting of thousands of “old grove” trees said their fight was not over after the Jackson Planning Board approved an application for the energy generation facility.
Board members Andrew Kern, Janet Longo, Anthony Russo, Marie DiStefano Miller, Martin Flemming, Township Councilman Kenneth Bressi, Leonard Haring Jr., Vice Chairman Joseph Riccardi and Chairman Robert Hudak voted to approve the plan at the conclusion of a special hearing on March 23.
Attorney Michele Donato, who represented objecting environmental groups Clean Water Action, the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, Save Barnegat Bay, Environment New Jersey, the Crosswicks-Doctors Creek Watershed Association and the Sierra Club, said the outcome after dozens of hours of testimony spread over several months was an unfortunate turn of events.
“I think this (decision) is an unfortunate departure from the ordinances that govern this municipality,” Donato said. “We would never have asked this board to do anything that was not in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law and established case law.”
Since last year, Six Flags had been before the board with a plan to construct a 22-megawatt solar energy facility on a 66-acre portion of a 130-acre tract on Reed Road, Jackson. Executives of the theme park have said power generated by solar panels would supply most of Great Adventure’s energy needs.
The Reed Road property is owned by Six Flags and is adjacent to the Colliers Mills Wildlife Management Area. If the application survives potential legal challenges, thousands of trees will be removed from the site to make room for the solar panels, according to previous testimony.
Representatives of Six Flags have said KDC Solar will own, maintain and operate the solar energy equipment.
“It has been a long journey, but we are pleased with the result,” said attorney Raymond Shea, who represents Six Flags.
According to board members, their approval of the project was contingent on several conditions that were outlined prior to the vote: any potential decommission of the solar arrays will be handled by Six Flags in the event KDC Solar ceases to operate; Six Flags will hire a field biologist to be present during the clear-cutting of the property in order to check for endangered or at-risk species; an escrow account of approximately $172,500 will be established by Six Flags to cover tree removal fees, in accordance with Jackson’s tree removal ordinance, with withdrawals every two years made available as trees are replaced; high-efficiency Tier 1 solar panels will be used by KDC Solar; and both Six Flags and KDC Solar will be required to follow recommendations of local, state and federal agencies.
Some conditions, including alterations where solar panels were removed from an infiltration basin, were made during the final hearing. Donato said those changes should not have been made at the last minute.
“I think it is very unfortunate they allowed the applicant to introduce facts after the public session was closed and I think they very much influenced the board in terms of shaping conditions,” the objectors’ attorney said. “To wait until the 11th hour to try to figure out drainage is a little late.”
During comments to the board, New Jersey Sierra Club Director Jeffrey Tittel said although his organization and other environmental groups object to the location of the Six Flags solar project, they support the implementation of clean renewable energy at the theme park.
“We want to commend Great Adventure for wanting to put in solar and to be the first amusement park to do that,” Tittel said. “The problem we see is that if you want to create green energy, you have to do it in a responsible manner.”
As a proponent of having the company install the solar arrays above its 100-acre parking lot, Tittel said the solar energy project as it stands could become a “black eye to green energy.”
Ultimately, Tittel said, the project should have been denied by the board even if the denial was based solely on Jackson’s tree removal ordinance, which has in the past been cited as the most stringent in the state.
“Everything this town has worked so hard to put into its ordinance … [is] under assault by this project. It does the opposite of the ordinance because it clear cuts an area that is environmentally sensitive,” he said. “We believe this project should be voted down just to defend the integrity of the tree ordinance.”
At times during the hearings, some members of the public urged Six Flags executives to place the solar energy panels above existing parking lots at Great Adventure.
The applicant reduced the project’s original scope of about 90 acres of cleared trees to 66 acres of cleared trees and included a solar panel array above a 4.5-acre employee parking lot.
While opponents of the project agreed those changes were a good start, they urged Six Flags’ representatives to expand the solar energy project to the main parking lot and to other areas.
“The record is that there is more than enough evidence to deny this project,” Clean Water Fund Campaign Director Dave Pringle said. “To paraphrase Joni Mitchell, who wrote, ‘They paved paradise to put up a parking lot,’ I would rephrase that to say, ‘Save paradise, put it in the parking lot.’ ”
Shea said Great Adventure’s executives were sensitive to environmental issues that arose as a result of the solar energy plan and offered to make alterations along the way.
“The opposition would have you believe they care more for the Earth than the applicant,” he said. “The applicant scaled back its proposal … and even when the applicant agreed to cover its (4.5-acre) employee parking lot with canopy-mounted panels, it was not enough” for the objectors.
According to attorney Neil Yoskin, who also represented Six Flags, the project underwent two separate review processes before submission to the Planning Board.
Work at the Reed Road site will not begin until after a state Superior Court judge considers the objectors’ appeal of the board’s decision.
