Six Flags Great Adventure wants to construct a solar generation facility on 66 acres of woodlands in Jackson Township Watch video
JACKSON - There were more hours of opposing testimony on Monday night to Six Flags Great Adventure's controversial plans to construct a solar generation facility on 66 acres of existing woodlands.
This opposition sparked more contentious exchanges between members of the public and members of the township's Planning Board throughout the evening.
The arguments became so heated at times, that the attorneys for the applicant seemingly played peacekeeper at times by voluntarily offering compromises. However, that goodwill may have been overshadowed by one of the attorneys calling the participation of young schoolchildren - who said they enjoy visiting the theme park and wanted to give the board their ideas on how to save the trees and still allow Six Flags to incorporate renewable energy into its operations - a "stunt" and "totally inappropriate."
Monday night's meeting was the Planning Board's sixth meeting, totaling more than 24 hours of testimony, on the theme park's proposal to construct a solar generation facility consisting of solar panels, inverters, transformers and a substation on approximately 66 acres of current woodlands between Reed Road, Perrineville Road and Six Flags Boulevard.
If approved, the project is expected to make the 510-acre theme park and safari entirely energy self-sufficient.
Members of the public again took aim at the plan, however, saying the theme park has the right idea to target renewable energy but is going about it the wrong way.
"Does this forest have to be destroyed when there is a massive parking lot there where they could put solar panels?" resident George Humphris asked.
Township resident Tom Leathen also said he hoped Great Adventure would reconsider where it was putting the panels, adding it could potentially be a "win-win" for the theme park and its neighbor.
"Great Adventure could show that it is environmentally conscious to the extent that they are willing to put up solar panels, as well as to save the trees that are going to be chopped down," Leathen said.
Members of the public also brought up concerns about a potential stream on the property and the impact such a construction project could have on wildlife.
"There is a lot of underutilized space on the property. There are parking lots, there are cleared areas, and I am sure there are reasons that some of them could not be used," said Lynn Prass-Smith, an ecologist from Pennsylvania said. "But to go and take 67 acres and not present a viable alternative analysis that talks about what they could potentially do on site to avoid the impact of such a critical resource has to be revisited."
Township resident Jim Rapp said he fought side-by-side with Six Flags when a toxic waste incinerator was proposed near the theme part and that during this successful fight, Six Flags argued against that proposal, in part, by saying the environmentally sensitive areas around the theme park would be negatively impacted. These were environmentally sensitive areas, Rapp said, where the applicant is now trying to cut down thousands of trees.
"It seems we're being threatened by the very corporation that we helped defend its investment," Rapp said. "They are setting a dangerous precedent. They are saying that the bottom line of the corporation should supersede the needs of its own community."
Testimony on the proposal is scheduled to resume at the Planning Board's March 7 meeting.
Rob Spahr may be reached at rspahr@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @TheRobSpahr. Find NJ.com on Facebook.