Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!

b.mac

Indiana Beach Vibe
May 14, 2011
4,767
7,053
250
BFE, Virginia
With comments like that, is there any wonder why some in the community are in turn questioning Fayette County/Fayetteville city planning?

Some in the community are questioning it because they themselves don't understand how planning submissions work. They just want to see the coastie built and don't care about any of the minutia inbetween announcement and opening.

Fun Spot Atlanta could've properly applied for a rezoning of the property they bought to build Arie Force One, they could've worked with the county from the beginning before they even announce the ride to the public that they wanted to build a big fancy coaster. They didn't, and by the indications given in this thread they continue to not work with the county to resolve the issues and develop a cohesive relationship.

Fun Spot deserves every bit of bullshit the county gives them.
 
Mar 16, 2016
7,988
12,995
250
With comments like that, is there any wonder why some in the community are in turn questioning Fayette County/Fayetteville city planning?
I’m sorry but this comes off as quite an entitled statement. @b.mac said it politically correct and I didn’t just there. But there’s laws and rules there for a reason. Fun Spot is lucky that FC didn’t shut down the project completely and refuse to rezone (I’ve done it before to Phizer).

Companies have no right to unilaterally do what they want with land they buy. The reason this stuff needs to be approved is the many local, state, and federal protections and impacts construction has. Studies need to happen to ensure they aren’t constructing in an endangered species habitat, on contaminated land, over wetlands, destroy historical or religious items as just a short list.
 
Dec 8, 2021
5
6
20
Some in the community are questioning it because they themselves don't understand how planning submissions work. They just want to see the coastie built and don't care about any of the minutia inbetween announcement and opening.

Fun Spot Atlanta could've properly applied for a rezoning of the property they bought to build Arie Force One, they could've worked with the county from the beginning before they even announce the ride to the public that they wanted to build a big fancy coaster. They didn't, and by the indications given in this thread they continue to not work with the county to resolve the issues and develop a cohesive relationship.

Fun Spot deserves every bit of bullshit the county gives them.
Lol, yeah you already know my thoughts on the matter b.mac... Let's just say as someone that's been in similar situations with Fun Spot Atlanta's neighboring county, I do sympathize with Fun Spot's predicament. Fun Spot is dropping a ton of investment into FSA which in turn turns to economic activity that is generally seen as good for the city/county. The notion of well Fun Spot didn't follow all the proper procedures so ef em' they deserve whatever they got coming to them is frankly a bridge too far for me.
 
  • Eye-Roll
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole and bill s
Mar 16, 2016
7,988
12,995
250
I’m far from “f’em” place by saying having to pay for things (that likely they would have been told they needed to do anyways) is deserved. “F’em” would have been saying Fayette shouldn’t have rezoned the land at all.

I want to see small places like FSA get things like this because it’s good for the industry. Not working with your local government is god aweful for the park and the industry. Don’t be shocked to see pushback to future expansion.

Like I said, FS is kinda lucky there isn’t more. And these things are likely items they would have been told to do anyways had they submitted everything properly. This could have been a chance for FS/Fayette to build a great working relationship and they just didn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole and Zachary

Jonesta6

Glumble
Feb 14, 2019
4,361
4,257
250
So are you (@CoasterMOG) going to ignore all of the permitting discussion in other threads whenever BGW starts the prep work for their next attraction (or reno/demo)?

The drama with Kingsmill over height waivers and paint schemes, the RPA buffer zone, tree cutting, digging/trenching, etc.

These are all things BGW generally tends to square up in advance of construction, working with the county and neighbors to get the permits needed. Therefore, there's usually no unexpected costs or delays that aren't purely construction related (bad weather, something broke that wasn't supposed to, etc).

Why wouldn't FSA follow the same process with their respective permitting agencies?

Seems to me they messed up, haven't gotten their act together, and the county is being incredibly graceful in allowing the project to proceed.
 
Dec 8, 2021
5
6
20
I happened to be at the ground breaking ceremony and I did get to speak with the Fun Spot stakeholders. Let's just say there are two sides to every story...I'll leave it at that. Not commenting on what exactly was said via an internet forum...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST Dog
Jun 25, 2021
33
31
60
Fun Spot Atlanta could've properly applied for a rezoning of the property they bought to build Arie Force One, they could've worked with the county from the beginning before they even announce the ride to the public that they wanted to build a big fancy coaster. They didn't, and by the indications given in this thread they continue to not work with the county to resolve the issues and develop a cohesive relationship.
Obviously I don't know the details behind all of it, but I wouldn't have expected the government to ask for such large changes compare to what was being built. The rezoning likely was expected to be a perfunctory exercise and I suspect that's based on past experience at the other 2 locations.
For sure they didn't expect to need to change the whole parking infrastructure, nor would I have expected that. Maybe add a little to it, but not completely change it.

I'd need to look back at the area before but I don't think the few concrete pads drastically changed the drainage, certainly not to the extent that the min-golf had to be removed to account for it.
 

Zachary

Administrator
Sep 23, 2009
15,829
45,948
260
Virginia
Obviously I don't know the details behind all of it, but I wouldn't have expected the government to ask for such large changes compare to what was being built.

To be clear, the country didn't just wake up one day and decide, "You know, fuck Fun Spot, we're gonna make them build a new parking lot! That'll teach 'em!"

Fun Spot is constantly projecting this insane victim complex that suggests that's basically what occured, but it's very much not. Fun Spot just had to comply with the existing zoning regulations which are widely available for anyone to read for themselves. Anywhere Fun Spot doesn't want to comply with those policies, they can attempt to file for a zoning waiver to be exempt from said policies.

Fun Spot did NONE of these things until the last possible second. THAT is why it has been delayed 8 months. Fun Spot either didn't know the law or didn't care about the law and they just pushed ahead without a single care in the world until the county told them they had to get their house in order. Now they're out in the press throwing a fit about it.

Insanely cringe behavior.

Every park in this goddamn country complies with zoning requirements every day. There's nothing remotely out of the ordinary about what Fun Spot is being expected to deal with—in fact, the only thing I think may be out of the ordinary is just how readily the county was willing to grant them some of these (very generous) waivers—much to the dissatisfaction of many of the park's residential neighbors I might add.
 
Mar 8, 2022
827
1,287
220
Martinsburg, WV
twitter.com
I’m sorry but this comes off as quite an entitled statement. @b.mac said it politically correct and I didn’t just there. But there’s laws and rules there for a reason. Fun Spot is lucky that FC didn’t shut down the project completely and refuse to rezone (I’ve done it before to Phizer).

Companies have no right to unilaterally do what they want with land they buy. The reason this stuff needs to be approved is the many local, state, and federal protections and impacts construction has. Studies need to happen to ensure they aren’t constructing in an endangered species habitat, on contaminated land, over wetlands, destroy historical or religious items as just a short list.
And in the extreme example, Houston learned a few things about being too lax on things like drainage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warfelg
Jun 26, 2021
93
208
90
To be clear, the country didn't just wake up one day and decide, "You know, fuck Fun Spot, we're gonna make them build a new parking lot! That'll teach 'em!"

Fun Spot is constantly projecting this insane victim complex that suggests that's basically what occured, but it's very much not. Fun Spot just had to comply with the existing zoning regulations which are widely available for anyone to read for themselves. Anywhere Fun Spot doesn't want to comply with those policies, they can attempt to file for a zoning waiver to be exempt from said policies.

Fun Spot did NONE of these things until the last possible second. THAT is why it has been delayed 8 months. Fun Spot either didn't know the law or didn't care about the law and they just pushed ahead without a single care in the world until the county told them they had to get their house in order. Now they're out in the press throwing a fit about it.

Insanely cringe behavior.

Every park in this goddamn country complies with zoning requirements every day. There's nothing remotely out of the ordinary about what Fun Spot is being expected to deal with—in fact, the only thing I think may be out of the ordinary is just how readily the county was willing to grant them some of these (very generous) waivers—much to the dissatisfaction of many of the park's residential neighbors I might add.
The discussion seems to henge on zoning a lot. Zobing wasn't that big of an issue. The land designated for the coaster was already zoned properly. The rezoning was for a small plot of land adjacent to the site which had a slightly different zone, but still usable by FS. The rezone was simply to get the entire property into the same zone. Ergo, zoning was not the issue. Nei8were the biggest influence, making demands on FS that really had nothing to do with the coaster. The other main issue was remediation. Commissioners were mostly being jerks and playing politics as is often the case with such commissions. IMHBAO
 
  • Eye-Roll
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole and ST Dog

Zachary

Administrator
Sep 23, 2009
15,829
45,948
260
Virginia
The land designated for the coaster was already zoned properly. The rezoning was for a small plot of land adjacent to the site which had a slightly different zone, but still usable by FS. The rezone was simply to get the entire property into the same zone. Ergo, zoning was not the issue.

Whoever told you this lied to you. You can see the two parcels, their mismatched zoning, and the coaster crossing both, here (note "Existing Property Line"):

Future Park Development Pad 1.png

By rezoning the existing park area from M1 to C-H and consolidating the two parcels, all sorts of legally-required C-H zoning regulations will also, naturally, change for the park. Nothing unexpected if Fun Spot actually prepared for any of this ahead of time.
 
Last edited:
Jun 25, 2021
33
31
60
By rezoning the existing park area from M1 to C-H and consolidating the two parcels, all sorts of legally-required C-H zoning regulations will also, naturally, change for the park.
So what is the difference between M1 and C-H and why would they want it all C-H vs M1 which the existing park was. Or just leave it as it was since both appear ok for the park.
 

Zachary

Administrator
Sep 23, 2009
15,829
45,948
260
Virginia
So what is the difference between M1 and C-H and why would they want it all C-H vs M1 which the existing park was. Or just leave it as it was since both appear ok for the park.

Ok, so I did some reading.

M1 and C-H can both house an amusement park. I didn't read the specific conditions applied to each by default, but I think that's probably a little less important—the important thing in my opinion is why the rezoning happened.

According to a letter to Fayette County from Fun Spot/their development partner, Fun Spot sought to consolidate both the existing M1 plot and the C-H plot into a single new C-H parcel in order to eliminate former conditional restrictions the county had applied to the M1 plot during previous rezoning attempts.

In other words, in order for the parcel to be zoned M1 previously (80s & 90s), site-specific stipulations and conditions were put in place. According to Fun Spot, they sought a new rezoning from M1 to C-H without any additional conditions in order to shed these prior site-specific requirements.

The county seems to have not taken any issue with this move and appears to have been perfectly willing to rezone the main park property from M1 to C-H to match the new plot that Fun Spot wanted to combine with it. That said, the county did require that, in order to be rezoned from M1 to C-H, the property must be brought up to match the current C-H zoning requirements.

Judging by plan review comments, Fun Spot's originally proposed parking lot plans, existing fence, a few existing backstage buildings, and more were not in line with the C-H zoning requirements and, hence, in order to complete the rezoning from M1 to C-H, Fun Spot had to make alterations to bring the property up to code or apply for and receive additional zoning variances to excuse them from those requirements.

So basically what I see is Fun Spot trying to get out from under long-existing conditions on the property they purchased through rezoning. No one objected, but then Fun Spot went all shocked Pikachu when the county said it meant the property would have to actually comply with the C-H zoning requirements.

The core of this entire issue is that the park didn't work with the county to figure out what all would need to be done  if they built a giant coaster. They just announced that they were building a giant coaster and crossed their fingers that it would work out. Normal parks (and I assume developers in general?) typically have these ducks in a row long before promising anything to consumers.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2021
93
208
90
Ok, so I did some reading.

M1 and C-H can both house an amusement park. I didn't read the specific conditions applied to each by default, but I think that's probably a little less important—the important thing in my opinion is why the rezoning happened.

According to a letter to Fayette County from Fun Spot/their development partner, Fun Spot sought to consolidate both the existing M1 plot and the C-H plot into a single new C-H parcel in order to eliminate former conditional restrictions the county had applied to the M1 plot during previous rezoning attempts.

In other words, in order for the parcel to be zoned M1 previously (80s & 90s), site-specific stipulations and conditions were put in place. According to Fun Spot, they sought a new rezoning from M1 to C-H without any additional conditions in order to shed these prior site-specific requirements.

The county seems to have not taken any issue with this move and appears to have been perfectly willing to rezone the main park property from M1 to C-H to match the new plot that Fun Spot wanted to combine with it. That said, the county did require that, in order to be rezoned from M1 to C-H, the property must be brought up to match the current C-H zoning requirements.

Judging by plan review comments, Fun Spot's originally proposed parking lot plans, existing fence, a few existing backstage buildings, and more were not in line with the C-H zoning requirements and, hence, in order to complete the rezoning from M1 to C-H, Fun Spot had to make alterations to bring the property up to code or apply for and receive additional zoning variances to excuse them from those requirements.

So basically what I see is Fun Spot trying to get out from under long-existing conditions on the property they purchased through rezoning. No one objected, but then Fun Spot went all shocked Pikachu when the county said it meant the property would have to actually comply with the C-H zoning requirements.

The core of this entire issue is that the park didn't work with the county to figure out what all would need to be done  if they built a giant coaster. They just announced that they were building a giant coaster and crossed their fingers that it would work out. Normal parks (and I assume developers in general?) typically have these ducks in a row long before promising anything to consumers.
Obviously, Georgia is not as accommodating as FL, specifically the Orlando area, where they love roller coasters. Hopefully, lesson learned
 

Jonesta6

Glumble
Feb 14, 2019
4,361
4,257
250
Am I missing something here?

The county in Georgia had their zoning requirements posted, the park chose to not adhere to them when attempting to get their property rezoned, and the county is enforcing standards.

What does that have to do with a particular locality being more favorable for amusement rides than another?
 

Nicole

Administrator
Jul 22, 2013
11,026
29,233
260
Arlington, VA
Obviously, Georgia is not as accommodating as FL, specifically the Orlando area, where they love roller coasters. Hopefully, lesson learned


I’m not sure how you reached the conclusion that the problem is that Georgia isn’t as “accommodating.”

As @Zachary pointed out, no one objected to Fun Spot’s request to rezone and merge the plots. There were requirements which came with the rezoning that Fun Spot wanted. That doesn’t indicate anything other than a requirement that Fun Spot follow the rules for the zoning choice they made.
 
Dec 8, 2021
5
6
20
If the parking lot addition plus removal of the mini golf were in fact part of the rezoning requirements that fun spot did in fact agree to pre ground breaking, then I stand corrected. But something still seems "off" with this whole project and I can't find myself saying it was 100% on fun spot. Like a whole lot of fanfare was present at the announcement of the project and even all the way up until groundbreaking in that it this was Fun Spots BIGGEST investment every. Remember that 13 million number we kept hearing?....yeah actually 18 million and counting. You'd think the park would be highlighting that 18MM top level number early on vs 13MM. 5MM isn't just some accounting/rounding error...we've just heard that number recently. Again, why?.. I just can't accept that Fun Spot who is by no means a big money chain just didn't account for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST Dog
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad