As a former city planner I feel no sympathy for this situation.
With comments like that, is there any wonder why some in the community are in turn questioning Fayette County/Fayetteville city planning?
As a former city planner I feel no sympathy for this situation.
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).With comments like that, is there any wonder why some in the community are in turn questioning Fayette County/Fayetteville city planning?
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.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.
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.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.
And in the extreme example, Houston learned a few things about being too lax on things like drainage.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.
So did Six Flags New OrleansAnd in the extreme example, Houston learned a few things about being too lax on things like drainage.
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. IMHBAOTo 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 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.
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.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.
Obviously, Georgia is not as accommodating as FL, specifically the Orlando area, where they love roller coasters. Hopefully, lesson learnedOk, 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
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.