Sunday, August 20, 2006

"Biggest and Best Use" Or Not?

At a recent planning board meeting the topic was a request by a property owner to change the zoning of their property from RSF-1 to RSF-2. Their property is in a long (several blocks) section of RSF-1 zoning. The purpose of the request was to allow the owner to split the lot into two lots.

After all the arguments were made, two discussion views were apparent by the planning board members.

Shawn Fulker (a developer) indicated his view was to enable "the biggest and best use" of a piece of property.

Shannon Snyder and Bob Lindsay indicated that changing zoning for the purpose of building more in an established neighborhood was not the intention of the zoning ordinances and would set a precedent that could cause major changes in Sarasota.

In response to Fulker’s view, Shannon Snyder responded, "This city needs more than highest and best use, and somehow it's lost track of that."

Snyder’s response represents a view of many that live in Sarasota. Quality of life is not improved by building the biggest structure on every piece of property possible.


Anonymous said...

Shaun Fulkner has a obvious conflict of interest. He should be removed from the planning board. His comments and voting record indicate he cares more about the rights of developers,than those of the general public. Every vote for increased density indirectly benefits his business interests. He may meet any "arms length" conflict of interest rules, but he surely is breaking the spirit of those regulations.

Anonymous said...

When reading this blog, please remember who wrote the blog, Dick Clapp. If you review the planning committe minutes and the entire file on this application for re-zone the zoning change request more closely follows the existing zoning than the current zoning. Of the 8 lots on the south side of S. Shore Dr. all are east of Sun Circle, only (2) fall within the required size of 15,000 sq ft required for RSF 1 zoning. And, one of those lots belongs to the applicant AND Dick lives two lots to the west on a non-conforming RSF1 lot. The City of Sarasota created the zoning plat in 1974. All of the lots to on the north side of S. Shore, east of Sun Circle are of similar size as the lots on the south side. To continue the " logical extension of platting" the lots on the south side of S. Shore Dr., east of Sun Circle should have been platted as RSF2, not RSF1. The lots on the south side are the same size as the lots on the north side. By allowing the property owner to build a home where there was a home in the past ( until 1999) is not incresing the density and is consistent with the city's future growth plan of 2010. So be wary of all that comes to this page, the full story has not been represented by Dick. His excepts serve to future his opinion, NOT THAT OF THE CITY.Mr. Shawn Fulker, while a developer, did accurratley point out that the city has allowed re-zone in exactly this type of situation. When the request for re-zone, matches the existing size of lot and mirrors that of the immediate community, the re-zone should be allowed. As this request is not adding density or changing the required lot size, this re-zone makes sense. Sarasota needs to make sense and has the opportunity to correct past inconsistencies in zoning.

Anonymous said...

PS.... Dick again mis represents the facts of the request for re-zone. The lots in question were two lots, until the owner of the property behind these two lots bought them. He then sold them as "two lots" The two lots each have a property ID number, have two addresses and pay two tax bills. Not until the current owner tried to get a permit to build, did it become know that the "single ownership" created a problem. So again, be wary of this page. This applicant for re-zone IS NOT adding density. The zoning allows for one home per lot. A small shortage of square footage, less than 400 sq ft between two RSF1 lots is NOT adding to density. This makes sense and is as was intended, one home per lot.

Shawn Fulker said...

Just stumbled on to this discussion, and had a good laugh. You need to check my voting record when it comes to approval of development projects, and you will see that I have voted against them about as often as voting in favor. Could it be that, unlike Mr. Anonymous above, I consider more than just my self interests when makeing a decision? What you clearly don't know, is that I voted against the only item that ever came before the planning board during my tenure which even remotely could have benefited me; and to label me a developer is a bit of a stretch. I only own three residential lots besides my own modest home. It is obvious that you lack the ability to separate your personal feelings from the facts at hand. Or perhaps your ignorance has overcome your ability to think rationally. An apology would be nice, but I think I will be just fine without one.
Warmest Regards,
Shawn Fulker

Anonymous said...

Shawn, sorry for the negative comments regarding your service to the Planning Board and City. I recall the vote you mentioned above, and voting against the density bonus on land which you own was a testament to your integrity. Don't let this blog get to you. Remember, Dick just doesn't like you because you got appointed to the Planning Board and he couldn't get the votes himself. Yes, he was among your competition at the meeting at which you were appointed. He only cares about his own interests, and he will do and say anything to get his way. There are a few others like him in IBSS, but most of us are just trying to be good neighbors.