Laserfiche WebLink
N <br />15 <br />r <br />IL <br />a ,t <br />2 , 000 single - family lots less than one -third of an acre available for sale in Indian River <br />County . There is no shortage . In comparison , there are only 5 single - family lots of 5 acres <br />in the whole of Indian River County . For those who wish to raise families in the rural areas , <br />there is very limited availability . She stated that if the Board allows the change , they will <br />have failed the entire community . <br />It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the <br />public hearing . <br />Vice Chairman Stanbridge stated that she did not consider Mr . Beuttell ' s property a <br />pressure point, only Mr . Clontz ' property . <br />Commissioner Macht felt there was confusion on the term "highest and best use " and <br />it should be said with "under the law" added . There is a great difference . Private property <br />rights mean the quiet enjoyment of the property you own , not the right to be enriched by it . <br />Government is not about doing everything in its power to upgrade the use of a property or <br />to enhance the value .Giving relief to Mr . Clontz is not the business of the Board ; it is the <br />Board ' s business to apply the law . Breaching the urban service area because someone made <br />a decision not to fann is anon-sequitur , The Board cannot legislate based on relationships . <br />The Board has not by legislation devalued Mr. Clontz ' property . He agreed that once this <br />is done , the death knell will be sounded for the county ' s reputation for low density and <br />orderly development .He hoped the Board would not make the change . <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED <br />by Chairman Ginn , to deny the request . <br />October 16 , 2001 <br />104 <br />U 4J 7 v <br />i' si E fi 1 <br />y f y 3 <br />F