My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/01/2019
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2019
>
07/01/2019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/31/2019 1:28:23 PM
Creation date
7/2/2019 11:53:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Value Adjustment Board
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
07/01/2019
Meeting Body
Value Adjustment Board
Subject
Organizational Agenda Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Findings of Fact: <br />The Petitioner is seeking agricultural classification for 84.65 acres and the Property Appraiser has granted 43.5 of <br />those acres. Bees have been on the property since 2013 and it is not in dispute that the property owner has leased the <br />property to a licensed and experienced apiary. The undisputed evidence shows that the petitioner has made an effort to <br />sufficiently care for the property in that is good foliage, adequate water and that the hives are protected by a fence or <br />barrier. It is further undisputed that the bee operation complies with the Best Management Requirements For <br />Maintaining European Honey Bee Colonies. As of January 1, 2018, Mark McCoy was using the property for a <br />commercial bee apiary to make a profit. Approximately 3000 pounds of honey were produced from the property in <br />2017. On January 15, 2018 the bees were taken elsewhere to pollinate(almonds). On December 15, 2017, Adam Locke <br />observed 100 colonies and 200 active hive boxes on the property. He also observed water on the property, <br />wildflowers,and bees foraging. <br />The Property Appraiser failed to present any evidence to rebut the Petitioner's ttestimony regarding the removal of bes <br />from the property for a period of time for pollination being the industry standard. <br />Witnesses for the Petitioner were Adam Locke and Waynesworth. Brown. Witness for the Property Appraiser was <br />James Sheehan. Representing the Petitioner was Julie Zahniser. Representing the Property Appraiser was Loren Levy. <br />Conclusions of Law: <br />This Special Magistrate finds that the entire property consisting of 84.65 acres is being used in a bona fide commercial <br />agricultural use pursuant to Florida Statute 193.461,having met the seven criteria, and should be classified as <br />agricultural. The Petitioner has sufficiently stated through various industry articles and opinions of industry experts <br />that bees need a lot of resources and that bees are essential to keep the nation's food at full production. <br />- 25 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.