07/01/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Statute 193.011 by and through Petitioner's appearance before this Special Magistrate with this "Second Hearing." The issue in the instant matter is whether or not the Petitioners have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence submitted in this matter to the Indian River County Clerk of Court and evaluated by, reviewed by, and judged by the undersigned Special Magistrate in hearings conducted on 3/10/2014 and then concluded on 3/14/2014 to warrant the granting of the Greenbelt Agricultural Classification for the current year thereby overturning the denial of the same by the Indian River County Property Appraiser on 4/30/2013 for all parcels at issue as noted above. Said petition(s) were a request by Petitioner(s) for a hearing challenging the Property Appraiser on the denial of their Greenbelt Agricultural Classification by the Petitioner(s). Under the "Greenbelt Law", and in particular, Florida Statute 193.461 (3) (b), properties that are bona fide agricultural operations are taxed according to the "use" value of those operations, rather than the development value. For property to qualify for an agricultural classification, the land at issue must be used in "good faith for commercial agricultural purposes." BOTH PARTIES WERE SWORN AS WERE ALL WITNESSES. PETITIONER • OPENING ARGUMENT - FIRST: The legal counsel for the 'Petitioner Julie Zahniser, Esq. went first, arguing for the Petitioners and also acted as witness (she listed herself as one of the witnesses on the witness list.) Among the evidence that was presented that this Special Magistrate finds relevant to the instant recommendation includes not only the testimony from Linda Viddish, Adam Locke, and Stephen J. Byers as witnesses, but also the "Farm Lease" on the property between the Petitioners and the tenant Cantu Apiaries who are the beekeepers, the "American Bee Project" materials, the certificate of apiary registration with the State of Florida, the 2011 profit and loss statement for Cantu Apiaries who apparently sell the product that the bees make, like for instance honey, the documentary articles concerning the production for Cantu Apiaries and other documentary evidence that purports to show "blooming plants" on the property as of September 26, 2012 and an inspection report from the same date, and other documents purporting to show production evidence of the bee agricultural production. Petitioner provided at least 130 pages for evidence for each parcel for review. Counsel for Petitioners gave a thorough history of the "American Bee Project" and its mission, and gave background information on how the "bee agriculture trade and business works" as not only counsel to the Petitioners but also as a witness. Counsel to the Petitioner(s) argued that "agricultural use is the test" to be considered when matters like the instant one that is before a Special Magistrate and that "commercial profitability" should not be a determining factor when the Property Appraiser is making a determination as to whether or not a "Greenbelt Agricultural Classification" should be allowed for matters like the instant one when the issue has to do with bee cultivation and bee apiaries as the commercial "bee" business on the properties at issue. Petitioner's attorney, when acting under oath as a witness, because Petitioner's attorney also testified as a witness as well 10 - 49 -