07/01/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

classification. Counsel argued that the lease agreement between the owners of the property and the tenant Cantu Apiaries and the "60 day cancellation either party without penalty during the 5 year term" adds to, apparently, his argument that the instant petition is submitted with "bad faith." Counsel argued that the instant matter has created a structure for the benefit for an agriculture exemption specifically highlighting the economic advantage to the owner and as a result, the Petitioners should be denied said classification. Counsel argued that the bees on the property can go anywhere at any time and that there was no "netting around the property" to hold the bees on the land at issue and no one could tell you where the bees get their food. Counsel for the Property Appraiser argued that he believes based upon the evidence admitted, that the quantity of pallets and the quantity of bees occupying the pallets and living in the pallets on the properties at issue, are insufficient for "good faith" operation as per Florida Statute 193.461. Counsel argues that it would needs at least 15 to 20 hives, although he admitted that there are no minimum statutory amounts of bee hives needed to ensure "the passing of statutory muster" on the issue, and admitted that there are no cases that speak to the minimum amount of beehives heeded for good faith in this matter. Counsel for the Property Appraiser argued that he believes that the instant matter will make case law that is on point with this recommendation with these hearings as a result. Counsel for the Property Appraiser agreed that use is an issue in this instant matter. Counsel for the Property Appraiser argued that nothing is distinguishable on the parcels at issue except the beehives. Counsel for the Property Appraiser, without objection from Petitioners Counsel, argued that when Cantu testified on November 18, 2013, he testified that "no bee product had been produced" during the relevant tax year time period. Counsel for the Property Appraiser argued that "the maximum number of pallets is 4 pallets or 8 hives" on each parcel, and as a result, that is not enough to evidence an economically viable business. Counsel for the Property Appraiser argued that the pictures presented into evidence by the Petitioners are deceiving. Counsel for the Property Appraiser argued that the Property Appraisers Office inspection shows that there is no economically viable business because of the amount of pallets and hives. Counsel for the Property Appraiser argued that the. In the Matter of the Protest of Chitwood, Jonathan W & Tricia K, for the Year 2009 in Miami County Kansas case (part of the evidence submitted by the Petitioners) should be controlling in this instant matter before the undersigned Special Magistrate and argued that his client, would grant the agricultural exemption on the parcels where beehives sit along with the egress and ingress to the beehives on the parcels and argued in particular. Although Counsel for the Property Appraiser argued that Brazilian pepper trees on the parcels are a "nuisance and should be destroyed", Counsel for the Property Appraiser had no reference to his statement and argument, and no statutory reference, and no reference from any ordinance or any evidence supporting the claim whatsoever. Petitioner's counsel objected to Property Appraiser subsequently attempting to establish the evidence on the Brazilian pepper tree to support the allegation. PETITIONER THEN PRESENTED EVIDENCE: The legal counsel for the Petitioner Julie Zahniser, Esq. testified as a witness that the Brazilian pepper trees on the property grow "naturally and freely" along with many different other naturally growing plants and "are not 12 - 51 -