07/01/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cultivated not planting it and not fertilizing it" and that is one of the ways that this type of business works. Petitioner Julie Zahniser, Esq. testified as a witness that accepted commercial beekeeping practices does not entail "working and mowing and clearing the land" or "cultivating the land" per se. Counsel for the Petitioner Julie Zahniser, Esq. testified as to how properly you clear the area to get your pallets in and clear the areas for your pallets. Counsel for the Petitioner Julie Zahniser, Esq. testified You could have 25 pallets one week, and then the next week, you could only have four boxes because the beekeeper could have in that instance, taken them away for production and the production process to sell the product. PROPERTY APPRAISER PRESENTED EVIDENCE: Eric Barkett for the property appraiser called Julie .Zanhiser, Esq. as a witness to testify and then called Mark Godwin, Appraiser from Indian River County Property Appraiser's office. Maik Godwin introduced photos of the bee hives on the parcels that were at issue before the undersigned Special Magistrate that appeared to have no bee wax or bee honey or any "bee activity" on the days that he went out to the properties at issue and testified to the same. Mark Godwin also introduced photos as evidence purporting to show how "good faith for commercial agricultural purposes" bee apiary businesses ,should look based upon his experience as an employee with the Indian River Property Appraisers office. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The undersigned Special Magistrate finds that the following is controlling and or persuasive in the recommendation below: Florida Statute 193.461. In particular, section 2 (b) of the statute is controlling. Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the parcels with the corresponding petitions (2013-169, 2013-170, 2013-171, 2013-172, 2013-173, 2013-174,. 2013-175, 2013-176) at issue that have the bee hive pallets on the land, in the specific area of the land that have the bee hive pallets on them, and only those areas that have the bee hive pallets on them, along with the ingress and egress on the parcels to get to the bee hives, are the areas of land that are used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes and it is the recommendation of this undersigned Special Magistrate that those areas only should get the benefit of the agricultural "Greenbelt" classification only. It is the opinion of the undersigned Special Magistrate based upon the preponderance of the evidence that the areas of the land of the parcels at issue, the specific area of the land that have the bee hive pallets on them, and only those areas that have the bee hive pallets on them, along with the ingress and egress on the parcels to get to the bee hives are demonstrative of the import of Florida Statute 193.461 when considering what constitutes "bona fide agricultural purposes" and "good faith commercial agricultural use of the land." Therefore the amount of bee pallets on the land are not necessarily determinative as was argued by the Counsel to the Property Appraiser Eric Barkett. And although 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, and Counsel argued that at least 15 to 20 hives would be what the Property Appraiser would suggest would pass 13 - 52 -