07/01/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"statutory muster", he also 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 needed for good faith in this matter. As a result, that issue was not controlling or persuasive for the undersigned Special Magistrate. The undersigned Special Magistrate finds that the persuasive case law evidence In the Matter of the Protest of Chitwood, Jonathan W. & Tricia K, for the Year 2009 in Miami County Kansas ease'(part of the evidence submitted by the Petitioners) is persuasive in this instant matter before the undersigned Special Magistrate. Hereinafter, said case will be referred to as "Chitwood" in the analysis below. The relevant part of "Chitwood" was that the Petitioner in that case was able to show that Petitioner was entitled to the full benefit of the agricultural exemption for the full 17.5 acres at issue by showing by a preponderance of the evidence submitted in that case, that the Petitioner actually "cultivated goldenrod flowers on the entirety of the subject parcel" and that the goldenrod flowers "are integral part of the beekeeping operation." The holding in the case went on as follows: "Consequently, all of the land of the subject parcel, whether it contains the goldenrod flowers or the beehives is used in the production of bees and bee -related products." The evidence in the instant matter before this undersigned Special Magistrate does not show the same, however. Petitioner counsel Julie Zahniser, Esq. who 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 cultivated and not planting it and not fertilizing it" when speaking to the plant growth that grows wild on the parcels in the "undeveloped" areas of the parcels at issue with the corresponding petitions (2013-169, 2013-170, 2013-171, 2013-172, 2013-173, 2013- 174, 2013-175, 2013-176). That seems to suggest to this undersigned Special Magistrate that the areas of the parcels at issue in the instant matter that do not have the bee hive pallets on them, along with the ingress and egress on the parcels to get to the bee hives, are not "bona fide agricultural purposes" and "good faith commercial agricultural uses of the land" and therefore those areas of the property should not be subject to the benefits of the exempt status of the "Greenbelt Agricultural Classification." The preponderance of the evidence submitted in the instant matter has demonstrated that "use of the land is still the guidepost" for the benefits of the exempt status of the "Greenbelt Agricultural Classification" and undeveloped and uncultivated areas will not be able to benefit from the exemption based upon the facts of this matter and the admitted evidence as to how this "bee agricultural business" is conducted. Indeed, the term "bona fide agricultural purposes" means "good faith commercial agricultural use of the land" as per the language of the statute 193.461. Petitioner's own documentary evidence also reinforces this analysis of this recommendation. For instance, the 51a Fla. Jur 2d 14 - 53 -