07/21/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

question is supported by case law. Property Appraiser argues that the facility and the acreage at issue and the primary use was a wedding venue and event center and was not an agricultural purpose as per Florida Statute 193.461 (3)(b)(1)(e) and that once the completion of the facility and once weddings were conducted within the facility the agricultural use of the three (3) acres were abandoned in the fall of 2017. The issue is the "primary use". Hausman case law supports "when the land supports diverse activities" the issue of the question of the "primary use" of the property portion is at issue. Testified to the advertisements that have been published advertising the "primary use" of the property which are not an agricultural purpose as per Florida Statute 193.461 (3)(b)(1)(e). Advertisements were taken off the Petitioner's website. The statute does not say anything about completion of the structure. Julie Gordon testified – inspected about three times. Every time I have inspected the parcel at issue has been manicured, etc. That means it was not for an agricultural purposes. Case law submitted by the Property Appraiser: Markham v. June Rose, 495 So. 2d 865 - 1986 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals St. Joe Paper Co. v. Adkinson, 400 So. 2d 983 - 1981 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals Hausman v. Rudkin, 268 So. 2d 407 - 1972 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals The Property Appraiser's evidence is relevant, credible, and admissible. PETITIONER PRESENTED Petitioner's Counsel Maggard presented. Petitioner's exhibit #1 was admitted without objection. Petitioner's exhibit #2 was admitted without objection. Photos of hay are stored under the barn. Spoke to the photos of agriculture activity on the parcel. Petitioners business is the business of race horses to breed and house and then sell offspring. Counsel presented photos of horses and bill of sale of horse to facilitate horse breeding which is the primary purpose for the property including the structure at issue. Testified that the horses are housed on the property that is at dispute. The John Deere tractor is also stored in the barn on the parcel which is at dispute which does not run afoul of agricultural purpose as per Florida Statute 193.461 (3)(b)(1)(e). As a result, the use of the facility at issue and the acreage at issue and the primary use of both comports with the statute. Although there may have been other activities within the structure, those activities do not extinguish the primary use of the area at issue. People purchase hay from the backside of the barn. Hay is being stored in the barn. The tractor is stored in the barn. Some of the events are charity events in the barn. But the barn is still a barn which is used primarily for agricultural purposes. Petitioners needed to build a nice facility given the fact that getting high end purchasers who buy high end race horses to come to Dade City was somewhat of a challenge. That is why the Petitioners build the structure at issue. Petitioners are in the race horse business. Petitioners need to "wine and dine and house" these potential buyers who are business people. This is part of the race horse business and is therefore and agricultural purpose as per Florida Statute 193.461 (3xb)(1)(e). Petitioners decided to "dress up the barn" because it takes seven (7) years to get a producing a race horse. Hosting events from time to time does not extinguish the "primary use" of the part of the parcel at issue. Case law submitted by Petitioner: Markham v. PPI, INC., 843 So. 2d 922 - 2003 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals – land used for the boarding and training of horses constitutes a "bona fide agricultural purpose" within the meaning of section Florida Statute 193.461. Aitken v. Markham, 595 So.2d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) -primary use of land is breeding horses for profit the landowner qualified for an agricultural classification under section 193.461. Robbins v. Racetrack Training Center, Inc., 833 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) property owner that boarded and trained thoroughbred racing horses adjacent to Calder Race Course. The property owner obtained an agricultural classification of its property to receive favorable tax treatment. The third district affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the property owner, holding that the boarding and training of racing horses was for a bona fide agricultural purpose within the meaning of section 193.461(3)(b). The Agrotourism statutes (below) Florida Statutes 570.85, 570.86, and 570.87 allows for the Petitioners to supplement the race horse and hay operations to use their barn for weddings, etc. Petitioners are using the facility for a "secondary stream of revenue activity" for their primary and bona fide operations as per Florida Statute 193.461 (3)(b)(1)(e). 570.85 Agritourism.— (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to promote agritourism as away to support bona fide agricultural production by providing a secondary stream of revenue and by educating the general public about the agricultural industrv. It is also the intent of the Leaislature to eliminate duplication of regulatory authoritv over -33-