08/08/2024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c. The purchase price paid. d. Size, as it relates to specific agricultural use, but a minimum acreage may not be required for agricultural assessment. e. Whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices, including, without limitation, fertilizing, liming, tilling, mowing, reforesting, and other accepted agricultural practices. f. Whether the land is under lease and, if so, the effective length, terms, and conditions of the lease. g. Such other factors as may become applicable. PETITION: Petitions #39 is recommended to be DENIED on the issue of the statutory criterion of only lands that are used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes shall be classified agricultural along with the term "bona fide agricultural purposes" which means good faith commercial agricultural use of the land. ANALYSIS In the instant matter, a preponderance of the evidence shows that the parcel did not meet the test of "only lands that are used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes shall be classified agricultural" along with the term "bona fide agricultural purposes" which means "good faith commercial agricultural use of the land" on the acreage that was reduced. In the instant matter, the acreage was reduced to 41.27 acres agricultural with 22.59 nursery and 18.68 acres grazing with the grazing reduced by 34.20 acres because of the non-use. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the Property Appraiser's allegations of non-use of the 34.20 acres were justified. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the site inspections which were the basis for the reduction along with the aerial views along with the Property Appraiser speaking to the Petitioner about the non- use along with the evidence no fencing for cattle on the property, no cattle on the property, no evidence of cattle for the lease were persuasive in the instant denial for the relief that the Petitioner seeks. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the acreage which was reduced by the Property Appraiser did not comport with the (b) prong of the statute and the "Whether the use has been continuous" because the preponderance of the evidence shows that the use has not been continuous. A preponderance of the evidence shows that the acreage which was reduced by the Property Appraiser did not comport with the (e ) prong of the statute and the "Whether an indicated effort has been made to care sufficiently and adequately for the land in accordance with accepted commercial agricultural practices, including, without limitation, fertilizing, liming, tilling, mowing, reforesting, and other accepted agricultural practices" because of the preponderance of the evidence showing that the property had no fencing for cattle, no cattle on the property, no evidence of cattle as per the testimony of the Property Appraiser and that the Petitioner's testimony that cows were not on the property full time and that the Petitioner by and through his testimony showed that the Petitioner has had fencing issues which allowed the cattle to leave the property along with the Petitioner's testimony that the Petitioner moved the cows to an adjacent property on 2022. A preponderance of the evidence shows that this analysis is evidence of the statutory criterion of "only lands that are used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes shall be classified agricultural" along -37-