My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/08/2014 VAB
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2014
>
01/08/2014 VAB
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2018 3:27:24 PM
Creation date
8/20/2015 9:30:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Value Adjustment Board
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/08/2014
Meeting Body
Value Adjustment Board
Board of County Commissioners
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
and he saw no possibility of the business showing an income. He did not see it as a bona fide Ag <br />operation, and opined that the only viable reason for this setup was a tax dodge. <br />School Board Member Johnson understood Vice Chairman O'Bryan's concerns and <br />recommended that the Special Magistrate take a second look at Petitions 2013-005 and 2013- <br />006. She felt the Board was sending a message to the public and setting precedence that the <br />Board may challenge recommendations based on different criteria. <br />Citizen Member Heckman inquired if the Petitioner had any other examples of leases <br />showing a profit, and Vice Chairman O'Bryan read the petitioner's promotional pitch where it <br />states several times in their documents that "The property owner can save thousands of dollars of <br />their taxes, may be able to save hundreds of thousands of dollars on their real estate taxes," and it <br />also stated that they are looking for test cases to establish nationally. <br />Discussion continued by Vice Chairman O'Bryan who felt certain on the issue of the <br />commercial zoned property located in the City of Vero Beach for Petitions 2031-005 and <br />Petitions 2013-006, but pondered whether the Special Magistrate would reverse their <br />recommended decision recognizing that the issues are vague. He sought legal counsel as to what <br />the next procedure would be, if the magistrate reverses their recommendation. <br />VAB Attorney Hancock responded to Chairman Davis's earlier question, referring to the <br />Florida Statutes Chapter 193.46.1(3) (b) where it lists some factors, and mentioned the important <br />things for the Board to remember in determining agricultural purpose, defining the term bona <br />fide agriculture purposes, and other factors that may be taken into consideration by the Special <br />Magistrate. Although the Special Magistrate is not required to look at those factors, he stated <br />other factors such as commercial zoning literally could be a factor that is allowed to be <br />considered to determine whether it is a bona fide agricultural use. <br />Chairman Davis commented that he could see how somebody with acreage could go into <br />business and be profitable. <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.