BCC MEETING MINUTES

LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

NOVEMBER 27, 1995

This meeting is a continuance of the Lake County Value Adjustment Board for 1995. The Board met in regular session on Monday, November 27, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: G. Richard Swartz, Jr., Chairman, Value Adjustment Board; Rhonda H. Gerber; and William "Bill" H. Good. School Board members present were: Kyleen Fischer. School Board member Claudia Ramsey was not present, due to another commitment. Others present were Sanford "Sandy" Minkoff, County Attorney; Ed Havill, Property Appraiser; Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing Property Appraiser's Office; Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office; Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office; Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations, Property Appraiser's Office; Chuck Hasley, Agricultural Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.

The Chairman opened the meeting, however, noted that the Board needed a School Board member, in order to have a quorum.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 9:05 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until they had a quorum.

Ms. Kyleen Fischer arrived, representing the School Board, and the Chairman reconvened the meeting, at 9:20 a.m.

PETITION NO. 1995-4 - SAMUEL JACKSON

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for homestead exemption, noting that Mr. Jackson did not file until April 3, 1995.

Mr. Samuel Jackson, Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that his home was the first home that he had ever purchased and his realtor had informed him that the home's previous owner had filed for homestead exemption, therefore, he would not have to.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-4, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-363L - MARK AND LEE ANN CARSON

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved the denial of an agricultural classification.

Mr. Mark Carson, Petitioner, appeared before the Board to discuss his case, however, it was noted that he had filed his petition after the September 18, 1995 cut-off date.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that they would need to determine that there was good cause to waive the timely filing of the petition, before hearing the case.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was determined that extenuating circumstances did not exist, to cause the late filing of the petition; therefore, the case would not be heard.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board denied a request to hear the case involving Petition No. 1995-363L, Mark and Lee Ann Carson, due to the fact that extenuating circumstances did not exist to cause the late filing of the petition.

Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-364L - KURT REDFIELD AND CHRISTINE TRUEMAN

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved the late filing for homestead exemption.

Ms. Christine Trueman, Petitioner, appeared before the Board to discuss her case, however, it was noted that she had filed her petition after the September 18, 1995 cut-off date.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board denied a request to hear the case involving Petition No. 1995-364L, Kurt Redfield and Christine Trueman, due to the fact that extenuating circumstances did not exist to cause the late filing of the petition.

Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-375L - MOORE HOLDING CORPORATION

Mr. Steve Vaughn, representing the Petitioner, Moore Holding Corporation, appeared before the Board to discuss this case.

The case involved a request for value assessment, however, it was noted that the petition was filed after the September 18, 1995 cut-off date.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board denied a request to hear the case involving Petition No. 1995-375L, Moore Holding Corporation, due to the fact that extenuating circumstances did not exist to cause the late filing of the petition.

Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

MISCELLANEOUS

It was noted that the following petitions had been withdrawn:

Petition No. 1995-366L Paul R. Masterson, Jr.

Petition No. 1995-369L Jon A. Manning

Petition No. 1995-370L Jon A. Manning

Petition No. 1995-124 Southlake Community Foundation, Inc.

Petition No. 1995-294 Southlake Community Foundation, Inc.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 9:55 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 2:00 p.m.

PETITION NO. 1995-48 - ASSOCIATED CHRISTIAN TELEVISION SYSTEM

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved the denial of a request for total exemption.

Mr. Michael Batts, Certified Public Account, Graham & Cottrill, Orlando, representing the Petitioner, Associated Christian Television System, appeared before the Board and distributed, for the record, a booklet containing documentation that he felt was pertinent to this case, for the Board's perusal.

He stated that Associated Christian Television System is a non-profit religious organization, exempt from Federal Income Tax, under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. He stated that the organization has been in existence since the early 1980s and has had the exempt status since then. He stated that, with respect to the issue at hand, the organization applied for a partial exemption for real property located in the Lisbon area. He stated that the petition for a tax exemption for said property was filed on a timely basis, with the information that was required to be submitted with the application (contained in the booklet that was submitted, for the record).

Mr. Batts stated that the basic purpose and nature of the organization in question was that it is a non-profit religious organization and its purpose is primarily to reach people with the christian gospel message. He stated that it carries out that purpose in a variety of ways, one of which is christian broadcasting. He stated that the organization owns a number of television stations in the State of Florida on which it broadcasts religious programs. He stated that it also engages in a number of other activities, including regular worship services, at its facilities in Orlando, and a benevolence program, which provides food, shelter, and clothing, as well as prayer and counseling to needy individuals in every major local where the organization has operations, being Leesburg, Orlando, and Tallahassee. He stated that the organization meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 196 of the Florida Statutes, for exemption, both as an entity and for the property that is involved.

Mr. Batts stated that the specific property that is involved, located in Lisbon, is property that is used in connection with the broadcasting activities. He stated that said property recently came under the ownership of the organization (through donation) this year, thus, the reason a new application for exemption was filed. He further elaborated on the matter and referred to various documents in the booklet, which he reviewed with the Board. He stated that the organization currently has property in Lake County that is exempt and that it enjoys a property tax exemption in every other county that it operates in.

Commr. Swartz informed Mr. Batts that it was the Lake County Property Appraiser's determination that this Board was reviewing, not what other counties may, or may not, have done.

Mr. Batts continued his discussion, stating that the organization carries on activities that are exclusively religious in nature and the reason the application is for a partial exemption (96.55%) is because 3.45% of the organization's air time is related to the sale of commercial spots, to support the organization's operations. He stated that that is the issue at hand. He read into the record portions of Sections 196.195 and 196.196 of the Florida Statutes, with regard to determining whether property is entitled to charitable, religious, scientific, or literary exemption. He further elaborated on the matter, stating that he saw no basis in the law for the denial of the exemption, based on the type of license the organization holds, noting that there is no reference anywhere in the Statutes, or in the Administrative Code, for the nature of the license the organization holds and he felt that was very relevant to this case. He noted that the amount of property taxes at stake in this matter were approximately $1,800.00 and that the organization qualifies for the exemption. He then answered questions from the Board regarding same.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, referred to Exhibit 4, on Page 24 of the booklet that Mr. Batts submitted, for the record, stating that it indicates the President of the organization, Mr. Claud Bowers, receives compensation in the amount of $119,550.00, and Ms. Freeda Bowers, Secretary/Treasurer, receives $37,335.00, with an expense account of $59,000.00, for a total of $215,885.00. She stated that a request for religious exemption always has certain difficulties associated with it, unless it is absolutely clear-cut. She stated that it is always difficult for the Property Appraiser to be put in the position of determining what is and is not religious, noting that that is not his purpose. She stated that all he can do is look at the ownership of the property and see whether it fulfills the requirements for exemption and look at the use of the property, which is paramount.

Ms. Stewart referred to Section 196.195 of the Florida Statutes, noting that one of the requirements for exemption is that no fiscal benefits of the use of the property inure to any officer, or director, of the organization; however, it shows in Exhibit 4, alluded to earlier, that both the President and Secretary/Treasurer of the organization benefit substantially from the use of the property. She referred to the organization's Profit and Loss Statement for FY 1992-93, contained in the booklet, which she reviewed with the Board, however, noted that the booklet should have contained one for FY 1994-95. She stated that one can only assume that the salaries she alluded to, in Exhibit 4, are part and parcel of the Profit and Loss Statement for the relevant year, therefore, looking at if from that perspective, that alone fails to satisfy the criteria that no benefits inure to any officer or director. She further elaborated on the matter.

Ms. Stewart then addressed the issue of the use of the organization's property in Lisbon, noting that it was not a house of prayer. She stated that, were it a church, the law states that the Property Appraiser is not to interfere, but, in this case, the matter involves a radio station, with a commercial license. She stated that the only religious element involved in this matter is the content of the broadcasts. She stated that the use of the facility is not for prayer, or what one knows as religious purposes, the use is to sell time for commercial radio station purposes. She stated that, if one looked at the documents contained in the booklet that was submitted, for the record, one would see that is the case, unquestionably. She referred to various documents contained in the booklet and read portions of same into the record, pertaining to said matter. She stated that, even if the use were not strongly in question, the predominance of the exemption would be.

Mr. Batts, CPA, representing the petitioner, reappeared before the Board, in rebuttal to Ms. Stewart's comments. He addressed the issues that were raised and noted that he had not been requested, by the Property Appraiser's Office, to provide any additional information, other than what was submitted to the Board this date. He stated that all the organization was asking for was equity, the proper thing that should be done. He stated that they were not asking for an exception to the rule, they were just trying, to the best of their ability, to follow exactly what the law states and felt that they had done it, in a timely manner. He stated that the organization has done everything within its power to show the Board that it is a legitimate non-profit entity, entitled to the exemption. He then answered questions from the Board regarding this case.

Mr. Minkoff addressed several questions the Board had regarding this case.

Ms. Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that all property is presumed to be taxable and that the burden is on the taxpayer to provide information to show that eligibility should occur. She stated that, in this case, it is not a matter of what the Property Appraiser's Office asked for, it is a matter of what the taxpayer showed in their application, to qualify for the exemption.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for a religious tax exemption for Petition No. 1995-48, Associated Christian Television System, Inc., due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-120 - SEAVIN, INC.

Mr. Keith Mullins, General Manager, Lakeridge Winery and Vineyards, appeared before the Board, representing the Petitioner, Seavin, Inc., stating that Lakeridge Winery and Vineyards is a certified Florida winery that has been in operation in Lake County since 1988. He stated that the ownership changed structure in December of 1994 and was picked up by the Property Appraiser's Office, who notified them that, since they changed ownership, they would need to refile for the agricultural exemption.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for an agricultural exemption. He stated that, had they filed on time, they would have been granted the exemption.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1995-120, Seavin, Inc., due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-331 - DAVID E. CAUTHENS, PRESIDENT

BLUE SINK GROVES, INC.

Mr. David Cauthens, President, Blue Sink Groves, Inc., Petitioner, appeared before the Board stating that Blue Sink Groves, Inc. was an agricultural corporation that was formed for the purpose of raising citrus.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved the denial of an agricultural exemption.

It was noted that the petitioner had filed on time.

Mr. Cauthens stated that a portion of the property in question is occupied by Mr. Danny Weeks, for the purpose of raising cattle, and that a substantial portion of the remainder of the property was planted in pumpkins; however, the crop did not produce, due mainly to lack of irrigation. He stated that the property was once planted in citrus; however, the grove froze in 1989 and he has since been trying to make a decision about whether or not to top work the grove (cut the trees off and let them rebud). He stated that there are approximately 80 acres of high and dry land and that the land has never been used for anything other than an agricultural purpose.

Mr. Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that the property in question is a 40 acre parcel, consisting of 35 acres of high and dry land and five acres of wetlands. He submitted, for the record, several pictures (7) of the property in question, indicating what his staff found on the property, upon inspection of same, on October 7, 1995. He stated that they found a frozen out grove full of weeds and lantana, as well as three small pumpkins, noting that it appeared someone had tried to plant four to six rows of pumpkins, out of a possible 40 rows, between the trees.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that he and Mr. Chuck Hasley, Agricultural Appraiser, Property Appraiser's Office, had inspected the property, together and separately, and did not feel that it would qualify as a grove. He stated that it was very plain that the property was in transition, noting that Mr. Cauthens and the other individuals involved with Blue Sink Groves were trying to make a decision as to what they wanted to do with the property. He then answered questions from the Board regarding same.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for agricultural exemption for Petition No. 1995-331, David E. Cauthens, President, Blue Sink Groves, Inc., due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 3:45 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would take a 15 minute recess.

PETITION NO. 1995-105 - NICHOLAS J. HALPIN, III

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a request for value assessment, for a mobile home in Lake Frances Estates, in Tavares.

Mr. Nicholas Halpin, III, Petitioner, appeared before the Board and distributed a handout containing information which he felt was pertinent to his case. He stated that he had paid less than the assessed value, noting that he paid $33,250.00 for his mobile home, in November of 1994, and that it was assessed at $39,007.00. He gave comparables of various sales that had occurred in his park and showed several pictures of his home on the monitor, for the Board's review, at which time he answered questions regarding same.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that his office is seeing sales coming down and values decreasing in Lake Frances Estates, noting that they were seeing 1995 sales lower than they did for 1993 and 1994, therefore, would be looking at the whole subdivision, in 1996. He stated that, even though Mr. Halpin paid less than the assessed value, his office has to look at homes that are as close as possible to each other, with regard to square footage, which is what they did, and came up with three comparables, with regard to 1994 sales, which he noted. He stated that said sales were representative of the subdivision, before its current problems started.

The Board suggested that the assessment be lowered, to be comparable with another sale that had occurred in the park, at $36,486.00, at which time Mr. Royce indicated that, in order to compromise, he would lower Mr. Halpin's assessment to the $36,486.00 figure.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Mr. Royce noted, for the record, that the assessed value on the property in question had already been reduced this year by approximately $2,800.00, noting that it was assessed last year at $41,831.00.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board overturned the Property Appraiser's assessment of $39,007.00 for Petition No. 1995-105, Nicholas J. Halpin, III, and reduced the assessment to $36,486.00, based on findings of fact and evidence presented this date, and with the understanding that the Property Appraiser's Office will review Lake Frances Estates, in 1996.

Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-170 - DAVID S. AND SALLY LEE

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a value assessment on a vacant parcel of property.

Mr. Albert R. Cook, Attorney, representing the Petitioner, Mr. David Lee, appeared before the Board and referred to a packet of information (containing documents and three (3) photocopies of pictures) that his office had presented to the Board, prior to this meeting, for the record, which he felt was pertinent to the case.

Mr. Royce interjected that his office had not received the packet of information until three (3) days prior to this meeting, taking into consideration the holidays, and noted that the requirement for any documentation to be considered by his office and the Board was that they receive it five (5) days prior to the meeting.

The Board decided to consider the documentation.

Mr. Cook, Attorney, requested that the Petitioner, Mr. Lee, be sworn in, at which time Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that, if any witness is sworn in, for a particular case, then any and all witnesses involved in said case would have to be sworn in.

At this time, the Petitioner, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, were sworn in by the Deputy Clerk, Sandra Carter.

Mr. Cook informed the Board that he felt the Property Appraiser's Office had neglected a very important part of the appraisal of the property in question, noting that the property was purchased by Mr. Lee in June of this year for $78,000.00. He stated that the problem at hand was access and ability to use the property and that that would be the focus of the questions that he would ask of Mr. Lee. He stated that Mr. Lee's only access to the property was through an easement. He stated that two maps were attached to the petition, being a Flood Zone map (indicating established flood zones) and a FEMA map (showing the location of the property, adjacent to the road known as Wolfbranch Road). He then questioned Mr. Lee about this case.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, questioned whether Mr. Lee had any concrete evidence showing that he was responsible for the payment of the taxes, noting that he was not the real party in interest in this case, as of January 1, 1995. She stated that he bought the property, but that did not mean that he was responsible for the payment of the taxes and, unless he could show evidence that he was responsible for said payments, the owner, as of January 1, 1995, should be present to represent his own interest.

Mr. Cook, Attorney, representing the petitioner, stated that the Trim Notice was sent to David S. and Sally Lee, indicating the property in question and its assessment, as well as the fact that there was no assessment on the property last year. He stated that Mr. Lee would be receiving the bill for the taxes at the end of the year.

Mr. Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, interjected that the reason an assessment was not listed for the property last year was because the parcel (16.84 acres) in question was cut out of a much larger parcel. He stated that some of the information presented this date was information that his office did not have prior to this meeting, nor was it presented in the packet of information that was presented, for the record, nor was it fully explained this date, which he elaborated on. He stated that his office shows the property in question as being 18.91 acres, assessed at $102,910.00. He stated that the 1995 sale price could be pertinent to this case and, if that is the case, then the assessed value for 1996 will be reduced accordingly. He gave three comparables of other properties that had sold during recent years, in the area in question, and noted that the parcel in question contained four acres of wetlands. He then answered questions from Mr. Cook, Attorney, representing the petitioner, regarding this case, with regard to portions of the property being located in the 100 year floodplain; access to the property; and the fact that said access is through an easement and whether that would affect the property's market value.

Mr. Cook stated that he believed the Property Appraiser created a formula, based upon the existing property, and did not consider the individuality of the property, the percentage of the property covered by the Flood Plain Ordinance, nor its availability of direct fee simple access.

On a motion by Ms. Fischer, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the Property Appraiser's assessment of $102,910.00 for Petition No. 1995-170, David S. and Sally Lee, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to reduce the assessment.

Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

COMMISSIONERS

At this time, Commr. Gerber left the meeting, due to another commitment.

PETITIONS NO. 1995-171 THRU 1995-175 - DAVID S. LEE

WEST HWY. 50 JOINT VENTURE

Mr. Albert R. Cook, Attorney, representing the Petitioner, Mr. David S. Lee/West Hwy. 50 Joint Venture, appeared before the Board stating that this case involved an unusual plea of circumstance, under the provisions of Chapter 193.461 of the Florida Statutes, at which time he reviewed the facts of the case with the Board, stating that the last classification of agricultural use for the property in question was in 1985. He stated that the property was rezoned, at the request of the owner, in 1987 and was sold to the present owners in 1988. He stated that the property has been classified as non-agricultural since 1985; however, the request before the Board this date was to consider and reclassify the property as agricultural. He stated that the hopes and dreams of the owners were not realized, therefore, the property lay vacant and unused until 1994, when a contract was entered into with Mr. Lee, the petitioner, to lease and manage the property for agricultural purposes. He referred to the lease for said property, contained in a packet of information that was submitted to the Board, for the record, prior to this meeting, stating that it was for six years and grants Mr. Lee the right to farm and use the property in question, for rent. He stated that the property has been used for agricultural purposes since 1994, by the petitioner, and that he had bills, receipts, etc., indicating same.

Mr. Lee, the Petitioner, appeared before the Board and answered questions from Mr. Cook regarding the property (five parcels consisting of 138.3 acres) and the use of same, noting that he currently grows hay on the property.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, questioned Mr. Lee about the type of hay that he grows on the property and what he had done to the property, to prepare it for the hay. He noted that he sells the hay for $20.00 to $40.00 per roll, depending on whether or not he delivers the hay.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, questioned the Petitioner, Mr. Lee, regarding the purchase price of the property in question, per acre, versus the income he had received, to date, from the hay that was taken off the property and whether he felt it was a good return for his money. He stated that his office looked at good faith agricultural use of the property. He then discussed the lease and the zoning classification for the property. He noted some concerns he had about the property, being (1) the property has not been under agricultural use for ten years; (2) the current use is a non-conforming use of the zoning classification; and (3) the lease is a temporary lease that could be canceled in 30 days and is absolutely no good, unless the agricultural classification is granted; (4) the purchase price paid is three times more than the agricultural use; and (5) he did not believe that good faith agricultural use existed on the property this date, or on January 1, 1995.

A brief discussion occurred regarding whether the agricultural use on the property was a legal conforming use, or whether it was in violation of the zoning classification, at which time Mr. Royce stated that the reason he brought the matter up was because his notes state that no agricultural use is allowed on the property, because of the zoning, and that said information came from the County's zoning office.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for agricultural exemption for Petitions No. 1995-171 through 1995-175, for David S. Lee/West Hwy. 50 Joint Venture, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote and Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

PETITIONS NO. 1995-176 THRU 1995-178 - DAVID S. LEE

SIENA HOME CORPORATION

Mr. Albert R. Cook, Attorney, representing the Petitioner, Mr. David S. Lee/Siena Home Corporation, appeared before the Board to address the denial of a request for agricultural exemption, stating that the letter received from the Property Appraiser's Office denying the request for an agricultural exemption for the property in question stated that the property was no longer used for agricultural/commercial purposes. He stated that it was in error, because it was based upon the time that the property was observed. He referred to several documents contained in a packet of information that was submitted to the Board, for the record, prior to this meeting, pertinent to this case, which he discussed with the Board. He stated that there was a typographical error in the petitions before the Board this date, with respect to the property (51 acres) in question, stating that the petitions reflect the property was sold in March of 1995; however, they should reflect that the property was sold to the present owners in December of 1993. He noted that 40 acres were replanted in pine trees and 10 acres in orange trees.

The Petitioner, Mr. David Lee, appeared before the Board and answered questions from Mr. Cook, Attorney, with regard to management of the property in question and its condition, as of January 1, 1995.

It was noted that the purchase price of the property in question was $461,000.00.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that it was stated that the property did not sell; however, he had a deed, dated March 31, 1995, from R.B.A., Inc., to Siena Home Corporation, in the amount of $691,800.00. He questioned whether the petitioner had plans for the property, other than the pine trees. He stated that his office did not feel the intent for good agricultural purposes was present on the property; therefore, the property does not qualify for green belt.

Mr. Cook, Attorney, representing the petitioner, stated that the property was planted in good faith, in 1993, was maintained agricultural through 1994, and remained that way until after January of 1995.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for agricultural exemption for Petitions No. 1995-176 through 1995-178, for David S. Lee/Siena Home Corporation, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote and Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-22 - JANIS PASCARELLA

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a homestead exemption case that this Board had previously approved, with a stipulation that the Petitioner, Ms. Pascarella, provide the Property Appraiser's Office with a corrected deed. He stated that he felt there was a misinterpretation involved with this case, noting that the title to the property in question was not in Ms. Pascarella's name, on January 1, 1995. He stated that the property had been deeded to her father, in June of 1994, and that he had deeded the property to her on February 13, 1995; however, as of January 1, 1995, her father still owned the property, but did not live on it, so she could not get homestead exemption. He stated that his office had informed Ms. Pascarella that they would need a copy of the corrected deed, so she submitted a Quit Claim Deed, at the original hearing, which was looked at by the Assistant County Attorney, Mr. Bruce Duncan, who informed the Board that the deed was correct, so the Board granted her homestead exemption. However, a week or two later, when his office received the deed, they discovered that it was not a corrected deed.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a fraudulent dating, however, she did not feel that it had deliberately been done. She stated that, in the public records, any title company that might pick up the deed would "red flag" it, therefore, suggested that the deed be taken out of the public records.

Ms. Janis Pascarella, Petitioner, appeared before the Board and discussed what had transpired, regarding the deed in question. She stated that her name was supposed to be on the deed with her father's name; however, they did not realize that it was not on the deed. She stated that her name was on the mortgage and was supposed to be on the title, as well. She stated that she informed her attorney of said error, however, they were not able to get in touch with the original owners of the property, so her attorney suggested that she submit the Quit Claim Deed, alluded to earlier, with the date changed, which she did, and the Board accepted it. She stated that she had it recorded and submitted it to the Property Appraiser's Office, as she had been directed to do, however, approximately three weeks after she submitted it, her attorney received a call from the Property Appraiser's Office indicating there was a problem. She stated that she was informed by Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, that the deed was not correct, therefore, she was going to be denied the exemption. She stated that, after discussing the matter with Mr. Havill, by phone, he stated that he would put the matter back on the agenda, for the Board to discuss the matter again and make a decision regarding same.

Discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time Commr. Swartz stated that the deed before them, this date, did not meet the requirements for homestead exemption, because the deed would have had to be in Ms. Pascarella's name, as of January 1, 1995. He stated that it was not in her name at that time and was still not in her name, therefore, the Board could not grant the exemption.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for homestead exemption for Petition No. 1995-22, Janis Pascarella, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote and Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-199 - LIFESTREAM BEHAVIORAL CENTER, INC.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a late filing for total tax exemption. He stated that, had they filed on time, they would have been eligible for the exemption.

Mr. Jack Hargrove, representing the Petitioner, Lifestream Behavioral Center, Inc., appeared before the Board stating that the property in question, the old Sun Bank building, located on Main Street, in Leesburg, was donated to the Center, it was not purchased. He stated that they thought they were meeting the deadline for filing for the exemption, however, discovered that they had not. He stated that, if the exemption was not granted, it would create a significant hardship on the Center, in that the taxes on the building are in excess of $5,000.00. He stated that there were three (3) parcels involved with this request and that he did not feel that the Center would be eligible for an exemption on the unimproved property, however, would be on the bank building and another parcel that had been improved, for parking.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney, representing the Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that this case involved a more stringent requirement than for homestead exemption, however, was not a total prohibition, at which time she read into the record a portion of Section 196.011(b) and Subsections 7 and 8 of the Florida Statutes, pertaining to the timely filing for a tax exemption.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was determined that an extenuating circumstance did not exist, preventing the petitioner from filing for the tax exemption in a timely fashion.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied a request for total tax exemption for Petition No. 1995-199, Lifestream Behavioral Center, Inc., due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote and Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

PETITION NO. 1995-368L - PHILIP GLIDDEN

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the Board that this case involved a request for value assessment.

Mr. Philip Glidden, Petitioner, appeared before the Board to discuss his case, however, it was noted that he had filed his petition after the September 18, 1995 cut-off date.

A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, at which time it was determined that extenuating circumstances did not exist, to cause the late filing of the petition, therefore, the case would not be heard.

On a motion by Ms. Fischer, seconded by Commr. Good and carried, by a 3-0 vote, the Board denied a request to hear the case involving Petition No. 1995-368L, Philip E. Glidden, due to the fact that extenuating circumstances did not exist to cause the late filing of the petition.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote and Ms. Ramsey was not present at this meeting.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was recessed at 6:15 p.m., to be continued at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, November 28, 1995.

________________________________ G. RICHARD SWARTZ, JR., CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

_________________________________

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

sec/11-27-95/12-1-95/boardmin