BCC MEETING MINUTES

LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

AUGUST 1, 1996

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Thursday, August 1, 1996, 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: Welton G. Cadwell, Chairman, Value Adjustment Board; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; and Catherine C. Hanson. School Board members present were: Judy Pearson and Tom Chapman. 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; Robbie Ross, Personal Property and Agricultural Operations Director, Property Appraiser's Office; Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Discussion occurred regarding Commr. Cadwell, Chairman, not being present, with the following action being taken:

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried by a 4-0 vote, the VAB approved the appointment of Commr. Good as Vice Chairman of the VAB.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, reminded the Board that the decision of the Property Appraiser comes to the Board with a presumption of correctness. In order to overturn any of the denials, the motion would have to contain specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to show why the Property Appraiser was incorrect. Mr. Minkoff stated that normal voting conflict rules applied to the members of the VAB. He stated that there was one new rule that applied to the agricultural exemptions. For the first time, the VAB would be able to grant agricultural exemptions that were not filed by March 1, if the VAB found that there were extenuating circumstances.

It was noted that Commr. Cadwell was attending the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) meeting, but would be arriving soon, and a quorum consisted of one Commissioner and two School Board members.

HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS

PETITION 1996-2 WALTER J. & SALLY J. MAKER

Mr. and Mrs. Maker, Petitioners, appeared before the VAB and explained that they had filed late for homestead, because they were out of town the later part of February, and after checking the calendar, they filed the following week. Mrs. Maker has been in Florida for 41 years, and Mr. Maker has been in Florida for over 20 years.

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that this request was denied due to late filing, because the petitioners filed on March 7, 1996.

Mr. Minkoff explained that "extenuating circumstances" would be those things that would have prohibited someone from filing, for example, illness, mental illness, armed services duty, and would have to be something out of the ordinary.

COMMISSIONERS

It was noted that Commr. Cadwell arrived at 9:10 a.m.

PETITION 1996-2 WALTER J. & SALLY J. MAKER (CONTINUED)

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, based on the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

COMMISSIONERS/PROPERTY APPRAISER

For clarification, Commr. Hanson noted that she had earlier made a motion with the understanding that Commr. Good would serve as Vice Chairman of the VAB, until such time Commr. Cadwell arrived for the meeting. At this time, Commr. Good passed the gavel to Commr. Cadwell.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, had been detained, but would be appearing later in the morning, and Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney representing Mr. Havill, would also be arriving later in the morning. Mr. Royce introduced Ms. Ginger Casburn and Ms. Dana Harris from the Property Appraiser's Office.

PETITION NO. 1996-5 LINDA D. PETERS

Ms. Ginger Casburn, Exemptions Supervisor, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the VAB that this request was denied due to late filing, because the petitioners filed on March 11, 1996.

Ms. Peters explained the difficult time she had purchasing a home as an individual, because she was unable to understand, due to her slow learning disability.

PROPERTY APPRAISER

It was noted that Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, arrived at 9:19 a.m.

PETITION NO. 1996-5 LINDA D. PETERS (CONTINUED)

Ms. Sarah Boswell, a friend of Ms. Peters, addressed the Board and testified that the individual, who sold the home to the petitioner, had informed her that she did not have to file for homestead until April 1, 1996. She noted that the petitioner had a Contract for Sale and Purchase.

Mr. Royce noted that there was a recorded Agreement for Deed, which had another name on it.

Ms. Peters stated that the Deed had her boyfriend's name on it, but he had been court ordered out of the home four months ago, after the application was made for homestead. He had lived in the house for four years.

Mr. Havill stated that the petitioner had a problem with the seller of the house and, if the Board opened the door for ten days after the deadline of March 1, the Board would be opening the door for other things and creating inequities in the County. He felt the petitioner would have some recourse with the seller of the property.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the Board was going to hear cases today where attorneys, title agents, or realtors may have misadvised a purchaser of the March 1 deadline, but unfortunately it would not be enough for the VAB to overturn the Property Appraiser. If the VAB found someone to be incapable of understanding the rules, because of mental incompetence, it would be grounds to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and testimony that the applicant was incapable of understanding, and because of the mistake that was made between March and April.

PETITION 1996-6 ISMAEL & CARMEN PAGAN

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioners filed late for homestead on March 18, 1996. He noted that the deed was written on January 2, 1996 and recorded on January 8, 1996. In order to get homestead exemption, under Florida law, an individual has to have title to the property, or title and equity, which would be a recordable contract for sale, as of January 1.

Mr. Ismael Pagan, petitioner, addressed the Board and explained that his wife had to go on an emergency leave to Puerto Rico, so he would be explaining the extenuating circumstances for filing late. Mr. Pagan explained the difficulties he and his family faced when moving from Texas on a work promotion and stated that the riots throughout the United States, in some of the Federal institutions, had affected his inability to file, because of his unexpected traveling requirements relating to his job. He further explained that he had been told that he could file for homestead any time in the month of March.

Mr. Havill explained that the petitioner did not have title on the property by January 1, as required by State law.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the request for homestead exemption, based on the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the denial for late filing, because the home was not purchased until January 2, 1996.

PETITION NO. 1996-8 MELBA O. NUZUM

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioners filed late for homestead on May 23, 1996.

Ms. Melba O. Nuzum, petitioner, addressed the Board and explained that she sold her house on December 5, 1995, and bought a condominium the next day. She was told that, when she got her title, she should go to the courthouse and apply for homestead exemption, but it took her five months to get her title.

Mr. Havill explained that there was no problem with the title, and Ms. Nuzum would have gotten homestead, if she had filed on time.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the request for homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-12 MANSOOR ALI DOSANI

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner had been granted homestead last year by mistake, after producing an employment card, instead of an immigration and naturalization card. The Property Appraiser's Office has since requested the immigration and naturalization card, but the petitioner has yet to produce one. Under Florida law, you must be a legal resident, and if you do not have an immigration card, you cannot get homestead exemption, therefore, the Property Appraiser's Office had removed the exemption.

Mr. Mansoor Ali Dosani, petitioner, addressed the Board and explained that he had applied for a green card, but he has yet to receive it from the Immigration and Naturalization Office. The work authorization he had received was a prelude to the green card. Mr. Dosani reviewed the copy of his Employment Authorization and stated that he had a Florida Driver's License, as well as a motor vehicle tag.

Mr. Havill explained that Mr. Dosani has temporary residence until February, 1997, as indicated on his Employment Authorization. He stated that Chapter 196.014 (17) of the Florida Statutes defines a "permanent resident", and he has provided Mr. Dosani with this information.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that the operative word was "permanent", and the applicant was a resident of Florida, but from testimony, he has informed the VAB that he was not a "permanent" resident.

On a motion by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, based on the findings of fact and State law that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of the State of Florida.

PETITION NO. 13 WALTER G. & CONSTANCE D. GUY

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioners filed for total civilian exemption, and under the requirements for total exemption, the petitioners meet two of the requirements, but not the third requirement, which limits the amount of income from all sources for the household. Mr. Havill stated that the income for this year was approximately $17,000-18,000, and noted that the income for this particular household was over $24,000. Because of the income limitation, he was denying the total exemption, but the petitioners did qualify for regular homestead exemption, and a $500 disability exemption.

Mr. and Mrs. Guy appeared before the VAB, with Mr. Guy explaining that last year, his gross income was $21,000, and his daughter had earned approximately $2,000 for her education, which also had to be counted as income. Mr. Guy explained his employment situation over the past couple of years and noted that his income last year was $12,977, with them getting the total exemption last year. Mr. Guy was requesting an amendment, or some adjustment, to have the taxes reduced, because of the tax burden placed on his home, which had been customly designed for his wife's handicap.

Mr. Havill explained that the letter he had received from the Department of Revenue stated that the percentage change for 1995 was 2.8%, therefore, the adjusted income limitation for this type of exemption was $17,819. Mr. Havill stated that the Property Appraiser's Office could go back and look at the value of the home to make sure it had the correct value.

Commr. Hanson made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Chapman, to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation and grant the total exemption, and to ask that the petitioners request the Property Appraiser to come back and look at their house to determine its value.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the VAB was to adopt the findings of fact and conclusion of law as to why the petitioners would be entitled to the exemption, and it would have to be based upon the Statutes or rules.

Commr. Good stated that he could not support the motion, because there was the income exemption, which was exceeded in this case, and the limits were established in the Florida Statutes.

Mr. Havill informed the Board that he had other applications that he turned down, which involved the same situation where the income was over the income limitation.

Commr. Hanson withdrew her motion, and Mr. Chapman withdrew his second to the motion.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, based on the findings of fact and State law that the petitioners were over the income limitations required for total civilian exemption.

PETITION NO. 1996-17 NEENA C. SHROFF

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioners filed late for homestead on April 12, 1996.

Ms. Neena C. Shroff, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that the house that she bought had homestead, and she did not realize she had to apply for it, until she noticed a change in her finances.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-19 MARK CHODOS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioners filed late for homestead on March 19, 1996.

Mr. Mark Chodos, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that he has a newly built home, and he did not have a value on the property. Mr. Chodos did not think that he could file without a value on it, but once he became aware of the process, he filed an application.

Mr. Havill explained the State law pertaining to the assessment notification to be given to taxpayers, which requires all property, that is substantially complete on January 1, to be assessed. He explained that, when an individual gets a final inspection, he knows the home is complete, and he knows he will be getting a tax bill, and then he will come in and file for homestead.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-20 JAMES & MELISSA VALIQUETTE

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioners filed late for homestead on April 15, 1996.

Mr. and Mrs. Valiquette addressed the VAB and stated that they had been misinformed by the realtor, as well as the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, that the date to file for homestead exemption was March 31, 1996.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-24 THOMAS W. PFEIFFER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioners filed late for homestead on March 20, 1996. Mr. Havill explained that the petitioner meets all of the requirements for homestead exemption, but as of January 1, 1996, the property was in the names of Thomas, Frank, and Mary Pfeiffer. He stated that regardless of the 1995 deed, or the 1996 deed, the petitioner filed late.

Mr. Thomas W. Pfeiffer, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that he had attempted to get his parents' names removed from the deed, but he had been unable to do so, because they were co-signers on the mortgage for the house.

Mr. Havill explained that anyone can file before the deadline of March 1 and correct any paper work after-the-fact.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-25 DAVID J. ANTENUCCI

Commr. Cadwell noted, for the record, that a message had been received from Mr. David J. Antenucci, who had been called out of State unexpectedly, and therefore, the case should be rescheduled.

On a motion by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB approved to reschedule the case with the VAB in October, 1996.

PETITION NO. 1996-30 VANESSA T. DOBSON

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on March 29, 1996.

Ms. Vanessa T. Dobson, petitioner, addressed the Board and stated that she had received misinformation on filing for homestead. She received the deed on March 3, 1996 and the title company assured her that she could file any time in the month of March to receive the homestead exemption. Ms. Dobson stated, for the record, that it was truly unfortunate that the layman was penalized for the lack of knowledge of the law, and when he relies on those who should be knowledgeable, and they gave him the information and this was how he proceeded, it was absolutely uncalled for. As a professional she prided herself in giving out correct information and would hold herself accountable, if what she gave out was incorrect, and it cost undue hardship, or pain, for that individual.

Commr. Hanson stated that the County could not regulate the realtors, or title companies, but perhaps television and community notices could be another avenue for the Property Appraiser to get the message out to the people.

Mr. Havill stated that he would like to see the law changed to allow the Property Appraiser and the County, if the person meets all of the qualifications, to be able to put him on the tax roll for homestead rather than missing some deadline. He stated that the Legislature passes the law and perhaps, as constitutional officers, they could get some kind of legislation passed to help those people that would otherwise be eligible for homestead.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Board could place this particular issue on its legislative package for the next year.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-34 STACY & DEBRA BILZ

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on March 27, 1996.

Ms. Debra Bilz, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that she was a first time homeowner and first time buyer of anything in Lake County, and she was not aware of the homestead exemption. She spoke to some friends who told her that she had until the end of March to file, therefore, she was misinformed.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-37 BARBARA HEATH

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on April 23, 1996.

Ms. Barbara Heath, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that she had submitted a letter from her employer. The letter stated that she had been working on a project at Walt Disney World, which required her to cover her own position as a costumer and supervisor, and to also cover the position of the designer who was out of town frequently in Tokyo. She had been working between 60 to 100 hours a week, which lasted all the way through June and continued on, and the first opportunity she had to file was in April.

Mr. Havill stated that the petitioner had bought her house in March, 1995, and she could have pre-filed for the exemption.

Ms. Heath stated that she did not realize that she could pre-file, but she had been locked into her position since October of last year.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-42 KEVIN & CHERYL THOMPSON

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on March 14, 1996.

Mr. Kevin Thompson, petitioner, addressed the Board and stated that this was his first time in Florida, and he had received misinformation regarding the deadline to file for homestead. He had been told that he had until March 31. Mr. Thompson explained his employment situation, and the traveling involved with the position. He stated that there should be some way that the County could get correct information to the public.

On a motion by Mr. Chapman, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-45 NANCY A. DAVITO

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on April 11, 1996.

Ms. Nancy A. Davito, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that she filed late, because she had a difficult pregnancy and was in the hospital for the month of April, which caused a difficult time in the household. She explained that her husband was not aware of the correct date to file.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-46 WILLIAM L. CAMPMAN

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on March 14, 1996.

Mr. William L. Campman, petitioner, addressed the VAB to discuss the possibility of having a requirement for the realtors, or the title agencies, in the County to include something within the package of forms presented to an individual.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION NO. 1996-47 JASON EDWARD BERRY

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on March 26, 1996.

Mr. Jason Edward Berry, petitioner, addressed the Board and stated that he was also a subject of misinformation. The realtor had informed him that he could file in the beginning of 1996, when he received his tax information. Mr. Berry discussed the problem he had with information still being sent to the previous owner in Arkansas.

Mr. Havill explained the process where his office receives copies of deeds from the Clerk's Office, and the process taken by his Office, if an individual reports that his Deed is not on file.

PETITION NO. 1996-52 JOHN & BELINDA HOUSKA

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on April 2, 1996.

Mr. John Houska, petitioner, addressed the Board and stated that he and his wife had been living in an apartment in Apopka for two years. He explained that, when he went to get a loan for their home, it was his understanding the homestead exemption was automatic, and he would receive a millage rate. They moved into their house in November, and he received his regular tax statement. When he inquired about when to file, he was told April 1. Mr. Houska recommended that the Property Appraiser take the name and phone number of everyone who called his office and send them a follow up letter confirming the call and information.

PETITION NO. 1996-59 JANICE LYNN DAVIDSON

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on March 4, 1996.

Ms. Janice Lynn Davidson, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that March 4, 1996 was the first business day (Monday) after the March 1, 1996 (Friday) deadline. She explained that the State laws do allow an individual until the end of the day of March 1 to file, but she pointed out that she had extenuating circumstances on March 1, as to why she could not file. Ms. Davidson stated that a friend informed her that March 1 was the deadline, and she had planned on filing that day. She stated that she was a home health care nurse and was working in Sumter County on that day and had an unexpected emergency situation with her last patient, which required her to stay longer than usual. She presented a letter from her supervisor for the VAB's consideration. Ms. Davidson stated that she did not file before March 1, because of misinformation, but she was planning on filing on March 1.

Mr. Havill stated that he would accept her letter and allow it to be entered as evidence for the VAB to consider.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and sufficient evidence being presented to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION 1996-75-L HERBERT D. VOGLER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on May 30, 1996. He informed the VAB that all of the petitioner's Florida information was dated July, 1996. When he filed, he did not have any proof of Florida residency, as of January 1.

Mr. Herbert D. Vogler, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that he bought his home on November 30, 1995, and he was aware of the deadline for homestead filing. He explained his unexpected call back to St. Louis after Christmas, because of family illness, which detained him from coming back to Florida until May, at which time he filed for homestead. Mr. Vogler explained how he handled his ownership of vehicles and stated that he had a Missouri drivers license.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the homestead exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the recommendation of denial for late filing.

PETITION 1996-76-L CATHERINE MANS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner filed late for homestead on April 8, 1996.

Ms. Catherine Mans, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that she had been subpoenaed for a jury trial in California, due to a family tragedy. She left in March and the trial lasted until June. Ms. Mans stated that this was the first time that she had bought a house, and she did not know about the requirements for filing for homestead.

PETITION NO. 1996-1 MOUNT DORA VETERANS MEMORIAL ASSOC. INC.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner meets the requirements for total exemption, but the petitioner was requesting exemption for the years 1989 through 1995, and according to State law, the Property Appraiser could not go back more than three years, if the request was approved. The petitioner received total exemption prior to 1981 through 1988, but did not receive any further correspondence from the Property Appraiser's Office, or the Tax Collector's Office, because of an incorrect mailing address. Mr. Havill stated that the total exemption has been approved for the current year 1996. He explained that total exemption for charitable organizations had to be renewed annually through 1990, and automatic renewal of those exemptions began in 1991. Mr. Havill stated that he was not contesting the issue, but it was an issue for the VAB, which could be discussed by the attorneys.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney representing Mr. Havill, addressed the VAB and explained that, with respect to this exemption, prior to this year, the failure to file was an automatic bar to the exemption. As of this year, the extenuating circumstances provision that always applied to homestead applies to exemptions, as well. During the years the petitioner missed, the petitioner must have filed, and failure to file was an automatic bar without extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Robert Vason, Attorney representing the petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that he did not feel there was a great deal more of information that he could provide, because the facts and circumstances had been presented. As with any organization, there would be problems with continuity with the change of officers from year to year. There was a post office box in Sorrento to which whatever information that came from the Tax Collector's Office was delivered, and continued for the years 1989 through 1991. Mr. Vason stated that, as soon as this problem came to the petitioner's attention, the policies were changed, and now all of the mail was being delivered to the organization's address on South Highland Street. Today he and his client were here at the mercy of the VAB. Mr. Vason noted that Commander Joseph Williams and the Finance Officer, Ed Fadie, were present to answer any questions of the Board.

Mr. Havill explained that there was a State law that says the Property Appraiser cannot go back more than three years to correct the tax bill, and he had no authority to go back, since the petitioner was to file an application.

Commr. Cadwell stated that any action taken by the VAB would be subject to appeal by the Property Appraiser.

Mr. Havill stated that he could file a lawsuit against the VAB, but in a case like this one, he would not do so, if he was overruled. The question was whether anything could be done, because the tax certificates had been sold for those years, and the three years did not apply when tax certificates had been sold.

Mr. Vason discussed reaching some type of settlement with the Property Appraiser's Office, pursuant to which the accrued interest, penalties, and advertising costs got paid.

Mr. Havill explained that those costs were incurred through the Tax Collector's Office.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that he did not feel that this Board had the authority to take action on the request being made by the petitioner. The County litigated this same type of issue two or three years ago on another case, and the District Court of Appeals indicated that 60 days after the tax roll was certified, the roll was closed. Mr. Minkoff stated that he did not feel this Board had any authority to go back to anything other than the 1996 year. This was not to say there may not be some provision where the Property Appraiser could do a correction, but it was nothing that this Board could do.

Mr. Havill stated that the problem with the correction, besides the tax certificates that had been sold, was that they would not be corrected between the Tax Collector's Office and the Property Appraiser's Office. The Department of Revenue would have to approve any corrections going back as far as three years. Mr. Havill stated that he would not have any problem putting in a correction for the last three years, but if the Department of Revenue turned it down, he would not be able to do anything about it, if he could even legally do it.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he wanted the VAB to take whatever action it could to give the petitioner some relief, even if it had to be decided at some point, if the VAB took an affirmative action, to move it forward to the Department of Revenue, or other appropriate division.

Ms. Stewart agreed with Mr. Minkoff that the VAB did not have the discretion to act in this case. The correction referred to by Mr. Havill would be a ministerial correction when he has made an error of fact, or clerical error, and he can correct the error, but he would need the approval of the Department of Revenue to do so. Ms. Stewart stated that, if this Board was to act in that manner, Mr. Havill's only action would be to put through Certificates of Correction, and she could assure that, under the circumstances, the Department of Revenue would turn him down. She explained that this issue should not be before the VAB, because the VAB was constituted to act on changes and actions that occurred in 1996, either for that year, or a change that was made during that year.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the VAB could take the position that it would like to recommend that the Property Appraiser make a correction, but he did not think that it would be appropriate for the VAB to attempt to take action to say that prior year tax rolls could be affected.

Mr. Havill stated that he would not have any objection to offering some assistance, but if the Board wanted to direct him to send a correction to the Department of Revenue, for the last three years, since that was the Statute of Limitations in the State of Florida, he would do so, but it would then be in the hands of the Department of Revenue. He stated that, if it was the consensus of the Board, he would take this direction.

It was noted that it was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Havill send the necessary correction to the Department of Revenue for the last three years.

PETITION NO. 1996-10 EUSTIS ELKS LODGE #1578

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner was denied the exemption, because they have an agreement with a private contractor to run the restaurant.

Mr. Mike Croak, Attorney representing the petitioner, addressed the Board and stated that a letter had been presented to the Board, which gave information regarding the lodge and its activities. Mr. Croak presented the history of the Eustis Elks Lodge and stated that, for a number of years, it has operated its dining room through the use of a licensed agreement, which came from the National organization. The new facility was built, and the organization carried over this method of operation, and there was nothing different about the operation of the lodge, except for the location of the facility. The lodge was a non-profit organization, and it was exempt from federal income tax. He noted that there was a budget, which was attached to the letter, which showed the 1995/96 and 1996/97 charitable activities of the lodge. Mr. Croak stated that the Treasurer of the Elks Club and members of the Board of Trustees were present to answer questions of the VAB.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he was a member of this particular Elks Lodge, but he did not have a conflict, because there would be no personal gain, and he intended on voting.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the charitable exemption, due to findings of fact and sufficient evidence and testimony being presented.

At this time, Commr. Cadwell called all scheduled cases who had failed to appear at the designated times. All no show cases were noted by the Recording Clerk.

PETITION NO. 1996-43 CHURCH OF GOD STATE OFFICE YOUTH & RETREAT CENTER

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, addressed the VAB and stated that his office had not received all of the necessary documentation to review the petition, and therefore, he had denied the request. He stated that his attorney had been discussing the case with the petitioner's attorney and had a recommendation for the Board.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney representing Mr. Havill, addressed the VAB and stated that the Property Appraiser was inclined to suggest that, on the basis of the documents that had been provided to them over the past week or two; the affidavit presented today that stated the Church had adopted a policy that the property would only be used for religious activities and church activities; the policy being ratified by the State Council of the Church; and after looking at the use for 1995, which was essentially for all church groups who worshiped on the property, it would have no problem approving the request.

Mr. Havill stated that the Property Appraiser's Office would withdraw the above named petition and grant the exemption.

PETITION NO. 1996-60 LITTLE LAKE HARRIS REC. CLUB INC.

Ms. Jordan Stewart, Attorney representing Mr. Ed Havill, addressed the VAB and stated that the request was denied, because the petitioner was not eligible for exemption under Florida Statutes Chapter 196.012(7), even though it was a non-profit organization, because the use was purely recreational.

Mr. Jesse Chandler, President of Little Lake Harris Recreation Club, Inc., addressed the VAB and read a prepared statement regarding the structure and use of the organization. He stated that there were 75 members of the association, who were all residents of East Lake Harris Estates. Mr. Chandler explained that the club provided recreation and companionship for its members approximately 12 times per month. He discussed the history of the building noting that it was purchased in 1979 by the club for $30,000, and aluminum siding was added for approximately $5,000. Mr. Chandler stated that it was communal property that was owned by the citizens of East Lake Harris Estates and was not subject to ad valorem taxes. He explained the definition of ad valorem taxes and stated that, being a non-profit corporation, the property could not be sold, therefore, there could be no value to it.

PROPERTY APPRAISER

At 11:14 a.m., it was noted that the Property Appraiser excused himself from the meeting.

PETITION NO. 1996-60 LITTLE LAKE HARRIS REC. CLUB INC.

(CONTINUED)

Mr. Chandler explained that it takes all of the dues of the Club to pay the taxes and insurance, and to maintain the facility. In comparison, the County does not charge the City of Tavares for its City Hall, Recreation Building, or Library. Mr. Chandler stated that no fair value could be placed on the property, therefore, the assessed valuation should be zero, or at the most, $1,000 to reimburse the County for sending out tax bills, etc. No compensation was being paid to the officers of the club, or any of its members. He stated that, being a former Property Assessor himself, he was familiar with two similar cases in Michigan, with both using the same argument. The Michigan State Tax Tribunal ruled in their favor, and both were appealed to the Michigan State Court of Appeals, and the Court upheld the findings of the Tax Tribunal by saying that no value could be placed on communal property. Mr. Chandler stated that he was aware that the Property Assessor had no authority to give the petitioner the exemption, and therefore, he was before the VAB who could vote in the petitioner's favor.

Commr. Hanson stated that one of the problems would be that the Recreation Club was not available to the public to rent.

Ms. Jordan stated that it would make no difference, in terms of the exemption, whether it could be rented to the public. She suggested that, after hearing the presentation, many of the arguments had to do with the evaluation of the property, and not with whether or not a charitable exemption would apply. It was clear that there could be no exemption; however, once the organization received its tax bill, it could file a petition as to the value of the property, based on some of the arguments that had been made.

Commr. Hanson suggested that the petitioner look at its policy on the issue of being open to the public, because this was one of the criteria for non-profit.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, once the notices were mailed in August, there would be a separate right to come back before the VAB in October to contest valuation questions.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that there were no other comparables for this use.

Ms. Stewart explained that the only way a recreational use would meet the criteria was not by virtue of the fact that it was a recreational use, but if the use was owned by a city, or a sovereign entity by the County, and then they would get the exemption by virtue of the ownership alone.

Discussion occurred regarding a 501-C-3 tax exemption for public charities, if an organization could meet the criteria in the Florida Statutes.

Commr. Hanson suggested that the petitioner consider the 501-C-3 tax exemption, and come back to the VAB later in the year with a petition appealing the valuation of the property.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the charitable exemption, due to findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence being presented.

PETITION NO. 1996-67 - SOUTH 14TH STREET CHURCH OF CHRIST

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, informed the Board that he had reviewed photographs and information from the petitioner, and the Property Appraiser's Office was willing to withdraw the petition and grant the exemption to the South 14th Street Church of Christ.

COMMISSIONERS/COUNTY ATTORNEY/PROPERTY APPRAISER

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, suggested that the VAB wait to act on the cases where no one appeared, until the end of the afternoon.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:25 a.m., it was noted that the VAB would recess until 2 p.m.

AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS

At 2 p.m., the VAB reconvened to hear the agricultural exemption petitions that had been filed.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, explained that the VAB would be considering two types of cases this afternoon. Some would be cases that had been filed late, after the March 1 deadline. This year, for the first time, if there were extenuating circumstances, the VAB could hear the petition, and if they were entitled to the exemption, it would be approved. The second type would be whether or not a bona fide operation was being conducted on the property, and if the VAB overturned the Property Appraiser's presumption of correctness, the VAB members would have to state specific findings of fact to put into the record to show what the decision was based on.

PETITION NO. 1996-3 RENATA BEESE

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that he would be reviewing the agricultural cases with the members of the VAB.

Mr. Ross stated that Ms. Beese had the agricultural exemption, but she forgot to file her green renewal cards. If she had filed on time, the classification would have been granted. He had no objection to granting the exemption.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the agricultural exemption, based on the findings of fact and sufficient evidence being presented.

PETITION NO. 1996-11 ROBERT F. EVANS, JR.

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, stated that the petitioner had filed for an agricultural classification on a hayfield. He reviewed an aerial of the property in question, which showed the location of it, and stated that he had inspected the property and found phlox and some weeds. Mr. Ross stated that he took pictures, which he presented to the VAB for consideration, that showed this particular area of the property being re-worked. He stated that, in 1994, Mr. Evans sent the Property Appraiser's Office a note that stated he was in the process of selling some of the lots. The property had been subdivided into 15 lots and five lots had been sold. The Property Appraiser's Office flagged the property, so that it could be inspected, to determine whether it still qualified for the classification. Mr. Evans presented a copy of an Affidavit from Mr. Charlie Bateman, who was in the hay business, and Mr. Ross stated that he had no problem with it being presented to the VAB. Mr. Ross stated that the petitioner did file on time for the classification, and he would not have a problem possibly granting the area that had been bailed yesterday, but there might be a problem with the area that had just been re-worked.

Mr. Robert F. Evans, Jr., petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that he and his wife had acquired the parcel of property in 1991. Mr. Evans stated that the testimony would show that Mr. Bateman had cultivated, fertilized, tended to harvest it, raked, bailed and commercially sold hay for approximately 30 years on this entire parcel, including the corner piece. He stated that testimony would show that phlox flowers were sowed on this property more than 30 years ago, and they continue to come up once or twice a year. He stated that the testimony would also show that he and Mr. Bateman harvested the hay, as well as some of the phlox flowers, and Mr. Bateman had never encountered a problem with a cow becoming ill, or someone refusing to buy his bailed hay. Mr. Evans presented pictures showing the harvesting procedure, which were taken Sunday afternoon (the southeast corner with the phlox flowers); and pictures of fields surrounding this particular field.

Mr. Ross stated that the Property Appraiser's Office had no problem with the particular area being described by Mr. Evans, and being shown in the photographs (the southeast corner).

Mr. Evans explained that these particular photographs showed the general character of the property in question, but he would withdraw them.

Mr. Ross explained that there was a possible problem with the section harvested for hay in the southwest field.

Mr. Charlie Bateman addressed the VAB and testified that he had planted on this particular piece of property being described by Mr. Ross, but it had not been planted this year. He stated that he had cultivated it approximately a month ago.

Mr. Evans presented photographs that showed his cultivation equipment, which was used by Mr. Bateman at appropriate times of the year. He had previously presented the Property Appraiser's Office with a Lease and an Affidavit for consideration. Mr. Evans asked Mr. Bateman several questions, in regards to these documents.

Mr. Bateman testified that he had operated, cultivated and grown crops on the property in question for approximately 15 to 20 years. He further testified that he had leases with the individuals shown in the exhibit. Mr. Bateman testified that the southeastern field had phlox flowers on it at one time, and he was never declined the sale of any of his hay, because it had phlox flowers mixed in with it. He discussed the number of crops a year that he would get from the southeastern field; the characterization of the hay; and equipment on the field, which was used for cultivation.

It was noted that the following documents were entered and marked as exhibits for the petitioner, as follows: Affidavit - Exhibit 1; Agreement of Lease (July 23, 1993) - Exhibit 2; Agreement to Lease (October 1, 1992) - Exhibit 3; Lease Agreement Number Two (September 1, 1990) - Exhibit 4; and Lease Agreement (February 23, 1988) - Exhibit 5.

Mr. Bateman continued his testimony by stating that he did not plant the field (approximately 22 acres) in question this year, but he did cultivate it. He testified that he would probably plant the southwestern field next year, but he could not promise that he would do so, and there had never been an occasion where he held out a particular field for one reason or another. He could not say that this was a hayfield right now, but he would cultivate the weeds, and the fact that he was allowing it to lay fallow this year did not indicate that he had no interest, or intent, to use that field in the future, for something of an agricultural nature.

Discussion occurred regarding the total number of acres, with the Property Appraiser's Office noting 80 acres. The exemption would be granted on approximately 60 acres.

Mr. Evans stated that the question was whether the 20 plus acre field was out of cultivation, as contemplated by the Florida Statutes. If it was abandoned, he should not have agricultural exemption on that 20 acres, but if there had been no testimony

that the field was permanently out of cultivation, he was entitled to ask the panel to rely on the testimony of Mr. Bateman, which was clearly that Mr. Bateman intended to do something agricultural with it next year, and therefore, the agricultural exemption should apply to the entire parcel.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that, under Florida law, he had to look at property on January 1 each year, to determine whether it qualified for an agricultural classification, which acts like an exemption. In this case, the testimony was that this property, which was being discussed, was not being used on January 1 of this year for agriculture.

Mr. Evans stated that the property was zoned agricultural, and he had obtained the property through an arms length trade for a parcel he owned near Groveland.

Mr. Evans addressed the question asked earlier by Commr. Cadwell regarding watermelon fields, in comparison to the property being discussed today, and stated that he felt a vague answer had been given by staff, and therefore, he suggested that the policy had been, and should continue to be, that, if a piece of property was under cultivation, even though it did not have a crop on it this year, it should be considered for this purpose as being under cultivation.

Mr. Ross explained that the Property Appraiser's Office had wanted to get additional information from the petitioner, and upon reinspection of the property, and the Affidavit and information received from Mr. Evans, it felt the phlox field would qualify. The only part that would not qualify would be the area that had been re-worked just recently.

Commr. Hanson stated that the analogy of the watermelon field did not quite apply, and she disagreed with such, watermelon fields were rotated every few years, but not hayfields. She stated that the low land probably was not good for hay.

Mr. Havill stated that, based on the testimony, he had no problem with 60 acres getting green belt, and the other 20 acres, after it is put into a commercial agricultural use, as of January 1 of some given year in the future, getting green belt, after the petitioner files an application for green belt.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the agricultural exemption on approximately 60 acres, based on the findings of fact and sufficient evidence and testimony being presented.

PETITION NO. 1996-18 BERNARD CZARNEY

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that the application was filed late on May 31, 1996. The Property Appraiser's Office inspected the property and found a working greenhouse, but would not be able to grant the classification on the full 6.34 acres. It would allow the classification on approximately two acres.

Mr. Bernard Czarney, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that most of the property had trees on it. He bought the property three years ago, May, 1993, and he was slowly developing it. He just found out about the exemption, which he did not know existed, and therefore, he filed late.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural classification, based on the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence being presented.

PETITION NO. 1996-23 CHARLIE H. & CLEO LANEY, JR.

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that the application was filed for a horse farm, but it was late. He stated that the pastures were being used, and the Property Appraiser's Office had requested an income and expense statement for boarding and training from Mrs. Laney, but it was never received.

Mr. Charlie H. Laney, Jr., petitioner, addressed the VAB and explained how he managed to file his green cards late. He explained that he has had the agricultural exemption for 12 years.

Mr. Ross stated that the property was inspected and additional information was requested, in order to determine the use of the property, but he never received the additional financial information.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that, based on what the VAB did last year with a case where the Property Appraiser's Office did not get financial information, he recommended that the VAB approve the request. He did not want to be inconsistent with different taxpayers in the County.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the agricultural classification, based on the findings of fact and sufficient evidence being presented.

PETITION NO. 1996-27 PAMELA S. WATSON

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that Ms. Watson had provided pictures of the property for consideration. Mr. Ross stated that an application was made on February 13, 1996, for a pasture, but the petitioner was about a year ahead of time.

Ms. Pamela S. Watson, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that she had planted rye and bahia, and the fence should be completed by Saturday. She stated that there were approximately seven acres, and there would soon be cows on the property.

Mr. Ross stated that Ms. Watson had provided pictures of surrounding property and was trying to have a bona fide use, but as of January 1, he could not say it was a bona fide, and to grant the classification.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural exemption, based on the findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence being presented.

PETITION NO. 1996-29 MARY D. HOLBROOK

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that the petitioner had filed for an agricultural classification on approximately 3 1/2 acres of hay and 3 1/2 acres of timberland (Christmas trees). Mr. Ross discussed an aerial of the property, which showed the location on Highway 42. He stated that the trees were in place, but the majority of them were 15-20 feet high, which would make it difficult to cut for Christmas trees. Mr. Ross showed pictures of the property and stated that he had requested expenses, with a total sheet being presented, which indicated an amount of $1,099.45, with Christmas tree sales of $50. He discussed the dog-ear fence that had been purchased for approximately $500, which was on the side of the house, and which was more of a privacy fence. He discussed the other listed expenses and stated that the trees were extraordinarily big for Christmas tree sales, and there had only been one bag of fertilizer listed on the expense sheet.

Ms. Mary D. Holbrook, petitioner, addressed the VAB and explained that she had put over 100 bags of fertilizer on the property and trees, but she did not keep the receipts for them. She had pictures of the trees, which she presented for consideration, and she stated that she had 4,700 Christmas trees, with part of them being cedar trees, and they were approximately 1 1/2 feet to the 18 feet tops. The pictures showed the baby trees, which were between the big trees. Ms. Holbrook stated that the larger trees would be cut and used for fence posts around the hayfield (3 1/2 acres), because she planned on purchasing cattle. She explained that, when she bought the homestead, the trees were currently on the property.

Mr. Ross stated that the petitioner cut trees last year and had intentions of cutting the first crop of hay in the next few weeks. The Property Appraiser's Office did not feel it was commercial agricultural activity. Mr. Ross stated that it would be helpful, if the petitioner could supply him with the receipts for the 100 bags of fertilizer.

Ms. Holbrook stated that she consulted with other Christmas tree growers, who told her the trees were not too big to cultivate this year.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the agricultural classification, based on the findings of fact and sufficient evidence and testimony being presented, with the understanding that the trees would be used; the information would have to be supplied to the Property Appraiser; the grass was there for hay; and receipts would be needed for the fertilizer.

PETITION NO. 1996-32 HARJIT K. CHAHAL

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Deputy, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and explained that the application was filed late on April 10, 1996. The property was purchased in 1988, and there had been cows on the property since that time, but unfortunately it was not until this year that the petitioner found out who owned the cattle. She now has a lease that was signed in July, 1996, with Owen (Sonny) Connor, for $10 per year to run his cows on the property.

Mr. Ed Havill explained that the lease should be $10 per acre, and $10 per year would not be economic grounds for a lease on property.

Ms. Harjit K. Chahal, petitioner, explained that the lease was $10 per acre per year, and there were 14.89 acres.

Mr. Royce stated that the property has never had an agricultural exemption, and the lease did not designate per acre.

Ms. Chahal addressed the issue of filing late by stating that she was not aware of the exemption. She had owned the property since November, 1988, and there had been cattle on the property since that time. The property had been owned jointly by her and her husband, but she had since become the sole owner of the property. She was not aware of her husband's dealings with anyone.

Ms. Chahal stated that Sonny Connor had been taking care of the property, and he had been erecting fences for the cattle, and had been responsible for the mowing and fertilizing the property. She felt that, because he took care of it, it was worth the amount on the lease, if she could get her agricultural exemption. She stated that, since she became the sole owner of the property and found out about the exemption, she came in and filed.

Commr. Good stated that this was a late filing in April, and he did not see any extenuating circumstances for filing late.

Ms. Chahal stated that the extenutating circumstances included a divorce from her husband, which had taken a toll on her.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Ms. Pearson, for the VAB to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny the agricultural classification, based on findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence being presented.

Under discussion, Commr. Hanson stated that her other concern was not having all of the information for the bona fide agriculture by the first of the year. She felt that Ms. Chahal should certainly look at the lease for next year, so that it was a fair lease.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

PETITION NO. 1996-35 EMMETT B. STEPHENS

PETITION NO. 1996-36 EMMETT B. STEPHENS

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that the petitioner filed late for agricultural classification for pines on March 29, 1996. Mr. Ross reviewed an aerial of the property and stated that he had inspected the property, and it was denied, because of the tree count. The agricultural classification form stated that the trees had been planted in March, 1996. The Property Appraiser's Office had requested that the petitioner meet with the County Forester, Mr. Chris Otremba, and Mr. Otremba had forwarded a letter to him stating that he surveyed 1/20 acre plots and found 420 trees per acre surviving.

Mr. Emmett B. Stephens addressed the VAB to discuss his extenuating circumstances for filing late. He had contacted the Forestry Division the first part of the year about pine trees. Mr. Stephens stated that he had contacted the Forestry Division two months earlier, but Mr. Otremba could not come to the property to begin the paper work until February 27, 1996. He stated that 5,000 trees were planted, and the survival was 420 trees per acre. Because of changes that were being in personnel at the Forestry Division, he was late getting the trees planted.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural classification, based on findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence being presented.

PETITION NO. 1996-39 BETTY F. BEARD

PETITION NO. 1996-40 BETTY F. BEARD

PETITION NO. 1996-41 BETTY F. BEARD, ET AL, TRUSTEES

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that the petitioner filed on time for the agricultural classification for pine trees.

Mr. Larry Beard, representing the petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that he got a tree count on the property, which showed 100 trees per acre. He further stated that he had been approved to replant this year in November.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, addressed the VAB and stated that, up until last year, the survival rate was 400 trees per acre. This year the survival rate was 300 trees per acre.

Mr. Beard stated that he had checked in January and February for trees, but there were no trees available; there was no funding available; and changes were being made at the Forestry Division. He had already been approved for next year and noted that he had originally planted in February, 1994.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the agricultural classification, based on findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence being presented.

PETITION NO. 1996-49 LAMAGRI, INC.

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated the petitioner filed for the agricultural classification on January 4, 1996 for 39 acres of citrus. Upon inspection of the property, the Property Appraiser's Office found 12 rows of ruby reds. He discussed the condition of the property and stated that the property to the south (30 acres) had no citrus grove on it, and it had not had very good caretaking.

Mr. Carter Moore, representing the petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that the owner of the property lived in France. Her husband had died, and the widow inherited the property. She contacted him to see what could be done with the property, but at that point, it was a disaster. The lower part of the grove was planted, and he had an appraisal that had been done in October, 1995, which showed that it had been an active grove, and it had been maintained as such, until the freeze, which was after January 1, 1996. He stated that there was a full grove under cultivation, as of January 1 of this year. The owner was not planning on putting back the fruit that was killed, but there was still a crop. Mr. Carter presented a copy of the contract for the fruit, with Mr. Havill noting that his office had a copy of the document. He stated that, during the whole time that the grove was being operated by some overseer, they never filed for an agricultural exemption. It was now being maintained by someone in Leesburg.

Mr. Ross stated that, if there had been caretaking on the 12 acres, he would take into consideration allowing the exemption on those acres, but at the time it was inspected, after they filed the petition with the VAB, and it was reinspected, the property looked just the same as when the classification was denied.

Mr. Moore stated that the harvesting of the ruby reds was completed in May, 1996.

PETITION NO. 1996-53 SHERRY & RALPH BOAS

PETITION NO. 1996-54 SHERRY & RALPH BOAS

PETITION NO. 1996-55 SHERRY & RALPH BOAS

PETITION NO. 1996-56 SHERRY & RALPH BOAS

PETITION NO. 1996-57 SHERRY & RALPH BOAS

Commr. Good disclosed that he had been received a call from Mr. Ralph Boas, and he had informed Mr. Boas that he could not discuss the issue, because it would be coming before the VAB.

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that the petitioners had previously filed for the agricultural classification, and they had a green card renewal. They had originally applied for a hayfield, and the Property Appraiser's Office had been back to the property and decided that the hayfield would not qualify for an agricultural classification. Mr. Ross stated that he and Mr. Chuck Hasley from the Property Appraiser's Office inspected the property last Friday with Mr. Boas, and he took some pictures for the Board's consideration. He noted that Mr. Boas has planted persimmons on the property, and some bamboo, but they determined that the only area that could be granted for the exemption would be the area with the bamboo. Mr. Ross stated that the hayfield was not a bona fide commercial area. He noted that there was a total of 52 acres including wetlands.

Ms. Sherry Boas, petitioner, addressed the VAB and stated that she and her husband had 52 acres, with approximately 30 acres of lake and swamp; three acres with houses on them; and 19 acres that had been used for the past three years for agricultural purposes. They have been bailing and selling hay off of the hayfields, and Mrs. Boas had a list of customers that had been buying from them for the past three years. She stated that it was not quality hay, but they had never intended for it to be. It was really hay for mulch and cattle feed, and they use the mulch for their plants. They have 100 persimmons; 300 blueberries; 44 fig trees; and 23 varieties of bamboos. She stated that they were trying to create an organically grown you-pick type of arrangement for the blueberries, persimmons and figs, and the bamboos would be used for a variety of purposes.

Mr. Ross stated that there were two acres that would qualify as a viable agricultural operation. He stated that the petitioners had supplied him with information on the bamboo, and it could very well be a viable product on the property, and he had no problem with the bamboo being there, but even though the petitioners were working on the property, he could only allow two acres at this time.

Mr. and Mrs. Boas had with them their last two years tax returns, and the list of customers who have been buying their hay.

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, reviewed the list of customers that have bought hay and stated that he was still not convinced that there was a commercial agricultural operation with the hayfield.

Mr. Ross stated that the Property Appraiser's Office could expand the acreage to five, but the main problem he saw, from looking at the aerial, was the recently planted bamboo in rows that were approximately 50 feet apart, and therefore, he could not grant the classification for the property in between the bamboo.

Mr. Havill stated that he would consider approving four to five acres depending on what it looked like after he got back to his office, and he felt they were pushing it at that amount.

Mr. and Mrs. Boas referred to the aerial and discussed the location of the bamboo.

Commr. Good stated that he had not seen the evidence on the hayfield, although the hay may be used as mulch for the crops. He did not have a problem with the planted acres, which appeared to be about five, by the testimony of the Appraiser's Office, and would certainly support that much exemption on this property. He stated that next year, as the crops were planted, he would certainly look at reviewing the additional acreage.

On a motion by Commr. Good, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the agricultural classification on five acres, as suggested by the Property Appraiser's Office, based on the findings of fact and sufficient evidence and testimony being presented.

PETITION NO. 1996-44 BLUE SINK GROVES, INC.

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that he had sent an original denial out on the orange grove. He was informed by the petitioner that the perennial peanut had been planted on the property. Mr. Ross stated that the property was inspected, and he would have no problem with the VAB approving the classification.

It was noted that Mr. David Cauthen was present and made available for review copies of bills pertaining to the planting of the peanuts.

On a motion by Commr Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the agricultural classification, based on the findings of fact and sufficient evidence being presented.

PETITION NO. 1996-61 - ALAN JOEL MENAHEM

PETITION NO. 1996-62 - ALAN JOEL MENAHEM

Commr. Cadwell noted for the record that a note had been received from Mr. Alan Joel Menahem, petitioner, which stated that he had been scheduled for back surgery at this time.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Commr. Good and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to postpone Petition No. 1996-61 and Petition No. 1996-62, until October, 1996.

PETITION 1996-64 T. ANDREW & CAROL H. PUGHE

PETITION 1996-65 RICHARD AND NANCY BROWN

PETITION 1996-66 T. ANDREW & CAROLYN J. PUGHE

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioners had filed late for the agricultural exemption on March 21, 1996. He stated that he had no problem granting the agriculture except they were new applications, and they were turned down, because it was after the March 1 deadline.

Mr. Andrew Pughe addressed the Board and requested that the three petitions be considered at the same time. He explained that, because of some difficulty they had in subdividing the property, they filed late on the property.

Commr. Cadwell explained that he had not discussed the petition for the agricultural exemption with the petitioner, but he was aware of some of the difficulties Mr. Pughe had experienced with the subdividing of the property.

Mr. Havill stated that, as Property Appraiser, he had no problem with the agricultural classification on the property, but the filing was late, and it would be the decision of the VAB.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Mr. Chapman and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the Property Appraiser and approved the agricultural classification on the property, based on the Property Appraiser having no problem with the agricultural classification on the property.

PETITION NO. 1996-77-L DIANE PEDRAZA

PETITION NO. 1996-78-L DIANE PEDRAZA

Mr. Robert A. Ross, Director of Tangible Personal Properties/Ag Operations, Property Appraiser's Office, addressed the VAB and stated that the petitioner had filed late for the agricultural classification on July 31, 1996. He stated that a reminder notice had been sent to the petitioner that the property had been transferred in December, and to make sure that she filed for the classification. Mr. Ross stated that a tragedy had occurred, and she had not realized that the time had lapsed for the filing. He noted that the property had been inspected yesterday afternoon, and the VAB needed to decide whether it was going to hear the extenuating circumstances for the late filing.

The Board requested that the petitioner present the extenuating circumstances for filing late.

Mr. Pedraza addressed the VAB and stated that their son had been killed in an accident.

Mr. Ross stated that the property was planted with pines, and it appeared it would meet the 420 tree per acre criteria. He did not have a tree count, but he felt, from what he had seen from the work of Mr. Chris Otremba, County Forester, it would qualify on the tree count.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the VAB overturned the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the agricultural classification, based on the findings of fact and sufficient evidence being presented.

On a motion by Commr. Hanson, seconded by Ms. Pearson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the following cases where no one appeared:

Petition 1996-7 Timothy & Deborah Robinson

Petition 1996-14 Edward C. & Jody B. Frank

Petition 1996-21 John T. Vinzant

Petition 1996-22 Bruce R. Bradley

Petition 1996-26 Jennifer R. Clement

Petition 1996-28 Jo Mac Innes & Richard Mac Innes

Petition 1996-31 Mark K. & Jodie J. Spears

Petition 1996-33 Doris M. Warren

Petition 1996-38 Randolph & Evlynn Waterhouse

Petition 1996-58 Jewel E. Dake

Petition 1996-71-L Cheryl Dollar

Petition 1996-72-L James H. Powell, III.

Petition 1996-74-L Russell C. Cooley

Petition 1996-16 Deeper Life Soul Winners Church

Petition 1996-48 David M. Brown

Petition 1996-68 A. P. Peterson

Petition 1996-69 A. P. Peterson

Petition 1996-70 A. P. Peterson

It was noted that the following petitions were postponed until October, 1996, when the VAB would meet again:

Petition 1996-25 David J. Antenucci

Petition 1996-61 Alan Joel Menahem

Petition 1996-62 Alan Joel Menahem

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the VAB, the meeting was adjourned at 4 p.m.

WELTON G. CADWELL, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\BOARDMIN\8-1-96\8-13-96