LAKE COUNTY VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING

SEPTEMBER 29, 1997

The Lake County Value Adjustment Board met in regular session on Monday, September 29, 1997, 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: William "Bill" H. Good, Chairman; Richard Swartz, Vice Chairman (arrived at 9:35 a.m.); and Rhonda H. Gerber. School Board members present were: Jimmy Conner; and Kyleen Fischer (arrived at 9:08 a.m.). Others present were Sanford "Sandy" Minkoff, County Attorney; Valerie Fuchs, Assistant County Attorney; Ed Havill, Property Appraiser; Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser; Robbie Ross, Director, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Value Adjustment Board (VAB) that the hearings at this time were assessment of value cases, and homestead exemptions and agricultural classifications which were filed late or that the Property Appraiser has recommended that the application be denied based on substantive grounds.

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

Commr. Good presented a request from Cable Development Corporation for a continuance of Petition No. 1997-92 from October 2, 1997 to a hearing date on October 14, 29, 30, or 31, 1997 due to the religious holidays; a request from Harbor Hills Country Club, Petition No. 1997-200, and Pine Meadows Country Club, Petition No. 1997-201 and Petition No. 1997-202, for a continuance from October 3, 1997 for a future hearing date to allow a minimum of two weeks to prepare for the cases; and a request from Leisure Communities, Inc. (Pennbrooke), Petition No. 1997-74 through Petition No. 1997-78, for a continuance from October 2, 1997.

Discussion occurred regarding an appropriate meeting date, at which time it was the decision of the VAB to postpone these requests until the afternoon session to allow time for the VAB to review their calendars. Mr. Conner noted that the School Board members would be in Tallahassee during the last week in October.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the VAB that he has received applications from one Appraiser and three attorneys who would like to serve as Special Master which would be another alternative for the above noted cases.

PETITION NO. 1997-51L EDITH M. NOFFSINGER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, informed the VAB that Ms. Edith M. Noffsinger has submitted a letter indicating that she was ill and would not attend the hearing this date.

PETITION NO. 1997-52L EDWARD & HELEN KEEY

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioners, Edward and Helen Keey, filed the application for homestead exemption on August 28, 1997, after the March 3, 1997 deadline. He noted that Mr. and Mrs. Keey would have qualified for homestead exemption had they filed by the deadline.

Mr. and Mrs. Edward Keey appeared before the VAB, and Mr. Keey explained that they purchased their home in April 1996, however, did not move into the home until October 1996. He stated that they paid taxes and had homestead exemption on the property in the previous owners name in 1996 and that they were not aware that they were required to apply for homestead exemption for 1997.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the request for homestead exemption for Edward and Helen Keey, Petition No. 1997-52L, based on findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation of denial.

Commr. Swartz was not present for the discussion or vote.

It was noted that the applicants would receive homestead exemption for 1998.

PETITION NO. 1997-77L MARK WEST SAUNDERS

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner, Mark West Saunders, informed the South Lake Property Appraiser's Office on September 16, 1997 that he had previously filed an application for homestead exemption; however, Mr. Saunders did not have the yellow copy of the application. He explained that the Property Appraiser's Office also does not have the original application on file for homestead exemption. He stated that it was his recommendation to deny this request.

Mr. Mark West Saunders appeared before the VAB and explained that he filed an application for homestead exemption and that it was his contention that the Property Appraiser's Office has misplaced said application. He distributed documentation indicating his previous history of receiving homestead exemption on his previous property, and briefly discussed same. He noted that the first indication that he did not have homestead exemption was at the time that he received the Trim Notice.

On a motion by Commr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 4 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied the request for homestead exemption for Mark West Saunders, Petition No. 1997-77L, based on findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation of denial.

Commr. Swarz was not present for the discussion or vote.

Mr. Havill noted that Mr. Saunders would receive homestead exemption for 1998.

PETITION NO. 1997-35 CHARLES SUNDERMAN/SUNDERMAN GROVES, INC.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Director, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations, informed the VAB that the petitioner, Charles Sunderman/Sunderman Groves, Inc., did not qualify as a bona fide commercial agriculture use and that the agricultural classification has been removed. He noted that the VAB had postponed this appeal from the August 7, 1997 VAB meeting.

Mr. Jimmy Conners noted, for the record, that he had been present for the majority of the hearing on August 7, 1997, however, had to leave the meeting due to a school situation that he had to address.

Mr. Jimmy Crawford, Attorney, representing Charles Sunderman/Sunderman Groves, Inc., appeared before the VAB and explained that this appeal was a continuation from the August 7, 1997 VAB meeting and noted that the Property Appraiser's Office has reviewed each of the eight parcels. He stated that he would be presenting each parcel separately and would show which parcels should be granted an agricultural classification.

Mr. Crawford presented an aerial map of Parcel No. 1103045 and stated that Mr. Sunderman was not requesting an agricultural classification on said parcel. He explained that this property was originally 13.5 acres and has been reassessed as vacant land except for the swamp. He stated that 2.2 acres were in road right-of-way of which most were Groveland Farms easements and that Mr. Sunderman was requesting that he be allowed to pay taxes on said easements. He presented an aerial map of Parcel No. 1061849 and stated that Mr. Sunderman was not requesting an agricultural classification on said parcel. He presented an aerial map of Parcel No. 1061831 and noted that said parcel was located behind the Sunderman's home, and was 32 acres of low grade pasture, 4 acres of road crop, 127 acres of low grade timber, and 172 acres of swamp. He stated that the Property Appraiser has removed the agricultural classification on the 127 acres of low grade timber and has assessed the 127 acres as vacant land. He displayed on the monitor photographs of the low grade timber land and explained that the issue on this parcel was the reclassification of 127 acres of timber and the reclassification of 172 acres of swamp land to 154 acres of swamp land.

Mr. Charles Sunderman appeared before the VAB to address questions pertaining to the parcel in question and photographs of said parcel. He stated that they have never cut timber on the parcel and that he did not have plans to harvest the trees in the near future and that cutting the timber would be the last step that they would take.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, addressed the wetlands issue and explained that the Property Appraiser's Office has used the latest maps and aerials that were available. He stated that, if Mr. Sunderman has recent aerials, or surveys that show a difference in wetland numbers, the Property Appraiser's Office would change the numbers at any time during the year.

Discussion continued regarding the Groveland Farms easements, at which time Mr. Crawford explained that the Sundermans were concerned about having land on their property that they were not paying taxes on. He further explained that passive management of timberland was adequate and that it was not necessary to show a profit or to make the most intensive forestry use.

In response to a question presented by Commr. Gerber, Mr. Ross explained that the agricultural classification was removed for 1997 because there was not a boni fide commercial agricultural use of the property. He stated that, in 1996, the Property Appraiser's Office felt that there was a possibility that Mr. Sunderman would cut the timber; however, no information has been received to indicate a forestry management plan, cut fire lanes, a tree count on a per acre basis, or that Mr. Sunderman has plans to cut the trees.

In response to a question presented by Mr. Crawford, Mr. Sunderman indicated that he would thin the timberland if he received a forestry management plan. He responded to a question presented by Ms. Fischer, and stated that he has never received a cautionary statement from the Property Appraiser's Office regarding management practices of the timberland during the last thirty (30) years.

Mr. Crawford presented an aerial map of Parcel No. 1643660, which was forty (40) acres upon which the Sunderman's home was located, and explained that they were requesting reinstatement of agricultural classification for timberland and wished to discuss the issue of the wetlands. He explained that said parcel previously had five (5) acres of low grade pasture, one (1) acre homesite, twenty (20) acres of swamp, and fourteen (14) acres of low grade timber. He explained that the Property Appraiser's Office has reclassified the swamp to 7.3 acres of swamp, and the timber classification has been denied. He displayed on the monitor photographs illustrating the timberland and reiterated that passive management of timberland was adequate. He noted that the Property Appraiser's policy of requiring forestry management plans and fire lanes as evidence of commercial agricultural use was not a statutory requirement. He displayed photographs of the 5 acres of low grade pasture and stated that they were not requesting the 5 acres as pasture for 1997.

In response to a question presented by Mr. Crawford, Mr. Sunderman stated that the 5 acres of low grade pasture was fenced and, from November through March or April, bees were transported from Wisconsin by a friend and kept on the parcel until his friend returns to Wisconsin in the Spring. He noted that he receives honey as payment for use of the land. Mr. Crawford stated that they were requesting that the 5 acres of low grade pasture be classified as bee land.

Mr. Crawford presented an aerial of Parcel No. 1064767, and stated that the Property Appraiser's Office has declassified 70 acres of low grade timber and that they were requesting agricultural classification on the 70 acres. He displayed on the monitor photographs of the 70 acres of low grade timber and discussed same. He presented an aerial of Parcel No. 1644046, and stated that said parcel was a 40 acre parcel and that the Property Appraiser's Office had reclassified 17.5 acres as vacant land. He stated that the applicants did not receive an agricultural denial letter on said parcel.

Mr. Ross noted that an agricultural classification was partially granted on Parcel No. 1644046 for row crop and that a green card had been filed.

Ms. Jan Sunderman appeared before the VAB and stated that they had filed an application for agricultural classification on all of the parcels and that a denial was received on all of the parcels except two. She explained that they did not receive a denial for Parcel No. 1644046 and did not know that portions of said parcel had been denied until they received the Trim Notices; therefore, they had no opportunity to appeal said parcel at the August 7, 1997 hearing. She explained that Mr. Frank Royce had informed her that they did not have to turn in an additional petition and that they were already scheduled; however, at that time, she did turn in to the Deputy Clerk an additional petition of appeal for the hearing this date.

Mr. Frank Royce explained that the original petition to the VAB did not include Parcel No. 1644046 and that a photocopy of the original petition to the VAB, that included the new parcel number, had been submitted to the Property Appraiser by the Deputy Clerk. Discussion occurred regarding this issue.

Ms. Marlene Foran, Deputy Clerk, clarified that Mr. and Mrs. Sunderman submitted to the Clerk's Office a new petition for Parcel No. 1644046; however, Mr. Royce had instructed Ms. Foran that the Sundermans could use the old petition; therefore, they added Parcel No. 1644046 to the old petition. Ms. Foran stated that she sent the Property Appraiser's Office a copy of the original petition with new Parcel No. 1644046 added. Mr. Royce interjected that he was not aware that the Sundermans were adding a new parcel number to the original petition when he instructed Ms. Foran to accept the original petition. He stated that it was an error in communications between the Clerk's Office and the Property Appraiser's Office and that it was the recommendation of the Property Appraiser's Office that the VAB hear the appeal on Parcel No. 1644046.

Mr. Crawford explained that row crops have been expanded on Parcel No. 1644046 and were listed as 7.5 acres. He further explained that a portion of the parcel has a barn that houses tractors, and tractor supplies and has been denied the agricultural classification. He displayed on the monitor photographs of the parcel illustrating citrus as Mr. Sunderman briefly described each photograph. Mr. Sunderman stated that the citrus were sours that were picked every year and used for marmalade and that the grapefruit were not picked. Mr. Crawford referenced the cases of Akum B. Markum, 595.SOSecond195, and Strong B. Tuck, 354 SOSecond 368, which state that you do not have to have a reasonable expectation of meeting investment cost and making a profit.

Mr. Crawford explained that they were requesting reinstatement of agricultural classification on Parcel No. 1047048, 10.6 acres of mixed grapefruit and sours, and presented photographs of same. He stated that they were requesting reinstatement of agricultural classification on Parcel No. 1047030, 10.0 acres of Orlando Tangelos with Robinson Pollinators, at which time he presented photographs of same.

At this time, Mr. Sunderman responded to questions presented by Mr. Crawford regarding his history as a farmer and responded to questions presented by Mr. Ross.

In response to a question presented by Commr. Swartz in regard to the reclassification of the timberland, Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that the problem with the timber was that it must be a commercial agricultural operation and the trees must be cut at maturity. He stated that Mr. Sunderman has stated that he has no intent to cut the timber unless it was as a last resort. He expressed concern that granting Mr. Sunderman the agricultural classification on the timber would set a precedent and people would start filing for green belt on trees that were growing wild and do not meet the criteria for agricultural classification in Lake County.

Commr. Good stated that there was a tremendous difference between land that was sitting as timberland and land that was being managed as a wooded lot. He stated that it was very important to recognize the difference between best management practices for pine wood silvaculture, hard wood silvaculture, and cypress silvaculture and that he would encourage the County to look at those as different management practices. He stated that the VAB needs to recognize that there are lands that support agriculture that are not harvested on a regular basis.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the request for agricultural classification for Charles Sunderman, Parcel No. 1644046, 17.5 acres of citrus planted in sours and grapefruit; Parcel No. 1047048, 10.6 acres of citrus planted in mixed grapefruit and sours; and Parcel No. 1047030, 10.0 acres of citrus planted in Orlando tangelos based on findings of fact and sufficient evidence to indicate harvesting of crops on the sours and grapefruit, and a bona fide agricultural purpose.

Commr. Good stated that there were extenuating circumstances in this case that may have precluded the highest possible level of care of this section of grove; however, the photographic evidence speaks to the question of whether or not the land was an agricultural use.

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

Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded by Ms. Fischer, to overturn the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the request to reinstate the agricultural classification for Charles Sunderman, Parcel No. 1061831, 127 acres of passive management timber; Parcel No. 1643660, 14 acres of timber; and Parcel No. 1664767, 69.99 acres of low grade timber based on findings of fact and sufficient evidence to indicate extenuating circumstances due to illness, and the fact that Mr. Sunderman has spent a lot of time, effort and money in a case with the Department of Community Affairs that would qualify for reinstatement of the agricultural classification.

Commr. Good stated that he would support this motion based on hardship and, if this motion was approved, the continuance of this type of exemption would be based on the institution of best management practices for the type of woodlands involved.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would not support the motion because the land has been unharvested for years, and does not meet the requirements for agricultural classification.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a 3 - 2 vote.

Ms. Fischer and Commr. Swartz voted in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously by a 5 - 0 vote,, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and denied agricultural classification for Charles Sunderman, Parcel Number 1103045 and Parcel No. 1061849, based on findings of fact and sufficient evidence presented by the Property Appraiser to indicate a non bona fide agricultural purpose.

At 11:10 a.m., Commr. Gerber announced that she would be leaving the meeting due to another commitment and that Commr. Cadwell would represent her during the afternoon session.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 11:12 a.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would recess for ten minutes and reconvene at 11:22 a.m.

PETITION NO. 44L TRIPLES LAKES, INC.

Ms. Darlene Malloy, representing Triples Lakes, Inc., appeared before the VAB to present this request.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Director, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations; informed the VAB that the petitioner, Triples Lakes, Inc., filed a green card for agricultural classification on September 9, 1997 and would have received the classifications had they filed by the March 3, 1997 deadline. He stated that it was the recommendation of the Property Appraiser to approve agricultural classification for this parcel.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the revised recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for Triples Lakes, Inc., Petition No. 1997-44L, based on findings of fact and sufficient evidence presented by the Property Appraiser to indicate a bona fide agricultural purpose.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.



PETITION NO. 1997-45L WILLIAM R. & LUCILLE M. HANCOCK

PETITION NO. 1997-46L WILLIAM R. HANCOCK, PRESIDENT

HANCOCK HOLDING COMPANY

PETITION NO. 1997-47L W. R. HANCOCK

Ms. Darlene Malloy, representing Triples Lakes, Inc., appeared before the VAB to present these requests.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Director, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations, informed the VAB that the petitioner, Triples Lakes, Inc., filed the green cards for agricultural classification on September 9, 1997 and would have received the classifications had they filed by the March 3, 1997 deadline. He stated that it was his recommendation to approve agricultural classification for these parcels.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the revised recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for William R. & Lucille M. Hancock, Petition Number 1997-45L; Hancock Holding Company, Petition No. 1997-46L; and W.R. Hancock, Petition No. 1997-47L, based on findings of fact and sufficient evidence presented by the Property Appraiser to indicate bona fide agricultural purposes.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1997 43L PATRICIA WRIGHT

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner, Patricia Wright, filed the application for homestead exemption on September 9, 1997, after the March 3, 1997 deadline. He stated that Ms. Wright would have received the exemption had she filed by the deadline.

Ms. Patricia Wright appeared before the VAB and stated that she was not aware that she had to file an application for homestead exemption. She explained that the property was in her name and her mother's name and due to financial difficulties the property was changed over to her sister's name and then changed back to her name. She stated that she would lose the house because she did not have the money to pay the taxes.

Mr. Royce explained that the property has had homestead exemption in the past, Ms. Wright has always lived in the house and continues to live in the house, and deed changes and a corrective deed were made in 1996. He stated that it was the recommendation of the Property Appraiser to grant the homestead exemption.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 4 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve homestead exemption for Patricia Wright, Petition No. 1997-43L, based on findings of fact and sufficient evidence to indicate extenuating circumstances.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1997-48 HILDEGARD SENDER

PETITION NO. 1997-49 HILDEGARD SENDER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, informed the VAB that this request was two homes being assessed on one tax parcel and was an assessment of value petition.

Ms. Hildegard Sender appeared before the VAB and expressed concern that the assessed value of the two parcels increased from $101,880 to $118,832, resulting in an increase of $8,476 per house. She explained that the Property Appraiser's Office informed her that the increase was on the land, and her argument was that a vacant piece of property was worth more than property with a structure on it. She stated that the property card that she received from the Property Appraiser's Office this date indicated that the assessed value of the land has not changed since 1995, therefore, the increase was on the structures.

Mr. Royce explained that Ms. Sender owns two rental homes in the Springs Bath and Yacht Club, and, as part of the three year review of every property in Lake County, this subdivision came under review this year and reappraisals were made on some properties. He presented three comparable properties in the Springs Bath and Yacht Club and stated that Lot 32 sold in October 1997 for $79,900; Lot 78 sold in September 1996 for $75,000; and Lot 96 sold in March 1997 for $68,000.

Ms. Sender submitted photographs of properties in the Springs Bath and Yacht Club and explained that the two properties in question were built for rental purposes to generate an income and did not include amenities such as garage door openers, dish washers and garbage disposals.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 4 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment of value in the amount of $118,832 for Hildegard Sender, for Petition No. 1997-48 and Petition No.1997-49, based on comparable properties and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation.

PETITION NO. 1997-74L CENTRAL FLORIDA GROVE SERVICE, INC.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Director, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations, informed the VAB that the petitioner, Central Florida Grove Service, Inc., returned two green cards and failed to return a green card for the parcel before the VAB at this time. He stated that this parcel would have qualified as a bona fide commercial agriculture use had the green card been received by the Property Appraiser's Office. He stated that it was his recommendation to approve the agricultural classification for this parcel.

Ms. Patricia Posey, Secretary, Central Florida Grove Service, Inc., was present to address questions pertaining to this request.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 4 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the revised recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved agricultural classification for Central Florida Grove Service, Inc., Petition No. 1997-74L, based on findings of fact and sufficient evidence presented by the Property Appraiser to indicate a bona fide agricultural purpose.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1997-100 FRANCES B. HARTLE dba HARTLE GROVES, INC.

Mr. Robbie Ross, Director, Tangible Personal Property and Agricultural Operations, informed the VAB that the petitioner, Frances B. Hartle dba Hartle Groves, Inc., received agricultural classification on a portion of the 70 acre parcel. He stated that 10 acres were classified as bona fide commercial agricultural use, four (4) acres were classified as swamp land, and the remaining 56 acres were taken at a fair market value for Highway 50 frontage.

Mr. Benson Hartle, represent Frances B. Hartle and Hartle Groves, Inc., appeared before the VAB and explained that they were requesting a total of eight (8) acres, comprised of four (4) acres grove and four (4) acres planted pine trees, be granted the agricultural classification. He stated that the legal description was not correct on the tax printout and that the property goes through Tract 30A. He explained that Tract 22 was a 10 acre parcel that was grove prior to 1989, the remaining trees were picked up and consolidated with a tree mover in 1994, and a total of four (4) acres of orange trees remain on the west side of the 10 acre tract. He stated that Tract 30A fronts on Highway 50, was contiguous with the other parcels, and was a six (6) acre temple orange grove converted into pine trees that were planted in 1989 and received a Department of Forestry approval at that time. He stated that the pines were replanted in 1992 and, of the possible six (6) acres, there were four (4) acres of healthy pines for a total of 1,073 pine trees, and two (2) acres of unhealthy pines on the west end of the parcel. He stated that he has contracted with a state nursery for trees on the remaining property and contracted with a planter for next year.

Mr. Ross stated that there was evidence that Hartle Groves did plant the pine trees and a hardship did occur in the fact that the pine trees had a very poor survival rate. He stated that this parcel was denied the agricultural classification because it did not qualify as a bona fide commercial agricultural use.

Commr. Swartz expressed concern that there were no photographs of the parcel in question for their review.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Mr. Conner and carried unanimously by a 4 - 0 vote, the VAB postponed Petition No. 1997-100, Frances B. Hartle dba Hartle Groves, Inc., until October 2, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., to provide the Property Appraiser's Office sufficient time to provide photographs of the parcel to the VAB for their review.

PETITION NO. 1997-56 HANS W. BAUSCHLICHER

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, informed the VAB that the petitioner, Hans W. Bauschlicher, was appealing the assessment of value of a vacant lot in Promontory Cove Subdivision.

Mr. Hans W. Bauschlicher appeared before the VAB and explained that the assessment of value increased from $15,000 to $25,000, or an increase of sixty-seven (67%) percent. He stated that he has had the vacant lot on the market for three years at a market price of $20,000 and has been unable to sell the lot. He submitted a plat of the subdivision indicating the location of the parcel.

Mr. Royce explained that the homes and the vacant lots in the Promontory Cove Subdivision were reappraised this year and noted that lot 9 sold recently for $27,000. He stated that all of the lots in the subdivision were appraised the same with the exception of the lots located on Round Shores Road, and that the assessed value was correct at $25,000. He noted that there were no other comparables available because the majority of the lots were improved properties, and that land in the entire subdivision increased because of the value of the improved properties. At this time, discussion occurred regarding lot sizes and property values.

In response to a question presented by Mr. Conner, Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that Florida Statutes state that when any taxpayer challenges an assessment of value, the Property Appraiser's assessment is presumed correct. This presumption of correctness is lost if the taxpayer shows by a preponderance of the evidence that either the Property Appraiser failed to consider properly the criteria in the statute or his assessment was arbitrary based on appraisal practices which are different from those generally used by the Property Appraiser.

Mr. Conner expressed concern that Mr. Bauschlicher has been unable to sell the property for $20,000.

Commr. Swartz questioned if $22,000 would be a fair market value based on the square footage, at which time Mr. Royce stated that he would support a decrease in the assessment from $25,423 to $21,864 for the vacant lot.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Mr. Conner and carried unanimously by a 4 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the adjusted recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved a reduced assessment of value in the amount of $21,864 for Hans W. Bauschlicher, Petition No. 1997-56, based on findings of fact and sufficient evidence provided by the petitioner.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 12:15 p.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:00 p.m.

VALUE ADJUSTMENT VAB (CONTINUED)

It was noted that Commr. Gerber would not be present for the afternoon session.

PETITION NO. 1997-60 MARK CARSON/UPSON DOWNS LTD. PARTNERSHIP

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, informed the VAB that Upson Downs Ltd. Partnership was an assessment of value petition against the value of all of the lots, excluding approximately seven (7) lots, in the Upson Downs Subdivision. He stated that the petitioner has brought to the attention of the Property Appraiser that, as of January 1, 1997, the lots in the subdivision were unbuildable and that the assessed value of $20,000 per lot was incorrect. He stated that he has questions pertaining to why the County determined that the lots were unbuildable and what the cost to cure would be as of January 1, 1997 to be able to issue building permits.

Mr. Frank Gaylord, Attorney, representing Mr. Mark Carson/Upson Downs Ltd. Partnership, appeared before the VAB and stated that he and his client would have no objection to a two day postponement of this appeal to allow the Property Appraiser's Office sufficient time to allow for further review of this appeal.

Mr. Royce stated that he did not need additional time to review this appeal, however, did need additional information from Mr Gaylord and Mr. Carson.

At this time, Commr. Good noted, for the record, that Commr. Gerber and Ms. Kyleen Fischer, School VAB Member, were not present.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the VAB that the current status of Upson Downs Subdivision was that Certificates of Occupancy could not be issued for houses that were built because the improvements have not been completed as required by County Code. He stated that the improvements were substantially constructed and that there were a few items remaining before the final completion could be granted which would allow Certificates of Occupancy to be issued. He explained that no Certificate of Occupancy should have been issued for any house until such time that all of the improvements were completed.

It was the decision of the VAB to move forward with Petition No. 1997-60, Mark Carson/Upson Downs Ltd. Partnership, at this time.

Mr. Gaylord explained that the issue in this case was not whether a Certificate of Occupancy could be issued but whether or not a building permit was permitted to be issued. At this time, he displayed on the monitor a memorandum from Ms. Sharon Farrell, Senior Director, Department of Growth Management, dated July 2, 1996, addressed to County staff concerning the Upson Downs Phase I project. He noted that the memorandum instructs staff not to issue any type of zoning clearance or developmental order until further notice. He stated that zoning clearance had been pulled from this project and a building permit would not be permitted to be issued. He displayed on the monitor a memorandum from Ms. Donna Bechtel, Planning and Development Division, dated March 20, 1996, that provides that Upson Downs Phase I was cleared for obtaining building permits but not cleared for issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. He stated that there was no communication in between the two memorandums that would reverse the ability to gain a developmental order for the purpose of placing a structure. He displayed on the monitor an irrevocable letter of credit that was provided to the County with a curing of any defect that the developer may have had and also enabling the County to go forward with the development under the performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit. He stated that failure of the County to permit a building to be constructed, during that period of time and as of the critical date of January 1, 1997, was not the fault of the developer.

Mr. Mark Carson, representing the Upson Downs Ltd. Partnership, appeared before the VAB and stated that, as of January 1, 1997, they were under a zoning designation of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) because the lots could not be built upon, and he feels that it would be justifiable to tax the lots at the original purchase price of approximately $3,150 per lot.

Mr. Royce explained that the plat on Upson Downs Subdivision was approved in 1994, and that there have been sales and two of the later sales have been in lieu of foreclosure on other properties. He stated that he could not use those values as comparables; however, there has been a value established at $27,500 to $28,400 per lot. He stated that, in establishing the value, the issue was the cost to cure the problem as of January 1, 1997 so that Certificates of Occupancy could be issued. He stated that he was in receipt of a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Jim Stivender, Senior Director, Public Works, dated June 1997, that list the items to be completed, and he discussed same. He stated that the cost to cure could reduce the fair market value for 1997; however, information had not been submitted prior to the meeting this date to indicate the problems with the property. He stated that he could not make a determination of the fair market value of the lots until he has been provided information on the cost to cure.

Mr. Carson stated that he did have the information on the cost to cure; however, said information had not been requested by the Property Appraiser and, therefore, not submitted. He stated that there was no ability to cure under any situation at any cost as of January 1, 1997.

At this time, Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that he would not accept the above noted information at this time, however, would accept said information if this appeal were postponed to allow the Property Appraiser's Office time to review the information. He stated that he would agree to a postponement with the understanding that the numbers for January 1, 1997 could go higher, lower, or stay the same after further review of this appeal.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB postponed Petition No. 1997-60, Mark Carson/Upson Downs Ltd. Partnership, to allow sufficient time for the petitioner to provide information on the cost to cure to the Property Appraiser's Office for review.

Commr. Gerber and Ms. Fischer were not present for the discussion or vote.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 1:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the VAB would recess and reconvene at 2:12 p.m.



PETITION NO. 1997-95 MANOHAR H. JAIN

PETITION NO. 1997-96 MANOHAR H. JAIN

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, informed the VAB that Manohar H. Jain was appealing the assessment of value of two parcels located adjacent to the Ramada Inn at the intersection of S.R. 19/Highway 27 and the Turnpike. He stated that this was a closed motel and that Petition No. 1997-95 was comprised of three (3) structures, and Petition No. 1997-96 was comprised of one (1) structure located at the rear of the motel. He stated that the fair market value, for Petition No. 1997-95 was $329,346 and the fair market value for Petition No. 1997-96 was $120, 886.

Mr. Manohar Jain appeared before the VAB and explained that he purchased the two parcels in October 1996 for $175,000. He stated that the assessment of value should not be more than the purchase price, and that they have spent approximately $4,000 to paint the exterior of the building to make the property aesthetically presentable. He explained that the property was purchased from a real estate office in Winter Park as a foreclosure and that the property had been on the market for four (4) years with an original purchase price of $350,000.

Mr. Royce explained that the building has been assessed at approximately seventy (70%) percent functional obsolescence with an assessed value on the building at $5.30 per square foot. He stated that the assessed value of the land was $31,000 per acre on Highway 27, and that the Property Appraiser has taken into consideration the poor condition of the property. He presented a history of the parcels in question, and noted that the total assessment of value of the parcels was $449,000, and discussed the method of reaching the assessed value. He stated that the two-story motel building located in the rear of the property was 18,912 square feet and assessed at $66,500.

Mr. Jain stated that the entire property has been condemned and explained that the rear building has been burned, the roof on the front buildings has caved in resulting in water damage to the interior. He stated that he has one estimate of $150,000 to demolish all three structures on the front parcel.

Mr. Roger Childress, Appraiser, appeared before the VAB and testified that the exteriors of all of the buildings were in very poor condition, however, could be rehabilitated.

In response to a question presented by Ms. Fischer, Mr. Royce stated that the assessment of value of the two parcels in 1996 was $440,890, and explained that the front parcel was 3.14 acres and the back parcel was 1.6 acres. At this time, Mr. Royce stated that, due to the extended period that the building has been vacant and the cost to cure or to demolish the building, the Property Appraiser would be willing to remove the value of the building in the back, in the amount of $66,500.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Conner, to uphold the adjusted recommendation of the Property Appraiser to eliminate the rear building's value in the amount of $66,500 for Manohar H. Jain, Petition No. 1997-95, based on findings of fact and information provided by the petitioner; and to uphold the adjusted recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the assessment of value in the amount of $383,732 on Petition No. 1997-96 and Petition No. 1997-95 based on findings of fact and failure to provided sufficient evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's adjusted recommendation.

Mr. Havill stated that the adjusted assessment of $383,732 was a fair and just assessment and that he would not be able to further lower the assessment.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a 4 - 0 vote.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1997-97 JOHN D. WINGFIELD

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, informed the VAB that John D. Wingfield was appealing the assessment of value on two buildings located on one parcel in the Umatilla area. He explained that one building was a two story frame building converted into two apartments, and the other building was a separate rental unit.

Mr. John D. Wingfield, previous owner of the property, appeared before the VAB and explained that the property in question was a foreclosure, in the amount of $36,000, and that the downstairs apartment was not habitable. He stated that the new owners, Kay Lawson and Judy Redmond have agreed to make improvements and that the rent on the two apartments that were rented was $595 per month for both apartments and that the property value was approximately $40,000. He stated that he sold the property on August 15, 1997, however, was the owner of the property on January 1, 1997 and did receive the Trim Notice.

Mr. Royce stated that the assessment of $49,647 recognizes the current unrentable unit and the repairs that were needed. He stated that the current owners should be the petitioners in this appeal.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the VAB that Florida Statute allows the person who receives the Trim Notice to file and contest the assessment of value.

Commr. Swartz made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approve the assessment of value in the amount of $49,647 for John D. Wingfield, Petition No. 1997-97, based on findings of fact and failure to furnish sufficient evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation.

The motion failed for a lack of a second to the motion.

Mr. Royce noted that the property had been assessed for $44,114 in 1996. Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, stated that it was his recommendation to lower the assessment of value to $44,114 for 1997.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 4 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the Property Appraiser's adjusted assessment of value in the amount of $44,114 for John D. Wingfield, Petition No. 1997-97, based on findings of fact and sufficient evidence presented by the petitioner.

PETITION NO. 1997-97 GEORGE DE CAUSEMACKER

Commr. Good read, into the record, an appeal from Mr. George De Causemacker, which had been submitted to the Deputy Clerk at 2:00 p.m. this date, expressing concern that the assessment of value on Lot 25, Fox Run Mobile Home Subdivision, increased from $60,188 to $65,278. Commr. Good noted that Mr. De Causemacker was not present due to an unexpected illness of Mrs. De Causemacker, who was taken to the hospital this morning. It was noted that Mr. De Causemacker was not requesting a postponement.

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, informed the VAB that the system evaluates a carport on a square footage basis, and that Mr. De Causemacker has enclosed a 160 square foot structure between the carport and a screened room. At this time, Mr. Royce presented three comparable homes in the Fox Run Mobile Home Park which sold for $72,000, $79,900, and $67,000. He explained that Mr. De Causemacker's assessment of value went from $60,188 to $63,034 as a result of a 3% increase minus the homestead exemption resulting in a taxable assessment of value in the amount of $38,034. He stated that the carport was assessed at $1,041 and Mr. De Causemacker was showing a cost of $674.10 to add the extension. Mr. Royce noted that the Property Appraiser's assessment was for the aluminum and the concrete and that the cost of $674.10 was only for the aluminum.

On a motion by Mr. Conner, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 4 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment of value in the amount of $65,278 for George De Causemacker, Petition No. 1997-97, based on findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation based on comparable properties provided by the Property Appraiser's Office.

Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION NO. 1997-102 STEPHEN B. DELUCA

PETITION NO. 1997-103 STEPHEN B. DELUCA

Mr. Frank Royce, Chief Appraiser, informed the VAB that Mr. Stephen B. DeLuca was appealing the assessment of value, in the amount of $219,778, on two parcels comprised of a convenience store and gas station. He noted that the parcel that was previously a Jiffy Store has been remodeled into a mini mart and that the northern parcel was used for the gas pump area. He stated that the information provided by the petitioner indicates that the property was contaminated, and that the Property Appraiser's Office has requested further information on the contamination which has not been provided. He questioned how the applicant obtain approval to build a new mini mart and gas station if contamination was present.

Mr. Johnny Redwine, representing Stephen B. DeLuca, appeared before the VAB and explained that the property was contaminated; however, was on the State priority list to treat the contamination. He explained that they have installed new tanks and brought the property up to current standards prior to the state clean up.

Mr. Royce explained that the assessment of value on the land was $56,960, the assessment of value on the building was $134,535, and miscellaneous items were assessed at $28,283. He stated that Mr. DeLuca's estimate of fair market value was $120,000 for both parcels. At this time, Mr. Royce briefly discussed the difficulty in finding comparable properties. He stated that the records show $162,818 in new construction, and no income information has been received on the business. He requested that Mr. DeLuca provide income information and the cost of cleanup.

At 3:15 p.m., Mr. Conner departed the meeting due to a prior commitment.

On a motion by Ms. Fischer, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB upheld the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and approved the assessment of value in the amount of $219.778 for Stephen B. DeLuca, Petition No. 1997-102 and Petition No. 1997-103, based on findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation.

Commr. Gerber and Mr. Conner were not present for the discussion or vote.

MINUTES

Regarding the VAB Minutes of August 7, 1997, the following change was requested:

Page 24, Line 31-33 - delete language and insert "At this time, Commr. Good noted, for the record at Mr. Conner's request, that Mr. Conner left the meeting at 11:56 a.m. due to School Board related commitments."

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB approved the Minutes of August 7, 1997, as amended.

Commr. Gerber and Mr. Conner were not present for the discussion or vote.

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE (CONTINUED)

At this time, discussion occurred regarding the request for continuance of Petition No. 1997-92, Cable Development Corporation, from October 2, 1997 to a later date; and the request for continuance of Petition No. 1997-200, Harbor Hills Country Club, Petition No. 1997-201, and Petition No. 1997-202, Pine Meadows Country Club; Petition No. 1997-74 through 1997- 78, Leisure Communities, Inc. (Pennbrooke); and Petition No. 1997-120 and Petition No. 1997-121, Charles Sendelbach, from October 3, 1997 to a later date.

Ms. Fischer made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to approve the continuance of the following petitions until October 29, 1997.

Petition No. 1997-92 Cable Development Corporation

Petition No. 1997-200 Harbor Hills Country Club

Petition No. 1997-201 Pine Meadows Country Club

Petition No. 1997-202 Pine Meadows Country Club

Petition No. 1997-120 Charles Sendelbach

Petition No. 1997-121 Charles Sendelbach

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which failed by a 0 - 3 vote.

Ms. Fischer, Commr. Swartz and Commr. Good voted in opposition.

On a motion by Commr. Swarz, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB granted a continuance for Petition No. 1997-92, Cable Development Corporation, from October 2, 1997 to October 3, 1997.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB denied the request for continuance of Petition No. 1997- 200, Harbor Hills Country Club; and Petition No. 1997- 201, and Petition No. 1997-202, Pine Meadows Country Club.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB denied the request for continuance of Petition No. 1997-74, Petition No. 1997-75, Petition No. 1997-76, Petition No. 1997-77, and Petition No. 1997-78, Leisure Communities, Inc. (Pennbrooke).

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB granted a continuance for Petition No. 1997-60, Mark Carson/Upson Downs Partnership Ltd., to October 3, 1997.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Ms. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB denied the request for a continuance of Petition No. 1997-120 and Petition No. 1997-121, Charles Sendelbach.

Commr. Gerber and Mr. Conner were not present for the discussions or votes.

PETITION NO. 1997-51L EDITH M. NOFFSINGER (CONTINUED)

Mr. Ed Havill, Property Appraiser, distributed a letter from Edith M. Noffsinger, dated August 27, 1997, requesting total tax exemption due to disability. Mr. Havill explained that one of the requirements for total tax exemption was an income limitation and, as of January 1, 1997, Ms. Noffsinger's income rose $1,000 above the income limitation and the total tax exemption has been removed. He stated that there were no statutory options available to Ms. Noffsinger.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Ms. Fischer for the purpose of discussion, to uphold the recommendation of the Property Appraiser and deny total tax exemption for Petition No. 1997-51L, Edith M. Noffsinger, based on findings of fact and lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the Property Appraiser's recommendation for denial.

Ms. Fischer stated that there were extenuating circumstances and questioned if they could be considered in this request.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that exemptions cannot be granted because of extenuating circumstances.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which carried unanimously.

Commr. Gerber and Mr. Conner were not present for the discussion or vote. POSTPONEMENTS

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Mr. Fischer and carried unanimously by a 3 - 0 vote, the VAB approved to postpone the following petitions until October 3, 1997:

Petition No. 1997-54 Delmar & Nelle Rose Rasmus

Petition No. 1997-59 Christopher D. Richter

Petition No. 1997-75 Donald L. & Jill L. Markey

Petition No. 1997-76 William Oleyar

Petition No. 1997-81 Genesis/KPMG Peat Marwick



Commr. Gerber and Mr. Conner were not present for the discussion or vote.



There being no further issues to be brought to the attention of the VAB, the meeting recessed until October 2, 1997 at 9:00 a.m.



WILLIAM "BILL" H. GOOD, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



msf\VAB\9-29-97\10-12-97