Preview
Filing # 170038690 E-Filed 03/30/2023 04:56:51 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CATTLE RANCH HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
Vv. Case No.:
RALPH FRANKLIN, as Public Safety Director/Fire
Chief for the OKEECHOBEE COUNTY FIRE
RESCUE and the O§KEECHOBEE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants.
/
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND MONETARY RELIEF
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, CATTLE RANCH HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Defendant,
RALPH FRANKLIN, in his official capacity as Public Safety Director/Fire Chief for the
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE and the OKEECHOBEE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (collectively, the “County”), and in support thereof allege as
follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1 This is an action for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Chapter 86 of the Florida
Statutes, which authorizes circuit courts to enter declaratory judgments related to controversies in
excess of $50,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.
3 This action involves matters in excess of $50,000.00 exclusive of interest, costs and
attorneys’ fees.
4 In addition, jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to section 26.012(2)(c),
Florida Statutes, which provides that the Circuit Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases in
equity.
Electronically Filed Okeechobee Case # 202300018, BG NS 03/30/2023 04:56:51 PM
019035531
5 Venue is proper in Okeechobee County pursuant to section 47.011, Florida Statutes,
as the actions and the facts giving rise to this Complaint all occurred in Okeechobee County,
Florida.
PARTIES AND PROPERTY
6 The Plaintiff is the owner of real property located at 8900 NE 12th Lane,
Okeechobee Florida 34972 (the “Property”).
7 Ever After Farms, LLC, is the operator of agritourism events at the Property.
8 The Defendants, the County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
9 The Property has been used for agricultural purposes for many years prior to the
Plaintiff taking ownership and control on or about November 9, 2020.
10. The Plaintiff has continued to use the Property for agricultural purposes since
taking ownership and control.
11. The Property has a multiple structures, including a residential structure and a
Nonresidential Farm Building as defined in section 604.50, Florida Statutes (the “Barn”).
12. Originally, the Barn facilitated the Property’s cow-calf farming operation.
13. Approximately one year ago, the Barn was renovated to enclose the pole barn
portion that stored farm equipment.
14. The Barn remains part of the Plaintiff's bona fide cow-calf farming operation.
15. In addition, the Barn is used for agritourism activities — specifically as a wedding
venue. The first wedding event was held at the Barn on or about February 2022.
16. The Barn is scheduled for wedding events on weekends in the spring and summer
of 2023, including Saturday, April 1, 2023 and Sunday, April 2, 2023.
019035531 Page 2 of 8
17. Wedding events on farms are considered agritourism activities and are recognized
as such by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“FDACS”). In fact
FDACS declared Plaintiffs operations to be in compliance with the State’s agritourism statutes.
See FDACS letter attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
18. On December 28, 2021, the Property was issued a Nonresidential Farm Building
Exemption for the Barn by the County (the “Exemption”). See the Exemption attached hereto as
Exhibit “B”.
19. The Plaintiff relied on this Exemption to continue its agricultural and agritourism
operations.
20. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Nonresidential Farm Buildings, including the Barn,
are exempt from the Florida Building Code and any county or municipal code or fee, except for
code provisions implementing local, state, or federal floodplain management regulations.
21. Since receiving the Exemption, the Barn has served as a venue for a number of
weddings.
22. At no time since its designation, has there been any kind of fire, occupancy, or other
safety issues with the wedding activities on the Property to justify any concern of imminent danger
to public health, safety, or welfare.
23. On March 28, 2023, the Okeechobee County Building Department conducted an
inspection of the Barn, and unilaterally determined that the Barn is “intended primarily to house,
shelter, transport, or otherwise accommodate members of the general public”, and is therefore not
an agritourism activity.
24. In correspondence to the Plaintiff, the Okeechobee County Building Official, Kevin
Throop, unilaterally determined that the Barn is not an “agritourism activity” pursuant to Chapter
019035531 Page 3 of 8
2013-179, Laws of Florida, and determined that the Barn is not a Nonresidential Farm Building
pursuant to section 553.73(10)(c), Florida Statutes, contrary to the determination by FDACS.
25. Throop’s determination to unilaterally remove the Exemption from the Barn was
made without any notice to the Plaintiff and with any opportunity for Plaintiff to be heard and
present documentation and other facts on the issue.
26. The County does not have authority to classify agritourism events. That authority
is within the purview of FDACS.
27. As a result of Throop’s unilateral determination, a Cease-and-Desist Order was
issued on March 28, 2023 by the Okeechobee County Fire Rescue Fire Marshal Office. See Cease
and Desist Order attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.
28. The Cease-and-Desist Order was accompanied by a letter from Justin Hazellief
(“Hazellief’), Bureau Chief of the Okeechobee County Fire Rescue, alleging a number of
violations due to the Barn no longer being exempt from such requirements as a Nonresidential
Farm Building.
29. Hazellief issued the Cease-and-Desist Order using the incorrect interpretation
regarding the Barn made by Throop.
30. The County is acting beyond its authority.
31. Failure to comply with the Cease-and-Desist Order of the Fire Marshal could result
in criminal liability and civil penalties.
32. The illegal termination of the Exemption and incorrect interpretation that the Barn
is not being used for agritourism activities will result in significant damages to the Plaintiff. As
stated above, weddings are scheduled to take place at the venue this weekend.
33. Plaintiff has expended attorney’s fees in the pursuit of this action.
ey 25° 4 of 8
34. All conditions precedent for the bringing of this action have been satisfied or have
been waived.
COUNT I
CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
35. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 above are re-alleged and
adopted as fully set forth herein.
36. This is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to Chapter 86 of the Florida
Statutes.
37. Pursuant to Florida law, the Barn is exempt from the Florida Building Code and
any county or municipal code or fee, except for code provisions implementing local, state, or
federal floodplain management regulations.
38. Weddings at the Barn are authorized agritourism activities.
39. Plaintiff has continuously maintained its agricultural operations at the Property.
40. Because of the County’s desire to eliminate agritourism at the Property, the County
intentionally and erroneously acted to discontinue the agritourism activities in direct violation of
Florida law without due process of law.
41. There is a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for the declaration that
Plaintiff is entitled to continue hosting agritourism events at the Barn including weddings.
42. There is a controversy between Plaintiff and the County concerning whether or not
Plaintiff is entitled to continue utilizing the Barn for the aforementioned agritourism activities.
43. There are powers, privileges, and rights of Plaintiff that are dependent upon a
determination of the facts and the law applicable to the facts in this case.
44. The parties have an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the subject
matter, both in fact and in law.
019035531 Page 5 of 8
45. The antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the Court by proper process,
and the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the Court or the answer to questions
propounded from curiosity.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an order in favor of
Plaintiff, CATTLE RANCH HOLDINGS, LLC:
a. declaring that the Barn is a Nonresidential Farm Building under Florida law;
b confirming a continuing right to use the Barn for agritourism activities;
declaring that the County wrongfully issued its notices of violation and cease and desist
in contravention the Florida Statutes, and failed to follow due process mandated by
law; and
granting such further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT I
A CLAIM FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION
46. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 above are re-alleged and
adopted as fully set forth herein.
47. Plaintiff has a clear legal right that the County acted beyond its scope of authority
when it determined the Barn was no longer a Nonresidential Farm Building, and that right is clear
and free from reasonable doubt.
48. Plaintiff relied upon the Barn’s classification as a Nonresidential Farm Building to
lawfully utilized the Barn for agritourism activities such as weddings.
49. Other parties also relied upon Plaintiff's use of the Barn for agritourism activities
and, as such, made significant plans in reliance on the Exemption to hold weddings, indeed as
soon as April 1, 2023.
019035531 Page 6 of 8
50. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's patrons are being irreparably harmed by the County’s
unilateral termination of Plaintiff's Exemption and prohibition of using the Barn for agritourism.
51. It is in the public interest to protect landowners from extortionate demands without
due process of law from their local governments and from arbitrary interpretations of Florida law.
52. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
53. There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits given the facts surrounding
the County’s impermissible termination of Plaintiff's right to an Exemption for the Barn.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a mandatory injunction
removing the illegally adopted Cease-and-Desist Order issued by the County, restore the status
quo allowing the Barn to be continue being utilized for agritourism activities and award any other
such relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT I
ACTION FOR EQU. LE ESTOPPEL
54. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 above are re-alleged and
adopted as fully set forth herein.
55. The doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against a government entity
when a property owner: 1) relies in good faith; 2) upon some act or omission of the government;
and 3) has made a substantial change in position or incurred such extensive obligations and
expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights that the property owner
has acquired.
56. The Exemption granted by the County guarantees that the Barn is considered a
Nonresidential Farm Building.
57. Plaintiff relied upon the Exemption by the County and utilized the Barn for
agritourism activities including weddings.
019035531 Page 7 of 8
58. Weddings have been scheduled to take place which includes considerable efforts
by many patrons of Plaintiff to attend, and significant costs have been incurred by Plaintiff to
conduct, the weddings as well as costs incurred by Plaintiffs patrons to conduct their weddings.
59. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Plaintiffs patrons have made substantial changes in
position in reliance on the Exemption which has been revoked without notice or an opportunity to
be heard.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court conclude that as a result of the
County’s Exemption and Plaintiff's reliance thereon, the County be ordered to allow the
agritourism activities currently scheduled to continue.
Respectfully submitted this 30" day of March, 2023.
|| Richard P. Green
KEVIN S. HENNESSY, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 0602558
ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 0064963
RICHARD P. GREEN, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 0119530
NICOLE J. POOT, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 0118858
CHRISTOPHER PERRIGAN, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 1039821
LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A.
100 Second Avenue S., Suite 501-S
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Telephone: (727) 245-0820
Primary Email: khennessv@llw-law.com
rwilliams@Uw-law.com
green@llw-law.com
poot@|lw-law.com
perrigan@|lw-law.com
Secondary Email: STPService@Ilw-law.com
Counsel for the Plaintiff
019035531 Page 8 of 8
OSs,
Oprice OF GENERAL COUNSEL 5 THe Mayo Burpinc
(850) 245-1000 x 407 Sour CaLHown STREET
(850) 245-1001 Fax TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0800
e Ss
=
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
ComMISSIONER NICOLE “Nikkr” FRIED
November 2, 2022
Timothy Riley
Dean, Mead & Dunbar
106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Robert Volpe
Holtzman, Vogel, Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
119 S. Monroe St. Suite 500
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Re: Cattle Ranch Holdings LLC
Messrs. Riley and Volpe,
Thank you for contacting the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(“Department”). You advised the Department that you are in ongoing discussions with the County
Property Appraiser of both Okeechobee and Martin County regarding the denial of an agricultural
classification of two structures. Specifically, it is my understanding that the Okeechobee County
Property Appraiser has denied the agricultural classification of a structure and just over three acres
at 8900 NE 12th Lane, Okeechobee, FL 34974, and that the Martin County Property Appraiser has
denied the agricultural classification of a structure and three acres at 8501 SW Fox Brown Rd,
Indiantown, FL 34956. As presented, the controversy surrounding these properties appear to be
related to the use of non-residential farm buildings for agritourism purposes, specifically as
wedding barns. While the assessment of real property falls well within the purview of the County
Property Appraiser, the Department does have a responsibility to promote and encourage
agritourism and to assist with conflict resolution between local governments and agricultural
producers. ! Since the conflict here centers on Florida’s agritourism laws, I believe it is appropriate
for me to opine. After reviewing your correspondence, your question is essentially as follows:
Do improvements to a non-residential farm building to improve its utility as an Agritourism
venue justify the removal or denial of an agricultural classification pursuant to Section 193.461,
Florida Statutes? In my opinion, an agricultural property classification may not be revoked or
denied for improvements to a non-residential farm building used for agritourism purposes.
| §§ 570.85 - .87, Fla. Stat. EXHIBIT
A
1-800-HELPFLA www.FDACS.gov
As a threshold matter, the Department has long considered weddings to fall within the
statutory definition of an agritourism activity. Even before the legislature amended the statute to
expressly include “civic and ceremonial activities, 2 there was a reasonable argument that
weddings qualified as “recreational” or “entertainment” activities. There is ample historic support
for this conclusion, including the long tradition of holding recreational activities in barns,* and
specifically, of holding weddings in barns.*
Agritourism in Florida is primarily governed in Chapter 570, Florida Statutes. These
statutes provide legislative intent, preempt from local government regulation, define terms, and
provide exemptions from liability. Relevant to the issue here, Agritourism activity is defined in
Section 570.86(1), Florida Statutes, as:
[A]ny agricultural related activity consistent with a bona fide farm, livestock
operation, or ranch or in a working forest which allows members of the general
public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy
activities, including farming, ranching, historical, cultural, civic, ceremonial,
training and exhibition, or harvest-your-own activities and attractions. An
agritourism activity does not include the construction of new or additional
structures or facilities intended primarily to house, shelter, transport, or otherwise
accommodate members of the general public. An activity is an agritourism activity
regardless of whether the participant paid to participate in the activity. (Emphasis
added).
It is my understanding that the Martin County Property Appraiser has relied on the
emphasized language above to justify his Greenbelt revocation.© While the Okeechobee County
Property Appraiser’s denial letter was less explicit, | must assume it was based on a similar
interpretation. This conclusion appears to rely on a factual finding that the buildings are not used
primarily in connection with the underlying farm production (e.g. for storing farm equipment, as
a farm office, etc.)
Talso understand that County officials have conducted limited inspections of the buildings
at issue and found them to be in varying states of agricultural use, but recommended Greenbelt
denial because it would be unpractical to continue their use as anything other than agritourism
venues given the real property improvements made to each structure. For example, I was provided
photographs indicating that chandeliers, drapery, and new flooring had been added to the barns. I
understand the ease it takes to reach this conclusion; however, I am concerned, with the precedent
that a Greenbelt classification may be denied because of inferences drawn rather than through an
investigation into the building’s actual primary use. I am also concerned that the County Property
Appraiser has adopted a “too nice” for agriculture factor as described in your correspondence that
neither appears in Section 193.461, Florida Statutes, nor the Department of Revenue’s rules.”
2 Ch. 2016-14, Laws of Fla.
3 Mount, William Sidley. Dance of the Haymakers (Music is Contagious). 1845.
4 Brueghel, Pieter the Younger. Wedding Dance in Barn. 1616.
5 See §§ 570.85 - .89, Fla. Stat.
© See Letter from Dawn Jaschinski to Cattle Ranch Holdings, LLC dated June 28, 2022.
7 See Fla. Admin Code R. 12D-5.004(1) — (2).
While buildings with these types of improvements might not resemble a traditional farm
building neither do modern vertical farming, aquaculture or hydroponic facilities, and many other
modern agriculture practices. So long as the buildings continue to be used primarily for agricultural
purposes, they should be entitled to a Greenbelt classification.
If a county factually determines that a building is no longer used primarily for bona fide
agricultural purposes, but instead determines that it is used primarily for agritourism, Section
570.87(1), Florida Statutes, clearly instructs property appraisers. As amended earlier this year, this
statute provides that “[A]n agricultural classification...may not be denied or revoked solely due to
the conduct of agritourism activity on a bona fide farm or the construction, alteration, or
maintenance of a nonresidential farm building, structure, or facility on a bona fide farm which is
used to conduct agritourism activities. So long as the building, structure, or facility is an integral
part of the agricultural operation, the land it occupies shall be considered agricultural in nature...
(emphasis provided).”
This law clearly provides that the alteration of a non-residential farm building should not
be the basis for revocation of a property’s agricultural classification. In accordance with this law,
the land (three acres in each county) should remain classified as agricultural and the building must
be assessed according to its just value.
I will preemptively note that I believe any agritourism activity is integral part of an
agricultural operation. They not only serve an important and obvious revenue function (i.e. they
provide necessary cash in an inherently cyclical industry), but they are a valuable marketing tool.
Both functions are integral to any farming operation.
Thank you again for contacting the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to assist.
Sincerely,
Staven Nall
Steven L. Hall
General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Steven.Hall@FDACS.gov
CC: Allan J. Charles, Office of General Counsel
B
§O.
O
wy
Board of County Commissioners MM
ovirnisimees — Okeechobee County--------~ see Cy
Building Department
1700 NW9" Avenue, Suite A, Okeechobee, Florida 34972 (863) 763-5548 &
ORW
December 28, 2021
Property Address: 8900 NE 12" Ln
Okeechobee, FL 34974
SUBJECT: Nonresidential Farm Building Exemption
Building Permit Exemption #BP2112-0135
Construct pole barn for hay, feed, trailers, ect.
To Whom It May Concern:
The Code Compliance Department has reviewed the Nonresidential Farm Building application submitted for
the referenced property. We accept your claim that the property qualifies as a working Farm. Nonresidential
farm buildings located on farms are exempt from the Florida Building Code and do not require the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to Section 604.50, Florida Statutes.
Any building that claims an exemption as a nonresidential farm building as allowed by Section 604.50, F.S. is
not eligible to receive a Certificate of Occupancy as defined in the Florida Building Code. Also because the
building was not issued a building permit and will not receive a Certificate of Occupancy, the provisions of
the Florida Building Code, Existing Building, will not apply for any potential future use of the building.
You may wish to keep a copy of this letter at the property as evidence that the building or buildings are lawfully
exempt from the requirement for a building permit. A power company may also ask to see this letter before
energizing any electrical service connections for this project.
This exemption letter applies solely to the above referenced permit number or project. Future improvements
to the property related to building, electrical, plumbing or mechanical require that a permit application be
submitted to the Code Compliance Department for review by the Building Official and the issuance of either
the applicable permits or a Nonresidential Farm Building exemption.
While this project qualifies as a nonresidential farm building and is exempt from requiring a building permit,
you may still apply for a building permit if you wish. The Code Compliance Department would then, as for
any building permit application, review the construction plans, issue a permit, perform inspections and issue
the appropriate Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion. You would be responsible for
applicable building permit fees.
Please feel free to contact the Code Compliance Department if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
.
Building Official Signature EXHIBIT
Aevin Three d B
Printed Name of Building 6fficial
o
-
ND DE Lo
EK
Viol
OBEE COUNTY FIRE R
RE MARSHAL OFF}
03/28 02. ME
ADDRI [8900 NE 12th Lane, Okeechobee Flonda
NPE STRUCT iN
ON Te NG
[7] NSUF UNSAFE ELECTRICAL WIFI (High D COMTENT
£6 SYSTEMF/ ig ie
A HER
ee aliacher letter
lever After Farms - oS =
py
uStejo\
OR!
. .
ai ce =
Mi bune
a
i rete
a
.
i ek
im
-
nt ain
on de
3
nd
rb no a
Mil ee
ny cip i
4 ce
io
eS
f| Ce
Os
|
4 Ss oo
LG
io : —
Seu
ea
3
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE
Justin Hazellief
707 NW 6th Street
Okeechobee, FL 34972
(863)763-5544
FAX (863)763-4565
March 29, 2023
Mr. Pustejovsky or agent of Ever After Farms,
Okeechobee County Fire Rescue conducted an inspection of the structure located at 8900
NE 12" Lane, Okeechobee, Florida 34972 (the “Subject Property”) on March 28, 2023.
1 am advised that the owner of the Subject Property asserts that the structure is used for
“agritourism activities”, as defined in Sec, 570.86(1), Fla. Stat. I am further advised that the
Okeechobee County Code Compliance Department (“Code Compliance Department”) has
determined that the use of the structure does not satisfy the statutory definition of “agritourism
activity”, as a result of an exclusion added to the definition in 2013 by Ch. 2013-179, Laws of
Florida, and based upon the fact that the structure is a “new or additional structure[] or facilitfy]”
“construct[ed}” after the 2013 passage of the statutory amendment, and the determination that the
structure is “intended primarily to house, shelter, transport, or otherwise accommodate members
of the general public”.
Following the March 28, 2023, inspection, it is my determination that the inspected
structure on the Subject Property is used primarily as a wedding and meeting venue and is “a
Structure or facility that is used primarily for housing, sheltering, or otherwise accommodating
members of the general public”, otherwise consistent with the definition for a “Class 3” structure
as set forth in Sec. 633.202(16)(b)(3)(c), Fla. Stat.
If the structure is excluded from the statutory definition of “agritourism activity” as
determined by the Code Compliance Department, then the structure is not subject to any other
exemption from the’ requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code under Sec. 633.202(16),
Fla. Stat., and thus the structure is subject to the Florida Fire Prevention Code.
If the structure is not excluded from the statutory definition of “agritourism activity”, the
structure would be considered a “Class 3” structure pursuant to Sec. 633.202(16)(b)(3)(c), Fla.
Stat. This statute requires an inspection for classification by Okeechobee County Fire Rescue as
the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). Class 3 structures are also subject to the Florida
Fire Prevention Code. See Sec. 633.202(16)(b)(3\c), Fla. Stat; Florida Administrative
Code
Sections 69A-67.007.
David Hazellief Frank Decarlo Bradley G. Goodbread Terry W. Burroughs Kelly Owens
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
a
OKEECHOBEE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE
Below is a list of violations that were observed and noted during Okeechobee County
Fire Rescue’s March 28, 2023, inspection of the structure on the Subject Property:
1 The owner did not notify the AHJ prior to use. FAC 69A-67.004(1);
2 The owner did not receive an initial or annual inspection from the AHJ to
determine the classification. FAC 69A-67.004(2);
3 The structure has not been inspected for compliance with the Florida Fire
Prevention Code. NFPA 1, Ch. 1.7.12;
The means of egress are obstructed or do not meet standards. NFPA 101, Ch
12.2;
Construction of a structure without a permit. NFPA 1, Ch. 1.12;
Construction of a structure without plan review. NFPA 1, Ch, 1.14;
Use of a structure without an occupational license. NEPA 1, Ch. 1.12;
Electrical work without a permit or inspection. NFPA 1, Ch 11.1 and NFPA
70;
9. No fire protection systems in place. NFPA 101, Ch 12.3; and
10. Overcrowding or no approved occupant load. NFPA 101, Ch 7.3.
The above list of violations is based upon Okeechobee County Fire Rescue’s March 28,
2023, inspection and is subject to the inclusion of additional violations once a more thorough
inspection and plan review are completed. Further, the above list of violations does not include
any violations that may involve the Okeechobee County Building Official, Okeechobee County
Code Enforcement, or any other local or state agency.
Due to the severity and abundance of violations observed during Okeechobee County
, Okeechobee
Fire Rescue’s March 28, 2023, inspection of the structure on the Subject Property
County Fire Rescue is issuing a Cease-and-Desist order concerning any_use of the structure
referenced.
Sincerely,
Lf
i “h lief, Bureau
aZe) Chief
Community Risk Reduction/Fire Marshal
oO
we
David Hazellief Frank Decarlo Bradiey G. Goodbread Terry W. Burroughs Kelly Owens
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
it
Ever After Farms 03/29/23
8900 NE 12TH Ln
Okeechobee, FL 34972
nn
nt oe ae
Inspection # 88193
Property # 11266 Occupancy Type Assembly
Electrical
Regulation Violation
Due Date
) 70 Improper Outlet
04/11/23
Compliance
Outdoor/wet locations install GFCI
Inspector Remark: Outlets had exposed wiring.
2) 70 Electrical panel - cover not secure
04/11/23
Compliance
Secure cover on electrical panel
Inspector Remark: Breaker panel is not screwed in completely.
3) 70 Electrical Panel Obstructed
04/11/23
Compliance
Must maintain 36" clearance
Inspector Remark: Storage in front of electrical panel.
4) 70 improper use of electrical cord(s) 04/11/23
Compliance
Remove & replace with breaker box - UL type circuit breaker surge protector
Inspector Remark: Electrical cords run to the outside pergola.
Contact: Phone: Email:
page
1 of 5. Inspection # 88193 Desc. Ever After Farms
Extinguishers
Regulation Violation Due Date
5) 10 Extinguisher(s) not inspected 04/11/23
Compliance
Contractor to inspect annually
inspector Remark: Extinguishers had not been inspected.
Fire Alarm Systems
Regulation Violation Due Date
72 Fire alarm system not inspected 04/11/23
Compliance
Inspect alarm system annually
Inspector Remark: No fire alarm in place.
Hydrants
Regulation Violation Due Date
7” 24 Hydrant(s) inoperable 04/11/23,
Compliance
Repair/replace hydrant(s)
Inspector Remark: No hydrants present. No alternative water source available,
Knox Box
Regulation Violation Due Date
8) 104 Knox box in unacceptable condition 04/11/23
Compliance
Repair/replace knox box
Inspector Remark: No Fire Department access to the property or the building.
Means Of Egress
Regulation Violation Due Date
9) 104 Improper EXIT sign(s) 04/11/23
Compliance
Exit sign req. 6"H x 3/4" strokes
Inspector Remark: Exit signs mounted in improper location
40) 101 Panic hardware - improper operation 04/11/23
Compliance
Repair / replace panic hardware
inspector Remark: All panic hardware was mounted improperly and did not operate.
Contact: Phone: Email:
page 2 of 5 inspection # 88193 Desc. Ever After Farms
Mechanical/Service/Storage Room
Regulation Violation Due Date
11) 101,101 Improper storage of combustibles 04/11/23
Compliance
Store combustibles in proper manner
Inspector Remark: Chemicals may not be stored with the air handlers.
Signage
Regulation Violation Due Date
12) 101 Occupant load limits not posted 04/11/23
Compliance
Post occupant load limits sign(s)
inspector Remark: Occupant limit posted was not approved by the AHJ.
Sprinkler / Standpipes
Regulation Violation Due Date
13) 13,14 Sprinkler/standpipe system not insp 04/11/23
Compliance
Have contractor inspect annually
Inspector Remark: No sprinkler system in place.
Contact: Phone: Email:
page
3 of 5 inspection # 88193 Desc. Ever After Farms
inspection Remarks
My office received a compiai int regarding life safety issues at the above location. The complaint was
forwarded to the Building Official and Code Enforcement. Several discussions were had amongst staff
regarding a path to move forward. Attempts were made to contact the venue with no response. The attorney
for the venue reached out fo us some time later and stated that he would like to speak with us regarding the
venue,
A phone conversation took place with the various departments affected, the County attorney, and
representatives of the venue. They stated that the building was primarily used for the cow/calf operation and
occasionally used for a wedding venue. They believed the venue to be a Class 2 agritourism structure. They
agreed to meet us at the location the following day to inspect the structure for classification purposes.
Myself, DFM Jessica Sasser, Building Official Kevin Throop, Jamie Werk, Beth Albert, Shelby Ritter, and
LaKeisha Gilchrist met with Jenny Cahoon, the manager of the property. Upon entering the structure, it was
set up with tables and chairs as a wedding venue. Seating for guests, family and the bride and groom table
were present and set up, There was seating for approximately 150 persons with room for more. We toured
each room. The storage room was full of wedding venue decorations and additional tables and chairs. There
was a small kitchen area set up for food distribution and beverages. There was no cooking equipment
present. We noted a posted occupant capacity of 299. The manager stated that the posting was something
that they had made and was not approved by any agency. They posted that number to stay under 300
persons listed in Statute. There was a room dedicated for the groom to prepare, a men’s restroom, women's
restroom, and another room for the bride and bridesmaids to prepare. There was also an office. Everything in
the office referenced weddings and events. There was nothing that referenced any agricultural operations. |
asked Jenny if the venue was set up as a venue all of the time and she stated that it was. They do not remove
the tables and chairs, only rearrange them for the different events. She stated that potential customers may
come out before reserving the venue to tour it and want to see it set up as it would be for the wedding day.
She stated that they held their first event in February of 2022. She also stated that the company has been
holding wedding venues at their various locations since 2018.
| asked her to show me what in the building was specific or integral to the agricultural operation. She stated
that there were a few files in the office and the apiary equipment. She showed us the equipment. It was one
small honey extractor, a bee hood, and smoke pot. It all appeared to be new. | asked her how often they use
this equipment and she stated that it was all brand new and had never been used. She stated that they had
not actually put any of their own bees on the property so they had not needed the equipment yet. She stated
that there was no other equipment or storage for anything not related to the wedding venue. The Building
Official did find two small bins labeled cow/horse meds in the storage room.
In one of the previous meetings the owners had stated that this was an original pole barn that was on the
property when they bought it and they had done major renovations. The barn appears to face an entirely
different direction than the original. When asked, Jenny stated that the original barn was torn down and this
one was reconstructed with some of the material from the first one, she was not sure how much of the
material was used. She stated that they had been granted ag exemption when the barn was built and some
time after that they closed it in and made the improvements to create a venue.
As this visit was an initial visit and intended f
Preview
Filing # 170038690 E-Filed 03/30/2023 04:56:51 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CATTLE RANCH HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, Vv. Case No.: RALPH FRANKLIN, as Public Safety Director/Fire Chief for the OKEECHOBEE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE and the O§KEECHOBEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Defendants. / COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND MONETARY RELIEF COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, CATTLE RANCH HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Defendant, RALPH FRANKLIN, in his official capacity as Public Safety Director/Fire Chief for the OKEECHOBEE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE and the OKEECHOBEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (collectively, the “County”), and in support thereof allege as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1 This is an action for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. 2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Chapter 86 of the Florida Statutes, which authorizes circuit courts to enter declaratory judgments related to controversies in excess of $50,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. 3 This action involves matters in excess of $50,000.00 exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. 4 In addition, jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to section 26.012(2)(c), Florida Statutes, which provides that the Circuit Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases in equity. Electronically Filed Okeechobee Case # 202300018, BG NS 03/30/2023 04:56:51 PM 019035531 5 Venue is proper in Okeechobee County pursuant to section 47.011, Florida Statutes, as the actions and the facts giving rise to this Complaint all occurred in Okeechobee County, Florida. PARTIES AND PROPERTY 6 The Plaintiff is the owner of real property located at 8900 NE 12th Lane, Okeechobee Florida 34972 (the “Property”). 7 Ever After Farms, LLC, is the operator of agritourism events at the Property. 8 The Defendants, the County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 9 The Property has been used for agricultural purposes for many years prior to the Plaintiff taking ownership and control on or about November 9, 2020. 10. The Plaintiff has continued to use the Property for agricultural purposes since taking ownership and control. 11. The Property has a multiple structures, including a residential structure and a Nonresidential Farm Building as defined in section 604.50, Florida Statutes (the “Barn”). 12. Originally, the Barn facilitated the Property’s cow-calf farming operation. 13. Approximately one year ago, the Barn was renovated to enclose the pole barn portion that stored farm equipment. 14. The Barn remains part of the Plaintiff's bona fide cow-calf farming operation. 15. In addition, the Barn is used for agritourism activities — specifically as a wedding venue. The first wedding event was held at the Barn on or about February 2022. 16. The Barn is scheduled for wedding events on weekends in the spring and summer of 2023, including Saturday, April 1, 2023 and Sunday, April 2, 2023. 019035531 Page 2 of 8 17. Wedding events on farms are considered agritourism activities and are recognized as such by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“FDACS”). In fact FDACS declared Plaintiffs operations to be in compliance with the State’s agritourism statutes. See FDACS letter attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. 18. On December 28, 2021, the Property was issued a Nonresidential Farm Building Exemption for the Barn by the County (the “Exemption”). See the Exemption attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. 19. The Plaintiff relied on this Exemption to continue its agricultural and agritourism operations. 20. Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Nonresidential Farm Buildings, including the Barn, are exempt from the Florida Building Code and any county or municipal code or fee, except for code provisions implementing local, state, or federal floodplain management regulations. 21. Since receiving the Exemption, the Barn has served as a venue for a number of weddings. 22. At no time since its designation, has there been any kind of fire, occupancy, or other safety issues with the wedding activities on the Property to justify any concern of imminent danger to public health, safety, or welfare. 23. On March 28, 2023, the Okeechobee County Building Department conducted an inspection of the Barn, and unilaterally determined that the Barn is “intended primarily to house, shelter, transport, or otherwise accommodate members of the general public”, and is therefore not an agritourism activity. 24. In correspondence to the Plaintiff, the Okeechobee County Building Official, Kevin Throop, unilaterally determined that the Barn is not an “agritourism activity” pursuant to Chapter 019035531 Page 3 of 8 2013-179, Laws of Florida, and determined that the Barn is not a Nonresidential Farm Building pursuant to section 553.73(10)(c), Florida Statutes, contrary to the determination by FDACS. 25. Throop’s determination to unilaterally remove the Exemption from the Barn was made without any notice to the Plaintiff and with any opportunity for Plaintiff to be heard and present documentation and other facts on the issue. 26. The County does not have authority to classify agritourism events. That authority is within the purview of FDACS. 27. As a result of Throop’s unilateral determination, a Cease-and-Desist Order was issued on March 28, 2023 by the Okeechobee County Fire Rescue Fire Marshal Office. See Cease and Desist Order attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. 28. The Cease-and-Desist Order was accompanied by a letter from Justin Hazellief (“Hazellief’), Bureau Chief of the Okeechobee County Fire Rescue, alleging a number of violations due to the Barn no longer being exempt from such requirements as a Nonresidential Farm Building. 29. Hazellief issued the Cease-and-Desist Order using the incorrect interpretation regarding the Barn made by Throop. 30. The County is acting beyond its authority. 31. Failure to comply with the Cease-and-Desist Order of the Fire Marshal could result in criminal liability and civil penalties. 32. The illegal termination of the Exemption and incorrect interpretation that the Barn is not being used for agritourism activities will result in significant damages to the Plaintiff. As stated above, weddings are scheduled to take place at the venue this weekend. 33. Plaintiff has expended attorney’s fees in the pursuit of this action. ey 25° 4 of 8 34. All conditions precedent for the bringing of this action have been satisfied or have been waived. COUNT I CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 35. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 above are re-alleged and adopted as fully set forth herein. 36. This is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to Chapter 86 of the Florida Statutes. 37. Pursuant to Florida law, the Barn is exempt from the Florida Building Code and any county or municipal code or fee, except for code provisions implementing local, state, or federal floodplain management regulations. 38. Weddings at the Barn are authorized agritourism activities. 39. Plaintiff has continuously maintained its agricultural operations at the Property. 40. Because of the County’s desire to eliminate agritourism at the Property, the County intentionally and erroneously acted to discontinue the agritourism activities in direct violation of Florida law without due process of law. 41. There is a bona fide, actual, present and practical need for the declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to continue hosting agritourism events at the Barn including weddings. 42. There is a controversy between Plaintiff and the County concerning whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to continue utilizing the Barn for the aforementioned agritourism activities. 43. There are powers, privileges, and rights of Plaintiff that are dependent upon a determination of the facts and the law applicable to the facts in this case. 44. The parties have an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest in the subject matter, both in fact and in law. 019035531 Page 5 of 8 45. The antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the Court by proper process, and the relief sought is not merely the giving of legal advice by the Court or the answer to questions propounded from curiosity. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an order in favor of Plaintiff, CATTLE RANCH HOLDINGS, LLC: a. declaring that the Barn is a Nonresidential Farm Building under Florida law; b confirming a continuing right to use the Barn for agritourism activities; declaring that the County wrongfully issued its notices of violation and cease and desist in contravention the Florida Statutes, and failed to follow due process mandated by law; and granting such further relief that this Court deems just and proper. COUNT I A CLAIM FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION 46. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 above are re-alleged and adopted as fully set forth herein. 47. Plaintiff has a clear legal right that the County acted beyond its scope of authority when it determined the Barn was no longer a Nonresidential Farm Building, and that right is clear and free from reasonable doubt. 48. Plaintiff relied upon the Barn’s classification as a Nonresidential Farm Building to lawfully utilized the Barn for agritourism activities such as weddings. 49. Other parties also relied upon Plaintiff's use of the Barn for agritourism activities and, as such, made significant plans in reliance on the Exemption to hold weddings, indeed as soon as April 1, 2023. 019035531 Page 6 of 8 50. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's patrons are being irreparably harmed by the County’s unilateral termination of Plaintiff's Exemption and prohibition of using the Barn for agritourism. 51. It is in the public interest to protect landowners from extortionate demands without due process of law from their local governments and from arbitrary interpretations of Florida law. 52. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 53. There is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits given the facts surrounding the County’s impermissible termination of Plaintiff's right to an Exemption for the Barn. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue a mandatory injunction removing the illegally adopted Cease-and-Desist Order issued by the County, restore the status quo allowing the Barn to be continue being utilized for agritourism activities and award any other such relief as this Court may deem just and proper. COUNT I ACTION FOR EQU. LE ESTOPPEL 54. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 35 above are re-alleged and adopted as fully set forth herein. 55. The doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against a government entity when a property owner: 1) relies in good faith; 2) upon some act or omission of the government; and 3) has made a substantial change in position or incurred such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the rights that the property owner has acquired. 56. The Exemption granted by the County guarantees that the Barn is considered a Nonresidential Farm Building. 57. Plaintiff relied upon the Exemption by the County and utilized the Barn for agritourism activities including weddings. 019035531 Page 7 of 8 58. Weddings have been scheduled to take place which includes considerable efforts by many patrons of Plaintiff to attend, and significant costs have been incurred by Plaintiff to conduct, the weddings as well as costs incurred by Plaintiffs patrons to conduct their weddings. 59. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Plaintiffs patrons have made substantial changes in position in reliance on the Exemption which has been revoked without notice or an opportunity to be heard. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court conclude that as a result of the County’s Exemption and Plaintiff's reliance thereon, the County be ordered to allow the agritourism activities currently scheduled to continue. Respectfully submitted this 30" day of March, 2023. || Richard P. Green KEVIN S. HENNESSY, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 0602558 ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 0064963 RICHARD P. GREEN, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 0119530 NICOLE J. POOT, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 0118858 CHRISTOPHER PERRIGAN, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No. 1039821 LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 100 Second Avenue S., Suite 501-S St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 245-0820 Primary Email: khennessv@llw-law.com rwilliams@Uw-law.com green@llw-law.com poot@|lw-law.com perrigan@|lw-law.com Secondary Email: STPService@Ilw-law.com Counsel for the Plaintiff 019035531 Page 8 of 8 OSs, Oprice OF GENERAL COUNSEL 5 THe Mayo Burpinc (850) 245-1000 x 407 Sour CaLHown STREET (850) 245-1001 Fax TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0800 e Ss = FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES ComMISSIONER NICOLE “Nikkr” FRIED November 2, 2022 Timothy Riley Dean, Mead & Dunbar 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Robert Volpe Holtzman, Vogel, Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC 119 S. Monroe St. Suite 500 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Re: Cattle Ranch Holdings LLC Messrs. Riley and Volpe, Thank you for contacting the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“Department”). You advised the Department that you are in ongoing discussions with the County Property Appraiser of both Okeechobee and Martin County regarding the denial of an agricultural classification of two structures. Specifically, it is my understanding that the Okeechobee County Property Appraiser has denied the agricultural classification of a structure and just over three acres at 8900 NE 12th Lane, Okeechobee, FL 34974, and that the Martin County Property Appraiser has denied the agricultural classification of a structure and three acres at 8501 SW Fox Brown Rd, Indiantown, FL 34956. As presented, the controversy surrounding these properties appear to be related to the use of non-residential farm buildings for agritourism purposes, specifically as wedding barns. While the assessment of real property falls well within the purview of the County Property Appraiser, the Department does have a responsibility to promote and encourage agritourism and to assist with conflict resolution between local governments and agricultural producers. ! Since the conflict here centers on Florida’s agritourism laws, I believe it is appropriate for me to opine. After reviewing your correspondence, your question is essentially as follows: Do improvements to a non-residential farm building to improve its utility as an Agritourism venue justify the removal or denial of an agricultural classification pursuant to Section 193.461, Florida Statutes? In my opinion, an agricultural property classification may not be revoked or denied for improvements to a non-residential farm building used for agritourism purposes. | §§ 570.85 - .87, Fla. Stat. EXHIBIT A 1-800-HELPFLA www.FDACS.gov As a threshold matter, the Department has long considered weddings to fall within the statutory definition of an agritourism activity. Even before the legislature amended the statute to expressly include “civic and ceremonial activities, 2 there was a reasonable argument that weddings qualified as “recreational” or “entertainment” activities. There is ample historic support for this conclusion, including the long tradition of holding recreational activities in barns,* and specifically, of holding weddings in barns.* Agritourism in Florida is primarily governed in Chapter 570, Florida Statutes. These statutes provide legislative intent, preempt from local government regulation, define terms, and provide exemptions from liability. Relevant to the issue here, Agritourism activity is defined in Section 570.86(1), Florida Statutes, as: [A]ny agricultural related activity consistent with a bona fide farm, livestock operation, or ranch or in a working forest which allows members of the general public, for recreational, entertainment, or educational purposes, to view or enjoy activities, including farming, ranching, historical, cultural, civic, ceremonial, training and exhibition, or harvest-your-own activities and attractions. An agritourism activity does not include the construction of new or additional structures or facilities intended primarily to house, shelter, transport, or otherwise accommodate members of the general public. An activity is an agritourism activity regardless of whether the participant paid to participate in the activity. (Emphasis added). It is my understanding that the Martin County Property Appraiser has relied on the emphasized language above to justify his Greenbelt revocation.© While the Okeechobee County Property Appraiser’s denial letter was less explicit, | must assume it was based on a similar interpretation. This conclusion appears to rely on a factual finding that the buildings are not used primarily in connection with the underlying farm production (e.g. for storing farm equipment, as a farm office, etc.) Talso understand that County officials have conducted limited inspections of the buildings at issue and found them to be in varying states of agricultural use, but recommended Greenbelt denial because it would be unpractical to continue their use as anything other than agritourism venues given the real property improvements made to each structure. For example, I was provided photographs indicating that chandeliers, drapery, and new flooring had been added to the barns. I understand the ease it takes to reach this conclusion; however, I am concerned, with the precedent that a Greenbelt classification may be denied because of inferences drawn rather than through an investigation into the building’s actual primary use. I am also concerned that the County Property Appraiser has adopted a “too nice” for agriculture factor as described in your correspondence that neither appears in Section 193.461, Florida Statutes, nor the Department of Revenue’s rules.” 2 Ch. 2016-14, Laws of Fla. 3 Mount, William Sidley. Dance of the Haymakers (Music is Contagious). 1845. 4 Brueghel, Pieter the Younger. Wedding Dance in Barn. 1616. 5 See §§ 570.85 - .89, Fla. Stat. © See Letter from Dawn Jaschinski to Cattle Ranch Holdings, LLC dated June 28, 2022. 7 See Fla. Admin Code R. 12D-5.004(1) — (2). While buildings with these types of improvements might not resemble a traditional farm building neither do modern vertical farming, aquaculture or hydroponic facilities, and many other modern agriculture practices. So long as the buildings continue to be used primarily for agricultural purposes, they should be entitled to a Greenbelt classification. If a county factually determines that a building is no longer used primarily for bona fide agricultural purposes, but instead determines that it is used primarily for agritourism, Section 570.87(1), Florida Statutes, clearly instructs property appraisers. As amended earlier this year, this statute provides that “[A]n agricultural classification...may not be denied or revoked solely due to the conduct of agritourism activity on a bona fide farm or the construction, alteration, or maintenance of a nonresidential farm building, structure, or facility on a bona fide farm which is used to conduct agritourism activities. So long as the building, structure, or facility is an integral part of the agricultural operation, the land it occupies shall be considered agricultural in nature... (emphasis provided).” This law clearly provides that the alteration of a non-residential farm building should not be the basis for revocation of a property’s agricultural classification. In accordance with this law, the land (three acres in each county) should remain classified as agricultural and the building must be assessed according to its just value. I will preemptively note that I believe any agritourism activity is integral part of an agricultural operation. They not only serve an important and obvious revenue function (i.e. they provide necessary cash in an inherently cyclical industry), but they are a valuable marketing tool. Both functions are integral to any farming operation. Thank you again for contacting the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to assist. Sincerely, Staven Nall Steven L. Hall General Counsel Office of General Counsel Steven.Hall@FDACS.gov CC: Allan J. Charles, Office of General Counsel B §O. O wy Board of County Commissioners MM ovirnisimees — Okeechobee County--------~ see Cy Building Department 1700 NW9" Avenue, Suite A, Okeechobee, Florida 34972 (863) 763-5548 & ORW December 28, 2021 Property Address: 8900 NE 12" Ln Okeechobee, FL 34974 SUBJECT: Nonresidential Farm Building Exemption Building Permit Exemption #BP2112-0135 Construct pole barn for hay, feed, trailers, ect. To Whom It May Concern: The Code Compliance Department has reviewed the Nonresidential Farm Building application submitted for the referenced property. We accept your claim that the property qualifies as a working Farm. Nonresidential farm buildings located on farms are exempt from the Florida Building Code and do not require the issuance of building permits, pursuant to Section 604.50, Florida Statutes. Any building that claims an exemption as a nonresidential farm building as allowed by Section 604.50, F.S. is not eligible to receive a Certificate of Occupancy as defined in the Florida Building Code. Also because the building was not issued a building permit and will not receive a Certificate of Occupancy, the provisions of the Florida Building Code, Existing Building, will not apply for any potential future use of the building. You may wish to keep a copy of this letter at the property as evidence that the building or buildings are lawfully exempt from the requirement for a building permit. A power company may also ask to see this letter before energizing any electrical service connections for this project. This exemption letter applies solely to the above referenced permit number or project. Future improvements to the property related to building, electrical, plumbing or mechanical require that a permit application be submitted to the Code Compliance Department for review by the Building Official and the issuance of either the applicable permits or a Nonresidential Farm Building exemption. While this project qualifies as a nonresidential farm building and is exempt from requiring a building permit, you may still apply for a building permit if you wish. The Code Compliance Department would then, as for any building permit application, review the construction plans, issue a permit, perform inspections and issue the appropriate Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion. You would be responsible for applicable building permit fees. Please feel free to contact the Code Compliance Department if you have any questions. Sincerely, . Building Official Signature EXHIBIT Aevin Three d B Printed Name of Building 6fficial o - ND DE Lo EK Viol OBEE COUNTY FIRE R RE MARSHAL OFF} 03/28 02. ME ADDRI [8900 NE 12th Lane, Okeechobee Flonda NPE STRUCT iN ON Te NG [7] NSUF UNSAFE ELECTRICAL WIFI (High D COMTENT £6 SYSTEMF/ ig ie A HER ee aliacher letter lever After Farms - oS = py uStejo\ OR! . . ai ce = Mi bune a i rete a . i ek im - nt ain on de 3 nd rb no a Mil ee ny cip i 4 ce io eS f| Ce Os | 4 Ss oo LG io : — Seu ea 3 OKEECHOBEE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE Justin Hazellief 707 NW 6th Street Okeechobee, FL 34972 (863)763-5544 FAX (863)763-4565 March 29, 2023 Mr. Pustejovsky or agent of Ever After Farms, Okeechobee County Fire Rescue conducted an inspection of the structure located at 8900 NE 12" Lane, Okeechobee, Florida 34972 (the “Subject Property”) on March 28, 2023. 1 am advised that the owner of the Subject Property asserts that the structure is used for “agritourism activities”, as defined in Sec, 570.86(1), Fla. Stat. I am further advised that the Okeechobee County Code Compliance Department (“Code Compliance Department”) has determined that the use of the structure does not satisfy the statutory definition of “agritourism activity”, as a result of an exclusion added to the definition in 2013 by Ch. 2013-179, Laws of Florida, and based upon the fact that the structure is a “new or additional structure[] or facilitfy]” “construct[ed}” after the 2013 passage of the statutory amendment, and the determination that the structure is “intended primarily to house, shelter, transport, or otherwise accommodate members of the general public”. Following the March 28, 2023, inspection, it is my determination that the inspected structure on the Subject Property is used primarily as a wedding and meeting venue and is “a Structure or facility that is used primarily for housing, sheltering, or otherwise accommodating members of the general public”, otherwise consistent with the definition for a “Class 3” structure as set forth in Sec. 633.202(16)(b)(3)(c), Fla. Stat. If the structure is excluded from the statutory definition of “agritourism activity” as determined by the Code Compliance Department, then the structure is not subject to any other exemption from the’ requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code under Sec. 633.202(16), Fla. Stat., and thus the structure is subject to the Florida Fire Prevention Code. If the structure is not excluded from the statutory definition of “agritourism activity”, the structure would be considered a “Class 3” structure pursuant to Sec. 633.202(16)(b)(3)(c), Fla. Stat. This statute requires an inspection for classification by Okeechobee County Fire Rescue as the local authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). Class 3 structures are also subject to the Florida Fire Prevention Code. See Sec. 633.202(16)(b)(3\c), Fla. Stat; Florida Administrative Code Sections 69A-67.007. David Hazellief Frank Decarlo Bradley G. Goodbread Terry W. Burroughs Kelly Owens District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 a OKEECHOBEE COUNTY FIRE RESCUE Below is a list of violations that were observed and noted during Okeechobee County Fire Rescue’s March 28, 2023, inspection of the structure on the Subject Property: 1 The owner did not notify the AHJ prior to use. FAC 69A-67.004(1); 2 The owner did not receive an initial or annual inspection from the AHJ to determine the classification. FAC 69A-67.004(2); 3 The structure has not been inspected for compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code. NFPA 1, Ch. 1.7.12; The means of egress are obstructed or do not meet standards. NFPA 101, Ch 12.2; Construction of a structure without a permit. NFPA 1, Ch. 1.12; Construction of a structure without plan review. NFPA 1, Ch, 1.14; Use of a structure without an occupational license. NEPA 1, Ch. 1.12; Electrical work without a permit or inspection. NFPA 1, Ch 11.1 and NFPA 70; 9. No fire protection systems in place. NFPA 101, Ch 12.3; and 10. Overcrowding or no approved occupant load. NFPA 101, Ch 7.3. The above list of violations is based upon Okeechobee County Fire Rescue’s March 28, 2023, inspection and is subject to the inclusion of additional violations once a more thorough inspection and plan review are completed. Further, the above list of violations does not include any violations that may involve the Okeechobee County Building Official, Okeechobee County Code Enforcement, or any other local or state agency. Due to the severity and abundance of violations observed during Okeechobee County , Okeechobee Fire Rescue’s March 28, 2023, inspection of the structure on the Subject Property County Fire Rescue is issuing a Cease-and-Desist order concerning any_use of the structure referenced. Sincerely, Lf i “h lief, Bureau aZe) Chief Community Risk Reduction/Fire Marshal oO we David Hazellief Frank Decarlo Bradiey G. Goodbread Terry W. Burroughs Kelly Owens District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 it Ever After Farms 03/29/23 8900 NE 12TH Ln Okeechobee, FL 34972 nn nt oe ae Inspection # 88193 Property # 11266 Occupancy Type Assembly Electrical Regulation Violation Due Date ) 70 Improper Outlet 04/11/23 Compliance Outdoor/wet locations install GFCI Inspector Remark: Outlets had exposed wiring. 2) 70 Electrical panel - cover not secure 04/11/23 Compliance Secure cover on electrical panel Inspector Remark: Breaker panel is not screwed in completely. 3) 70 Electrical Panel Obstructed 04/11/23 Compliance Must maintain 36" clearance Inspector Remark: Storage in front of electrical panel. 4) 70 improper use of electrical cord(s) 04/11/23 Compliance Remove & replace with breaker box - UL type circuit breaker surge protector Inspector Remark: Electrical cords run to the outside pergola. Contact: Phone: Email: page 1 of 5. Inspection # 88193 Desc. Ever After Farms Extinguishers Regulation Violation Due Date 5) 10 Extinguisher(s) not inspected 04/11/23 Compliance Contractor to inspect annually inspector Remark: Extinguishers had not been inspected. Fire Alarm Systems Regulation Violation Due Date 72 Fire alarm system not inspected 04/11/23 Compliance Inspect alarm system annually Inspector Remark: No fire alarm in place. Hydrants Regulation Violation Due Date 7” 24 Hydrant(s) inoperable 04/11/23, Compliance Repair/replace hydrant(s) Inspector Remark: No hydrants present. No alternative water source available, Knox Box Regulation Violation Due Date 8) 104 Knox box in unacceptable condition 04/11/23 Compliance Repair/replace knox box Inspector Remark: No Fire Department access to the property or the building. Means Of Egress Regulation Violation Due Date 9) 104 Improper EXIT sign(s) 04/11/23 Compliance Exit sign req. 6"H x 3/4" strokes Inspector Remark: Exit signs mounted in improper location 40) 101 Panic hardware - improper operation 04/11/23 Compliance Repair / replace panic hardware inspector Remark: All panic hardware was mounted improperly and did not operate. Contact: Phone: Email: page 2 of 5 inspection # 88193 Desc. Ever After Farms Mechanical/Service/Storage Room Regulation Violation Due Date 11) 101,101 Improper storage of combustibles 04/11/23 Compliance Store combustibles in proper manner Inspector Remark: Chemicals may not be stored with the air handlers. Signage Regulation Violation Due Date 12) 101 Occupant load limits not posted 04/11/23 Compliance Post occupant load limits sign(s) inspector Remark: Occupant limit posted was not approved by the AHJ. Sprinkler / Standpipes Regulation Violation Due Date 13) 13,14 Sprinkler/standpipe system not insp 04/11/23 Compliance Have contractor inspect annually Inspector Remark: No sprinkler system in place. Contact: Phone: Email: page 3 of 5 inspection # 88193 Desc. Ever After Farms inspection Remarks My office received a compiai int regarding life safety issues at the above location. The complaint was forwarded to the Building Official and Code Enforcement. Several discussions were had amongst staff regarding a path to move forward. Attempts were made to contact the venue with no response. The attorney for the venue reached out fo us some time later and stated that he would like to speak with us regarding the venue, A phone conversation took place with the various departments affected, the County attorney, and representatives of the venue. They stated that the building was primarily used for the cow/calf operation and occasionally used for a wedding venue. They believed the venue to be a Class 2 agritourism structure. They agreed to meet us at the location the following day to inspect the structure for classification purposes. Myself, DFM Jessica Sasser, Building Official Kevin Throop, Jamie Werk, Beth Albert, Shelby Ritter, and LaKeisha Gilchrist met with Jenny Cahoon, the manager of the property. Upon entering the structure, it was set up with tables and chairs as a wedding venue. Seating for guests, family and the bride and groom table were present and set up, There was seating for approximately 150 persons with room for more. We toured each room. The storage room was full of wedding venue decorations and additional tables and chairs. There was a small kitchen area set up for food distribution and beverages. There was no cooking equipment present. We noted a posted occupant capacity of 299. The manager stated that the posting was something that they had made and was not approved by any agency. They posted that number to stay under 300 persons listed in Statute. There was a room dedicated for the groom to prepare, a men’s restroom, women's restroom, and another room for the bride and bridesmaids to prepare. There was also an office. Everything in the office referenced weddings and events. There was nothing that referenced any agricultural operations. | asked Jenny if the venue was set up as a venue all of the time and she stated that it was. They do not remove the tables and chairs, only rearrange them for the different events. She stated that potential customers may come out before reserving the venue to tour it and want to see it set up as it would be for the wedding day. She stated that they held their first event in February of 2022. She also stated that the company has been holding wedding venues at their various locations since 2018. | asked her to show me what in the building was specific or integral to the agricultural operation. She stated that there were a few files in the office and the apiary equipment. She showed us the equipment. It was one small honey extractor, a bee hood, and smoke pot. It all appeared to be new. | asked her how often they use this equipment and she stated that it was all brand new and had never been used. She stated that they had not actually put any of their own bees on the property so they had not needed the equipment yet. She stated that there was no other equipment or storage for anything not related to the wedding venue. The Building Official did find two small bins labeled cow/horse meds in the storage room. In one of the previous meetings the owners had stated that this was an original pole barn that was on the property when they bought it and they had done major renovations. The barn appears to face an entirely different direction than the original. When asked, Jenny stated that the original barn was torn down and this one was reconstructed with some of the material from the first one, she was not sure how much of the material was used. She stated that they had been granted ag exemption when the barn was built and some time after that they closed it in and made the improvements to create a venue. As this visit was an initial visit and intended f