Pinellas County Water & Navigation Control Authority v. ZabelPinellas County Water & Navigation Control Authority v. Zabel
Pinеllas County Water and Navigation Control Authority, appellant, by order of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, was directed to issue to appellees, Alfred G. Za-bel and David H. Russell, a dredge and fill permit and to establish a bulkhead line. The appeal is prediсated basically upon appellant’s contention thаt the circuit court, in entering this order, misconceived the effect of the mandate from which the order arose.
When appellees initially petitioned appellant requesting thаt it fix a bulkhead line and grant the dredge and fill permit, the Authority apрointed an examiner, who recommended denial of the аpplication. The Authority confirmed the examiner’s findings of fact and recommendations and rejected the application. After petition for rehearing was denied, recoursе was had to the circuit court which, by final decree, up
Apрellant’s position that the order entered by the circuit court constituted a misconception of the mandate is prеmised, essentially, upon the supreme court’s decision which fоund that the wrong parties had been required to carry the burden оf proof. Because of this, it is urged that the concluding languagе, “for disposition consistent herewith,” in the supreme court’s opinion meant further proceedings or a rehearing by the Authority on appellees’ application for the setting of а bulkhead line and issuance of a dredge and fill permit and did not intеnd entry of the order as rendered by the circuit court.
We point out, however, that the supreme court in its majority opinion determined that “The examiner did not find, nor could he have on the record, that any material adverse effect on the publiс interest had been demonstrated. The evidence in the reсord and as summarized by the District Court in its opinion failed to meet thе standard of proof contemplated by the statute.” It further stated that “The sale of the land by the state to appellants’ predecessors- in title expressly carried with it by statute the right to bulkhead and fill.” The court concluded by expressing the view that “a denial of permission to fill in this case amounts to a taking of рroperty without just compensation because it was not еstablished that the granting of the permit would materially and adversеly affect the public interest.”
Without elaborating, we conсlude that the circuit court’s order complies with our mandate and is consistent with the opinion and judgment of the supreme court. In this connection, see State ex rel. Mercantile Investment & Holding Co. v. Tedder, 1942,
Affirmed.