Why the Tringali Townhouse Proposal Was Taken Off the Table

By Tammi Bach

Fernandina Beach City Attorney

I have reviewed application materials, engineered plans, emails and agent authorizations submitted for the preliminary plat application for the above-referenced parcel identification numbers in the City of Fernandina Beach. I have concluded that this application is incomplete due to: 1) For parcel ID# 000031180000120150, the absence of a notarized statement authorizing a representative to act as an agent of the property owner (Josephine Tringali) with regard to a preliminary plat application (see Section 11.01.03(A)(4) of the Land Development Code), and 2) For parcel ID#’s 000031180000120100, 000031180000120050, 000031180000120210 and 000031180000120190, absence of notarized statement(s) of property owner(s) [Anthony J. Tringali Revocable Trust (the “Trust”) dated March 27, 2017 and successor trustees].

All of the parcel ID numbers referenced in this memorandum are included in the preliminary plat application and site plan submitted first to the City of Fernandina Beach Planning and Conservation Department in August 2022. These parcels include the parcel owned by Josephine Tringali (ID# 000031180000120150). The Technical Review Committee did not approve the site plan or preliminary plat in September 2022 but provided comments to Gillette & Associates who provided engineering guidance on the project for the property owners. No development order has been issued by the city for the above-referenced parcels. The city’s Planning and Conservation Department had received a notarized statement showing Gillette & Associates as the agent in September 2022. The Planning Advisory Board considered the preliminary plat application on December 14, 2022 and recommended denial to the city commission. In January 2023, as the city staff and Compass Group, Inc. (representing to staff that they were now the agent for property owners) prepared for the city commission to hear the preliminary plat application on February 7, 2023, I requested that Compass Group, Inc. provide the city with some proof that the Trustee of the Trust indeed had authority to bind the property owner(s) before the city commission heard the preliminary plat application request. Up to the 6:00 p.m. start time for the city commission regular meeting on February 7, 2023, I waited with Mr. Ron Flick for the presumed last notarized statement authorizing Mr. Flick and Compass Group to represent the property owners in front of the city commission for presentation of evidence and testimony under oath in the quasi-judicial hearing. This presumed last notarized statement needed for the hearing to proceed was not received. I explained to Mayor Bradley Bean that this preliminary plat could not be heard by the city commission without all property owner(s) providing notarized statements authorizing Compass Group, Inc. to represent their interests at this hearing. The applicant did not provide any written notice of withdrawal of the application for preliminary plat. I suggested that the preliminary plat be “pulled” from the agenda or otherwise not heard by the city commission because of the lack of agent authorizations. Therefore, it is my opinion that the preliminary plat application is incomplete in accordance with Section 11.01.03 of the Land Development Code (“LDC”). It is further my opinion that the recommendation made by the Planning Advisory Board on December 14, 2022 is null and void because it was based on an incomplete preliminary plat application without sufficient agent authorizations from the property owners. See Section 11.01.03(A)(4) LDC.

Pursuant to Section 11.03.01(A)(3) of the LDC, the applicant will have 30 days from the date of this memorandum (delivered via email to addressees above), until March 17, 2023, to provide a complete application for preliminary plat including notarized agent authorizations sufficient to prove that Josephine Tringali and the Trust, as property owners, have authorized Compass Group, Inc. or another agent to present a complete and sufficient preliminary plat application to the city’s Planning and Conservation Department to be considered by the Technical Review Committee and Planning Advisory Board. If the city does not receive a complete and sufficient preliminary plat application by March 17, 2023, the application will be deemed withdrawn and would have to be submitted with a new application fee to the Planning and Conservation Department. See Section 11.03.01(A)(4) of the LDC. A “withdrawn” application under 11.03.01(A)(4) of the LDC does not have the same meaning as “withdrawn” under Section 11.03.06 of the LDC. Put simply, if a complete and sufficient application is not submitted on or before March 17, 2023 for preliminary plat, it can be submitted at any time in the future with the payment of a new application fee and new process starting as of the date of submittal.

13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Doug Mowery
Doug Mowery(@douglasm)
1 year ago

So a big “do over” and we go back to the starting line. That gives everyone plenty of time now to get their ducks in a row…..whether for, or against, the project.

Trudie Richards
Trudie Richards (@guest_67263)
1 year ago

Thank you, Tammi, for agreeing to publicly share your assessment. I’m no lawyer but it certainly makes sense to me.

Karen
Karen(@karen)
1 year ago

Not so. ALL real estate transactions, commercial or residential, must have owner concurrence prior to moving forward. It’s the law. should have been done at the start so congratulations is not in order.

Robert Warner
Robert Warner (@guest_67277)
1 year ago
Reply to  Karen

Me too, Trudie.

Taina Christner
Taina Christner(@taina)
1 year ago

Ms. Bach fails to mention that this application came in last summer, so these signatures were missing for about 8 months, and that her, the Director of Planning, and the City Manager failed to address this, causing hundreds, if not thousands of wasted manhours from city employees, board members and citizens. From my knowledge, she only informed Citizens and Commissions 10 minutes before the quasi-judicial hearing (even though the deadline for submission was 2 business days prior). From what I know, the application went through Planning Staff, the Technical Review Board and the Planning Advisory Board before Ms. Bach even asked for the signatures.
Must be nice to be able to waste taxpayer dollars, as well as citizens time and money without a care in the world.
I had neighbors who drove 10 hours to get to this meeting, and Ms. Bach knew two days in advance that the applicant had not met their deadline. About 50 people rearranged their schedules to attend the meeting. Sure would have been nice if Ms Bach let people know in advance.
And to top it off, she is now saying the applicant does not have to wait the required year to re-apply.
I have a few questions.
What are the consequences for allowing this incomplete application to go through our costly system?
Why did the City Manager not notify the applicant of the incompleteness of the application within 5 days of submittal as required by our LDC?
What other important projects and issues were placed on the back burner for this? How do you explain this government waste at taxpayer expense? Who is accountable for this?
How does the city explain the complete disregard for citizen’s time and resources? 
Why was the City Attorney allowing the applicant to submit documentation up to 10 minutes before the hearing when there was a two-business day deadline? Was the Commission notified long before this 2-day deadline of the incompleteness of the application?
Who will reimburse citizens for their money and time wasted due to our City Attorney ignoring the Quasi-Judicial Procedures she confirmed the city would follow? Who will reimburse the Citizens who drove 10 hours to be at the meeting? 

Doug Mowery
Doug Mowery(@douglasm)
1 year ago

All good questions. How the application went this far being incomplete is a bit mind boggling. The PAB decision has now been declared “null and void” by the City Attorney (I’m sure they are not pleased and I thank them for their work regardless).

Given that backdrop, how anyone sets a deadline of the very start of the Commission meeting is interesting also. It’s not a good way to manage everyone’s time. When you throw in that the PAB decision now is deemed “null and void” after the application is pulled from the agenda at that last minute you really have to question the how, the who and the why. That was a nice summation of questions, Taina.

Karen
Karen(@karen)
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug Mowery

after reading the memo from the GW law professor, how can city council, with a straight face, actually believe anything she says? Tammi Bach can only aspire to this man’s legal mind.

Marlene Chapman
Marlene Chapman(@crew2120)
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug Mowery

This entire debacle needs to be looked into much further. The Deputy Director of Planning needs to be held accountable for pushing this through without thoroughly going over all documents, that is her job! Her staff questioned what she was doing, and they were ignored. There is trouble in River City! Those in charge are NOT held accountable, are not doing their jobs and the “cover ups” are blatant ineptness. More citizens need to care and understand what is going on at City Hall. We are all paying these salaries, and some are definitely way overpaid for the lousy job they are doing.

Chris Nickoloff
Chris Nickoloff (@guest_67308)
1 year ago

This whole thing from the beginning has been a hot mess. This just doesn’t look good from all angles. Good questions that deserve answers.

Marlene Chapman
Marlene Chapman(@crew2120)
1 year ago

Chris, we need someone who will not just listen, but will act and carry through with the tough things! We need leaders not those who take advantage of our city!

Robert Warner
Robert Warner (@guest_67276)
1 year ago

Tammi hit a nerve. Good.

Doug Mowery
Doug Mowery(@douglasm)
1 year ago
Reply to  Robert Warner

How so? I don’t think this has been handled well at all. Between her opposition to this case being referred to the Board of Adjustment (as reported in another FO article) that the neighbors were seeking, and now, this waste of time and money because of an incomplete application, I’m not seeing anything “Good” here. I’m disappointed in this entire saga.

Robert S. Warner, Jr.
Robert S. Warner, Jr. (@guest_67281)
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug Mowery

Better now, than later.