Only Ahearn-Koch votes in support of Franklin

On a 4-1 vote this week, after approximately one hour of presentations, public comments, and questions and answers, the majority of the Sarasota City Commission agreed that Laurel Park resident Kelly Franklin did not qualify under city regulations as an “aggrieved person” to appeal the city Planning Board’s Aug. 7 approval of Phase 2 of Selby Gardens’ Master Plan.

Testifying during the board’s regular meeting on Sept. 15, Franklin said that the Planning Board’s decision “was in error … and I’m the only one who noticed it in time.” She added, “The [Selby Gardens] site plan violates the city’s Grand Tree ordinance. It’s taking away seven healthy Grand oaks.”

“The language in the [City Code] is clear, Franklin continued. “You cannot remove a healthy Grand live oak from private or public property, unless very specific conditions are met.”

Further, the Phase 2 plan “really doesn’t meet the compatibility standards to complement the neighborhood,” Franklin told the commissioners, “and, more importantly, it doesn’t meet the city’s comprehensive plan, which has very specific and quantifiable guidelines for canopy coverage and Grand Tree protection.”

A Grand Tree is so designated based on its diameter at breast height (dbh).

Franklin maintained that she is an aggrieved party because Selby Gardens’ plans will affect what she calls her “paddling grounds,” explaining, “This is my neighborhood. Pretty much every morning for the last five years, you can find me rolling my kayak down the MURT [multi-use recreational trail],” across Osprey Avenue and finally to the kayak launch that Laurel Park residents use to get out to Sarasota Bay.

“I know the habits of every bird I see every morning,” Franklin continued, referring to the avian species she observes in the trees within Selby Gardens, which she passes on her kayak. “Yesterday,” for example, she noted, “I saw three [roseate] spoonbills … We had just seen one.”

Sarasota is on birds’ migratory path, Franklin said. “Something like 300,000 birds flew over Sarasota last week. They need somewhere to rest, particularly in an urban landscape.”

“If we lose that canopy,” Franklin stressed, the birds are “going to lose their home. I’m going to lose the natural beauty and the ability to take photographs of wildlife.”

Additionally, she said, “I’ve certainly been a vocal advocate for keeping these trees.” She pointed out that she had written letters to the Planning Board members, to the commissioners and other city officials, to leaders of Selby Gardens, and to members of the news media, providing details about why she believes the Phase 2 plans violate city regulations and policies. She also noted that she had posted extensively on social media about her concerns.

She even launched a website, she continued: keepcanopy.com.

The Grand live oaks on Selby’s grounds, Franklin maintained, are important to the quality of life of residents of the city. “Oaks trees are about the best you can have,” she continued, because they are tolerant of flooding and absorb runoff, protecting people from the effects of storm surge. “They’re the best infrastructure imaginable.”

She further stressed that city leaders had set a canopy coverage goal of 40%, but the city’s status in May was around 30%, with the figure down to 15% to 20% in portions of the downtown area, “due to all the development.”

“Then we got hit with all the hurricanes [in 2024],” Franklin added. “I don’t think it’s exaggerating to say we have a canopy crisis.”

If those trees are removed, she emphasized, “My quality of life is going to be diminished.”

The commission decision

Initially, Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch made a motion to grant Franklin aggrieved person status. However, it died for lack of a second.

Then Vice Mayor Debbie Trice made a motion to deny Franklin that status, and Commissioner Kyle Battie seconded it.

Trice referenced an exchange she had had with Franklin.

After public comments were heard, Trice had asked Franklin, “Do you think that your status as a Laurel Park resident is significantly different from the other people who live in Laurel Park?”

“I think we probably use the kayak launch more than anybody else,” Franklin replied. “But it’s a benefit to the whole neighborhood.”

Next, since Franklin had talked about photographing birds she sees on those kayak outings, Trice asked whether Franklin is a professional photographer. Trice explained that she was trying to determine whether Franklin would be “financially harmed” if she could not continue to photograph birds in Selby’s trees while on her kayak.

“I don’t think I would be directly financially harmed,” Franklin responded.

When Trice asked the question again, Franklin told her, “It’s hard to answer that, ’cause it would impact the property value …”

“We were talking about photography,” Trice reminded her.

“No,” Franklin answered the question Trice had posed.

Trice then asked whether Franklin is aware of other locations where she can photograph birds, such as the spoil islands known as the Bird Islands in Roberts Bay off Siesta Key.

Franklin responded, “Yeah.”

At that point, Trice explained that her line of thinking was that Franklin would not “suffer to a greater degree than the general public” if the trees were removed for the Phase 2 plans.

Franklin asserted her belief that the removal of the trees would affect her quality of life and property value more than those of people who live “5 miles away.”

Trice told her, “You just acknowledged that you are not significantly different from the other neighbors in Laurel Park. Thank you. That’s my question.”

When Franklin tried to offer another comment, Mayor Liz Alpert pointed out that Trice was finished with her questions.

Franklin then said, “I don’t mean to be argumentative,” but some of the statements that the Selby Gardens team had made to the commissioners that day were inaccurate. For example, Franklin stressed that the Planning Board members had not received copies of former city Senior Arborist Donald Ullom’s April report, saying that Selby Gardens had to comply with the city’s Grand Tree regulations.

“That’s not relevant here,” Alpert pointed out, in regard to whether Franklin has standing as an aggrieved party to appeal the Planning Board vote.

Commissioner Ahearn-Koch pointed to the third criterion in the city’s regulations regarding the definition of an aggrieved party: “Any person or entity which will suffer to a greater degree than the general public an adverse effect to a legally recognized interest protected or furthered by the land development regulations or the comprehensive plan.”

That “speaks very specifically to the quality of life,” Ahearn-Koch stressed. Franklin had testified that her quality of life will suffer to a greater degree, Ahearn-Koch added.

Yet, Commissioner Kathy Kelley Ohlrich earlier had pointed out, “There has been a lot of interesting information presented today, [but] I find most of it is germane to the appeal itself,” not to the board’s decision regarding whether Franklin could be considered an aggrieved person.

During Alpert’s remarks before the vote, she noted, “Even if there was a violation of the City Code, it’s not relevant to the aggrieved person status.”

Alpert also referenced remarks Franklin had made about her enjoyment of almost daily kayak trips past Selby Gardens and her photography. “I have to believe there are also other people who kayak past Selby Gardens,” Alpert said. That testimony and Franklin’s discussion about her photography, Alpert added, do not demonstrate that she would be “adversely affected to a greater degree than the general public” if Selby Gardens proceeded with Phase 2 of its Master Plan.

Addressing Ahearn-Koch, Trice said, “All of us can believe that we are harmed more than anybody else by something.” However, Tice continued, that belief does not make it a fact.

Countering Franklin’s claims

Representing Selby Gardens that day, attorney Dan Bailey, of the Williams Parker firm in Sarasota, told the commissioners, “I commend Ms. Franklin on her passion and her interest in this.”

However, he pointed out, the city’s comprehensive plan — called the City Plan — also has a property rights section that includes language about property owners being able to maintain and develop their land.

Moreover, he continued, “Ms. Franklin does not meet the test for an aggrieved person.”

In fact, he cited a comment Franklin had made earlier — that the city “is the real aggrieved party,” though the city did not appeal the Planning Board’s decision.

He also pointed out that the private moments she reported sharing with birds in Selby Gardens’ trees while kayaking are “no different than [those of] the thousands of people who drive past Selby on Mound Street every day,” who can observe the trees.

To achieve “aggrieved person” status, Bailey stressed, an individual has to demonstrate “a particularized harm.” Usually, he continued, that relates to an issue such as traffic, stormwater runoff, noise or lighting.

Bailey also noted that Franklin “lives a half-a-mile away” from Selby Gardens, a distance too remote for her property values to be affected by the removal of the trees.

In referencing past applications regarding persons’ efforts to achieve “aggrieved person” status, Bailey said that in 2019, 22 residents who lived next to the site of the proposed Epoch condominium complex sought that designation in an effort to prevent the project from going forward. They lived “right next door,” he emphasized, “not a half-mile away.” The Planning Board members at that time denied them the “aggrieved party” designation, Bailey added.

Moreover, he stressed, “Ms. Franklin was a no-show at the Planning Board [hearing on Phase 2, held on Aug. 7].”

Though she had talked of sending emails to city leaders and others, along with posting on social media, Bailey noted, that action “doesn’t meet [the ‘aggrieved person’] standard in the city.”

He added that he believed it was the famous film director Woody Allen who once said, “Eighty percent of success is showing up.”

Franklin’s failure to appear at the Planning Board hearing, he said, is a demonstration that she did not meet “one of the most basic [elements] of an appeal.”

Following Bailey’s remarks, Chris Cianfaglione, a certified arborist and vice president of the Kimley-Horn consulting firm in Sarasota, who is a member of the Phase 2 team, told the city commissioners that an independent arborist “found decay in all of the trees that are proposed to be removed. So Selby is going to go make a multimillion-dollar investment — tens of millions of dollars for [a] new Conservatory. The last thing we want to do is have trees in the vicinity of the new building that are susceptible to failure and decay.”

Further, he noted that, as part of the mitigation process for removing the trees, 200 trees, representing “almost 600 caliper inches — are going back in.”

Moreover, Cianfaglione stressed, Ullom, the senior city arborist at the time the city’s Development Review Committee (DRC) signed off on the Phase 2 plans, had met with project team members at Selby Gardens before he took that action.

Cianfaglione showed the board members Ullom’s signature on the DRC form.