Laurel Park resident continues to contend that design should have been crafted to preserve more trees
As Laurel Park resident Kelly Franklin was debating whether to pursue a judicial challenge over the Sarasota Planning Board’s approval of Selby Gardens’ Master Plan Phase 2, city Development Services staff was working on an explanation about the city’s tree protection regulations that factored into the approval, The Sarasota News Leader has learned.
Even though the Sarasota city commissioners’ voted 4-1 on Sept. 15 to deny Franklin the “aggrieved person” status she needed to pursue a formal appeal before them of the Planning Board decision, Franklin has continued to assert that the Selby Gardens project team could have revised its Phase 2 design to save more trees.
In a Sept. 26 email to Deputy City Attorney John Shamsey — which she copied to senior city staff members, including Lucia Panica, director of the Development Services Department — Franklin wrote, “I believe the grand tree protection code is very clear and applies everywhere (on public or private land), which is why I focused [on Sept. 15] only on the 7 grand trees (5 of which were not discussed by the planning board) in my substantive [PowerPoint presentation to the City Commission].”
She added that she believes her interpretation of the city Zoning Code “is strengthened by the precedent set when the city denied Selby a permit to remove these very oaks in 1970 when the garden was created.”
Franklin continued, “Selby’s application narrative was very misleading, and it wasn’t until I put together the table on page 4 of my substantive presentation that I realized that we are really only talking about 2,191 square feet of new covered space on an almost 15 acre buildable lot.”
Further, she pointed out, “[T]here is no real reason not to build the new conservatory in the same general footprint as the buildings it will be replacing, and save all 7 grand live oaks (plus likely many other of the 38 canopy trees slated for removal).”
A larger conservatory, which is the primary facet of the Phase 2 plans, will allow Selby Gardens to put on display about 95% of its plant collections, instead of the 5% on view, as Chris Cianfaglione of Kimley-Horn and the Phase 2 project team pointed out during the Aug. 7 Planning Board hearing.
On Sept. 17, Franklin had written Deputy City Attorney Shamsey to ask whether he could provide her “ANY legal basis in the record from the review of the project” that supported the city staff’s assertion that the Zoning Code exempts protections for trees in a “Botanical Garden Display Area.” She added that that term is “not defined ANYWHERE in the city code.”
Further, she pointed out, it was not cited in the code as “one of 4 possible reasons a grand tree could be slated for removal …”
Franklin then told Shamsey, “I would appreciate a prompt reply as I need to understand the city’s official posture on this as I weigh an administrative appeal.”
The display area exemption was noted during the Aug. 7 Planning Board hearing, and Cianfaglione of Kimley-Horn brought it up on Sept. 15, as he countered Franklin’s arguments in regard to her meeting “aggrieved person” status.
“All of those trees that are a part of that display area, grown in the institutional botanical gardens, are exempt,” Cianfaglione told the city commissioners. So this was very clear, as demonstrated on the site plan application.”
On Sept. 26, Shamsey responded to Franklin: “[W]e have been made aware that city staff is currently working on an internal memorandum regarding grand trees and botanical gardens and we would be happy to share this memo with you when it is completed.”
A few days later, Shamsey sent Franklin that memo; it was dated Oct. 1.
The need for clarification
Referencing the Sept. 15 City Commission hearing, Development Services General Manager Alison Christie wrote in the Oct. 1 memorandum, “[T]here were statements made about the City’s review of the Site Plan and applicable code sections that need to be clarified.”
Christie then pointed out that Section VII-318(4) of the city’s Zoning Code, regarding, “Exempt Trees,” says, “Trees grown in institutional botanical gardens as part of the display area.”
However, she added, that part of the Zoning Code also points out “Required trees in parking areas and … parking buffers are not exempt.”
“[T]though the term ‘display area’ is not specifically defined in the Zoning Code,” she continued, “based on this section, it is interpreted as the area of the botanical gardens that does not contain areas used for parking and parking buffers. This section was … updated in 2022 by Ordinance 21-5369, which contained recommended changes to the Tree Protection Ordinance made by the Tree Advisory Committee.”
Christie then pointed out, “The language in Section VII-318(4) prior to the change stated, ‘Trees grown in institutional botanical gardens.’ Rather than exempt all trees at Selby Gardens, as the previous language did, the updated language limits the exemption to trees that are a part of the gardens themselves, and not required trees in the parking lot buffer, or trees which are in parking areas and are clearly not intended to be a part of the gardens which are on display to the public.
“It was therefore City Staff’s determination,” Christie wrote, “that all trees proposed for removal as a part of Phase 2 which were not located within a parking area or parking buffer were exempt from the Tree Protection Division of the Zoning Code. This includes the requirements of Section VII-310,” which regards Grand Trees,” and Section VII-316,” which applies to permit requirements for tree removal.
Christie added, “Any trees that are located within a parking area or parking buffer are not exempt from the Tree Protection Division, and must meet all applicable requirements, including those in [Zoning Code] Sections VII-310 and VII-316.”
Altogether, Christie pointed out, 102 trees were proposed for removal as part of the Phase 2 plans. Of those, she noted, “79 were in the display area and therefore exempt from the Tree Protection Division. This included seven grand trees proposed for removal, five of which were in the display area, and exempt from the Tree Protection Division, including Section VII-310, Grand Trees. Therefore, these five grand trees can be removed without meeting one of the criteria outlined in VII-310. The two grand trees proposed for removal in the parking area are not exempt and were subject to the criteria of Section VII-310.”
Continuing questions about the city staff’s position
After emailing Shamsey on Oct. 2 to thank him for sending her the memo, Franklin sent a separate email to the city commissioners, maintaining that city staff’s “interpretation [about the trees at Selby Gardens] changed between [the] April 2, 2025 DRC [meeting], and the planning board meeting, and that the revised interpretation is not supported by the history of tree protection on that site or by the precedent of the city denying permits for removal of these very oaks.”
The DRC is the city’s Development Review Committee. Its members represent city departments that are involved in land-use issues, plus the Sarasota County Fire Department and the Sarasota Police Department.
Franklin provided the News Leader copies of emails that she had obtained through a public records request, which showed exchanges between then-city Senior Arborist Donald Ullom Jr., a DRC member, and representatives of Selby Gardens’ Phase 2 project team.
On April 1, Christie of Development Services sent a number of city staff members the DRC comments regarding new Phase 2 materials that the Selby Gardens project team had provided the DRC. Those were to be addressed during the April 2 DRC meeting, Christie added.
Franklin told the News Leader that she found the following among Ullom’s notes to be of greatest importance, in light of the staff assertions about the trees during the Aug. 7 Planning Board hearing:
- No. 8 — “Pursuant to Sec VII-310(b) [of the Zoning Code] the removal of a Grand tree located upon public or private property is hereby prohibited unless exempted in accordance with subparagraph (c).”
- No. 9 — “Pursuant to Sec VII-310(c) Please show all grand tree trees proposed for removal and the applicant shall provide all required documentation including certified arborist reports with resistographs or similar test, and alternative design that were considered with accompanying narrative as to why those designs do not work.”
- No. 10 — “Pursuant to Sec VII-316 a tree permit is required to remove, relocate, or transplant a tree.”
- No. 13 — “Pursuant to Sec VII-320(a)(2) That the tree proposed to be removed prevents reasonable development of a lot or parcel. It is the intent of this provision that no permit shall be granted for the removal of any tree where the applicant has failed to design and locate the proposed improvements to minimize the removal of trees.”
(Jack Notestein, a neighbor of Franklin who used to work at Selby Gardens, pointed out in a comment on Franklin’s personal Facebook page that the Selby Gardens project team members “had a chance to re-design their ‘improved’ greenhouses and could have instead, created a much more exciting experience for visitors while retaining the very souls that make epiphytes possible by highlighting them in ways they probably never could imagine. Several people and professional entities along the way missed a golden opportunity by choosing force over finesse.”)
The email chain also shows that Matt Dunn, a landscape architect with Kimley-Horn, sent Ullom a note on April 30 to let him know that the project team was planning to provide another updated submittal to the DRC members on May 12, as requested. The team members wanted to know whether Ullom would review their responses to his April 1 comments “to see if there is anything additional you would like to see from us prior to DRC signoff.”
Dunn did attach the arborist’s report that Ullom had called for, Dunn noted; it included the resistograph testing results.
The project team also acknowledged Ullom’s comments for Nos. 8, 9 and 10. In regard to No. 13, the team response was “Comment acknowledged. All efforts have been made to preserve the maximum amount of existing trees possible.”
The arborist the team had hired, Tammy Kovar, had sent the team her resistograph results for “7 Grand Live Oak trees” on Feb. 12, the email chain shows. She wrote, “All trees appear under stress. The eye of Hurricane Milton blew over the gardens at sustained winds of 120 mph on October 9th, 2024. The trees are enduring construction, heavy equipment, and lack of care. All trees except 227 have significant compaction, having existed within a parking lot for decades. Conditions for a healthy life are poor. Trees 166, 180 and 227 have stem- girdling roots. No signs of external decaying fungi were observed.”
Kovar included a graphic depicting the locations of the trees.
On May 7, Ullom responded to Dunn of Kimley-Horn: “It looks like the comments have been addressed.”
In a subsequent email to Ullom, sent on May 21, Dunn asked Ullom to “please sign off” on the tree plans.
On May 22, Ullom responded, asking whether the project team had provided the latest resubmittal of materials that the DRC members had requested.
Dunn wrote back to Ullom the same day, reporting that the “full resubmittal package was sent in on 5/9/2025.”
The News Leader found no further emails from Ullom regarding the trees.
The agenda for the June 4 DRC meeting included the note that the Phase 2 plans for Selby Gardens had received full staff sign-off.
In response to a News Leader inquiry, Luke Mocherman, a city communications specialist, reported in an Oct. 15 email that Ullom’s last day in city employment was July 8, almost exactly a month before the Aug. 7 Planning Board hearing.
During that hearing, Planning Board members had questions themselves about Selby Gardens’ plans to remove so many trees for its Phase 2 design. However, Christie of Development Services had provided the members additional materials for the hearing that had not been included in the agenda packet. Without having seen those, some of the members said, they would not have approved Phase 2.
Christie also explained to the board members that she believed that Ullom had discussed alternative designs for Phase 2 at length with the Selby Gardens project team, “so he signed off [on the final plan].”
The city staff report on Phase 2 for the hearing said, “The proposed project protects as many existing trees as possible while accommodating the unique and modular construction typology of a botanical garden conservatory. Natural groves of trees along watercourses have also been preserved.”
Further, Cianfaglione, the certified arborist with Kimley-Horn, testified that Ullom had met with team members on site to review each of the trees proposed to be taken down and had agreed with the plans.
In fact, Cianfaglione said that Ullom had walked the site with project team members to look at each of the trees proposed for removal.”
Nonetheless, Franklin added in her Oct. 2 email to the city commissioners, “I hope you will consider using your bully pulpit to encourage Selby to build the new conservatory around rather than through the 16 healthy live oaks and particularly the 5 healthy grand live oak trees.”
Four days later — on Oct. 6 — Franklin contacted the News Leader to report that she had seen a crane on the grounds of Selby Gardens. “On my paddle this morning, I listened to squirrels scream and watched birds fly away as the limbs were ripped off one of the grand oaks,” she wrote in an email.
(As she explained to the City Commission last month, she takes her kayak out each morning and paddles by Selby Gardens. She talked of how she had become accustomed to observing the birds and other wildlife in the Gardens’ trees.)
In her Oct. 6 email to the News Leader, Franklin wrote that she still had a week left to make a decision on filing an appeal of the Planning Board decision with the 12th Judicial Circuit Court. She even had reached out to an attorney to represent her, she noted, “but it seems moot now.”