Smith and Knight stress that boat cover is not ‘boathouse’ as defined in county regulations
For much of this year, Siesta Key residents have complained about a cover akin to a boathouse that has been placed over a 28-foot pontoon boat at the end of a dock located at 8347 Midnight Pass Road on the barrier island.
During their regular meeting on Nov. 4, the Sarasota County commissioners heard testimony during two public hearings, which were combined, about the fact that the property owner suffered damage to his original boat cover during Tropical Storm Debby’s effects on the county in early August 2024.
Michael O, Cloonen replaced that cover with one that he automatically can retract and place over his vessel, he and an attorney representing him told the board members.
However, county staff explained, the effect is that of a boathouse, and Cloonen did not seek a county permit for his action. County staff discovered the new cover during an inspection of the completed repairs to his dock, which also was damaged during the 2024 storm season, Gunster attorney Leah M. West explained on Cloonen’s behalf.
Yet, she maintained, the cover is just that: a cover, not a boathouse. It was made to fit his boat.
The cover is 10 feet by 32 feet and 15.4 feet high, a county staff report explained.
Because it was discovered by staff, Cloonen had to apply for “after-the-fact” approval for it from the county’s Water and Navigation Control Authority (WNCA), the staff report further pointed out. (The County Commission sits as the WNCA.)
Yet, West stressed to the commissioners, Section 54-652 of the County Code defines a boathouse as “any roofed structure located over the waterway for the purpose of covering or partially covering a Mooring Area.” West emphasized, “There’s no rigid roof on [Cloonen’s boat cover],” though it does have an aluminum frame.
She showed the board members multiple photos to illustrate the situation.
Nonetheless, five speakers during the hearing — and others who had sent correspondence to county staff beforehand — expressed concerns that the boat cover would be ripped apart during a hurricane and end up as debris in the Intracoastal Waterway or Little Sarasota Bay, on which Cloonen’s nearly 171-foot dock exists.
Yet, West also pointed out, the cover has been engineered to withstand wind up to 160 mph. She showed the commissioners a copy of a letter signed by a registered engineer that attested to that fact.
Neighbors of Cloonen also protested during the hearing that the boat cover violates their rights to views of the bay.
However, West noted that while those homeowners have riparian rights to water views, nothing in the County Code calls for them to have unobstructed views of the water. Given the length of Cloonen’s dock, she said, “Any visual impacts of this boat cover are minimal, because it’s so far from neighboring properties.
“And, frankly,” she told the commissioners, “there are many types of much more objectively unaesthetic boats that Mr. Cloonen could put on his boat dock or ways that he could cover his boat that wouldn’t require any sort of permits or approvals from the county.”
After the close of the hearing, Commissioner Mark Smith was the first board member to voice his agreement with West’s primary assertion: “This isn’t a structure.”
As he saw the situation, Smith continued, the problem was with language in the County Code. Therefore, he added, he believed that the commission should direct staff to revise the County Code “to maybe bring it up to date.”
Smith reiterated his earlier point: “It’s not a structure; it’s a boat cover.”
Thus, he added, he was in favor of granting approval of both a Special Exception that Cloonen needed and the WNCA after-the-fact permit for which Cloonen had applied to county staff.
(At the outset of the hearing, West explained that the Special Exception application was required because the fabric boat cover is within the county’s Marine Park zoning district.)
Commissioner Tom Knight talked of having reviewed the materials for the hearings that were included in the Nov. 4 agenda packet and struggling with the issue. He has a boat on a lift that he keeps covered, he pointed out. “That’s a heavy investment on these boats,” Knight noted of such covers.
Moreover, Knight said, people need to be able to cover their boats safely.
“I see it as a cover, not a boathouse,” he added.
Still, acknowledging speakers’ remarks during the public hearing, Knight said, “It’s a view issue; I understand that.”
Like Smith, he continued, he believes staff needs to update the County Code to deal with situations such as the one before the board that day.
Ultimately, Smith made the motion to approve the Special Exception and the after-the-fact permit, and Knight seconded it. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioner Joe Neunder absent.
‘The visual impacts of this are miniscule’
During her presentation to the commissioners, West explained, “Mr. Cloonen is older and has had two back surgeries and a hip replacement, [so] he was no longer able to go onto his boat and manually snap on all of the boat covers.”
She added, “This existing cover allows [Cloonen] to … press a button and automatically retract and de-retract the sides of the boat cover,” which — she also noted — is a natural shade of canvas.
County staff previously had issued the necessary permits for the dock and the boat lift, she added. The dock is more than 1,500 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway, West said, and it is not close to any channel or navigable area, so “it does not inhibit access to any Gulf or bay waters …”
Moreover, she noted, Cloonen had received authorization from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the boat cover.
West also maintained that the boat cover meets all of the county’s Special Exception criteria, including the requirement that it be compatible with existing land-use patterns, as it is in use on a barrier island.
The only stipulation that staff recommended, West said, was that the cover “be in compliance with the Binding Development Concept Plan that we submitted, and [Cloonen] does not object to [that].”
In regard to the after-the-fact WNCA Major Work Permit regulations, “Three main standards … are at issue here,” she told the commissioners: Boathouses are not to exceed 250 square feet; they must have open sides; and “they shall not exceed 15 feet in height as measured from the Mean High Water Line (MHWL).”
While acknowledging that Cloonen’s cover exceeds that specified height, West countered, “The visual impacts of this are miniscule because the boat is so far from the upland property. And frankly, these technical standards are hard to apply here because this is not a boathouse. It’s a boat cover. It’s hard to fit boathouse criteria to a boat cover.”
Further, the staff report said that the square footage the boat cover and the “terminal platform” encompass 320 square feet.
However, West pointed out, the cover fits over the boat lift, which staff previously had permitted.
“There are taller, wider and more massive boats and yachts moored at the neighboring properties,” she stressed, showing the board several slides to illustrate her remark.
In regard to the open sides issue: West explained that the sides of boat cover “do not impede navigation to the waterways,” and they “pose a minimal visual impact to the neighboring property owners,” given the length of the dock.
She also noted that the sides of the cover are “no more offensive than the visual impact of the other docks, mooring areas, boat lifts, etc., in the surrounding areas.”
(During his presentation, Kirk Crane, the county planner who handled the applications, did point out that none of the adjacent properties have boathouses.)
The County Code, West told the commissioners, “makes it clear that the board may approve a Major Work Permit when [an application] does not meet these technical standards.”
Commissioner Teresa Mast did ask West to clarify that Cloonen did not include the new boat cover in his application for a permit to make repairs to his dock after the 2024 storm damage.
“It never occurred to [Cloonen], that that needed to be included in the permit application,” West responded. “Nobody ever looked at this and thought, ‘This is a boathouse, and you need to [get a] boathouse permit.’ ”
Commissioner Smith did then told West that the new boat cover “seems considerably larger than the original,” though he conceded that that could be a factor of the angle of the photographs.
The boat cover is 32 feet long, West reiterated.
She called Dave Engilis to the podium, explaining that he is a representative of the company that supplied the cover, Touchless Cover LLC.
“It’s very conforming to the boat,” Engilis explained of the cover. “We don’t overbuild them.” He described the cover as “roughly … a foot, maybe a foot-and-a-half larger than the boat, typically,” which is his company’s standard.
Smith also asked Engilis about the 160 mph wind rating. “Is that [with the cover] open or closed?”
The rating, he said, applies to the cover when its sides are down. “That is to remain on the dock and not fly off to become a liability,” Engilis explained.
He has photos, he added, that show the same type of covers “that have gone through multiple storms, and they’re still up …”
He did tell Smith that his company could lower the height by 5 inches, “because it’s non-permanent.”
‘A very polarizing issue’
The very first speaker during the public hearing — Chris Staine of the Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick law firm in Sarasota — who explained that he represents some of Cloonen’s neighbors, characterized the boat cover situation as “a very polarizing issue.”
After the members of the county’s Planning Commission concluded their hearing on the Special Exception petition, he pointed out, they started out talking about approving it. However, “Comments by that point … were so unanimously and resoundingly in opposition,” he continued, that the members “immediately pivoted” and denied the petition.
For example, Steine noted, they focused on the fact that “the square footage was so wildly beyond the acceptable 250 square feet limit …”
“They were emphatic in their denial,” he emphasized, adding that they “deemed the proposal — and I’m quoting — ‘is not consistent with the intent, goals, objectives, polices, guiding principles and programs of the Comprehensive Plan,’ ” which guides growth in the county.
Planning Commission members also agreed that inadequate buffers exist “to effectively separate visual impacts,” he said.
In fact, Staine continued, former county Commissioner and Planning Commissioner Jon Thaxton “said very distinctly and categorically [that] not only did [the boat cover] not meet the criteria for consideration as a Special Exception … it didn’t even come close.”
One of Staine’s clients, Karen Martelluci, told the commissioners, “Rules exist for a reason: to protect our community, ensure fairness and preserve the beauty of our waterfront. Approving this [cover] would set a dangerous precedent. Imagine boating through our beautiful canals and bays and seeing rows of canvas boathouses. Is this really what we want our coastline to look like?”
Lourdes Ramirez, president of the nonprofit Protect Siesta Key, also talked of the precedent-setting concern and the square footage issue, along with addressing Comprehensive Plan policies.
Among the latter, she cited Future Land Use Policy 1.2.17, which “addresses incompatibility with intensity, character and type of use …” She added that the staff report found the use of the boat cover did not comply with that policy.
Further, Ramirez noted that Coastal Goal 1 in the Comprehensive Plan “calls for the protection of life, property and infrastructure form the destructive effects of hurricanes and other natural disasters.”
Ramirez stressed of the latter, “It’s particularly important on Siesta Key, where we have experienced firsthand the damage hurricanes can cause.”
She continued, “The county’s own staff report acknowledges that the canvas covering could tear and be pulled apart from its framework, even during severe winds. It also warns that this framework and canvas could … enter the waterway as debris.”
Further, Ramirez told the board members, “The county should not approve structures just because the property owner went ahead and built [something] without permits.”
Among the correspondence that the commissioners received was an email from Catherine Luckner, president of the Siesta Key Association, sent on behalf of that organization’s board of directors.
“There has been substantial and consistent opposition from neighboring property owners,” Luckner wrote. “Over the past eight months, numerous neighbors have submitted written letters expressing their objections to this structure and to the requested exception. Significantly, the only letter expressing support has come from the applicant. This overwhelming imbalance in community feedback reflects serious and ongoing concerns among those most directly affected by the structure. We believe the Commission should give meaningful consideration to the concerns of neighboring residents, whose waterfront views, enjoyment of their properties, and neighborhood character may be adversely affected.”