Jacksonville Beach board denies setback variances for two South 6th Avenue pool decks

The Jacksonville Beach Board of Adjustments denied variance requests for unpermitted pool decks at 610 and 592 South 6th Avenue after questioning whether the lot conditions were self-imposed and noting staff’s recommendation to deny.

At the hearing, applicant Dakota Briggs, representing 610 S. 6th Ave., said the deck around his new pool was built without a permit and that he did not realize a permit was required. "I didn't realize that we needed a permit for a deck around the pool," Dakota Briggs said after being sworn in. He said the deck reaches toward the rear property line and described its distance from the line variously in testimony; he told the board he will pull a permit and provided photos to staff.

Staff had recommended denial for BOA-26-100031, saying the request did not meet the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable use and described the nonconforming lot condition as self-imposed because of how the property was developed. During board questions, members pressed the applicant on the lot history, timing of permits, and driveway construction that increased lot coverage.

After public comment closed with no speakers, the board voted on BOA-26-100031 and denied the variance. Board members said the hardship claimed by the applicant appeared to result from the applicant's choices in subdividing and developing the property rather than from conditions beyond the applicant's control.

On the second case, applicant Ricardo Briggs told the board he previously had a variance granting 52% lot coverage (BOA 06-100059) and that the remaining issue was whether the pool surround should be treated as a walkway (subject to a 2-foot setback) or as a deck (5-foot setback). "If this is approved as a walkway, then I'll cut it and make sure it's 2 ft off the property line," Ricardo Briggs said.

Board members and city staff debated the classification of the pool surround and whether ruling on a new variance might affect an earlier approved lot-coverage variance. The board moved to amend the motion to remove the lot-coverage request and consider only the accessory-structure setback; the amendment initially passed, but on final roll-call the board voted to deny the setback variance. The board's rationale again emphasized that the nonconforming conditions largely stemmed from how the properties were developed and that staff had identified options to address coverage without granting the requested relief.

The planning department announced the next Board of Adjustments meeting and the board adjourned. Applicants were not approved and were given, informally, the option to seek permits or adjust the work to conform to code if they wish to pursue future relief.

Notes on record and next steps: both denials were recorded as final for these hearing items; applicants may pursue permit pulls or revised applications consistent with city procedures.