St. Johns County zoning board splits 3-2 on swimming pool request, highlighting concerns over drainage and development standards
The St. Johns County Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board rejected a family’s request to build a swimming pool that would exceed neighborhood size limits during their October 6, 2025, meeting. The decision came after a heated debate about water drainage, property standards, and how similar requests have been handled in the past.
The Request
The Racioppi family, who live at 502 Morningside Drive, asked permission to increase their property’s impervious surface ratio (the percentage of land covered by structures that don’t allow water to soak through) from the allowed 40% to 44%. This extra 3.6% would accommodate a small swimming pool for their children.
Attorney James Whitehouse represented the family, explaining that their 7,200-square-foot lot is one of the smallest in Ponte Vedra. He pointed out that several neighboring properties on the same street already have pools, some of which were granted similar variances (special exceptions to zoning rules) or were approved under different county regulations.
The family agreed to use pervious pavers (materials that let water pass through) for the pool deck and to install drainage systems directing roof water to the street, matching conditions placed on other nearby pool approvals.
Neighbor Concerns
Craig and his wife, who live at 500 Morningside Drive directly behind the proposed pool, spoke against the request. They argued that the variance was based on “convenience and luxury” rather than genuine hardship, which is typically required for such exceptions.
The couple presented photographs showing drainage problems they believe stem from another neighbor’s pool at 500 Morningside, which received variance approval last year. They said water runoff has already caused flooding in their backyard and garage.
“The current restrictions are there for a reason to protect communities from drainage and flooding,” Craig told the board.
Residents from two other properties on the street, 506 and 508 Morningside, sent emails to board members describing similar water retention problems in their backyards and garages after pools were installed nearby.
The Debate
Board members struggled with competing concerns. Member Mike Rieck noted that most of the Racioppi property slopes toward the front street rather than toward neighbors’ yards, suggesting drainage concerns might be overstated. He also pointed out that the Racioppi home is the second-smallest house on the block.
“I always had a warm spot in my heart for the size of these lots,” Rieck said, adding that 1% extra coverage on a 7,200-square-foot lot is much different than 1% on a one-acre lot.
However, board member Anna expressed difficulty finding the required “hardship” to justify the variance. “Everyone has to stand on their own, and I cannot find the hardship in this one,” she explained, though she supported changing the zoning code to help all similar properties rather than granting individual exceptions.
County staff confirmed that no drainage complaints have been formally filed from this area within the past 24 months. The Assistant Director of Growth Management explained that the neighborhood has a collection system with catch basins (storm drains) designed to handle water runoff, though it was added after the subdivision was built.
The Vote
The motion to approve the variance failed 3-2. Under board rules, four votes are needed to pass such requests. The split vote means the family cannot build the larger pool, though they could still install a smaller one within the 40% limit or appeal the decision to the Board of County Commissioners within 30 days.
Looking Ahead
The meeting revealed broader frustration with current zoning standards for Ponte Vedra’s smallest lots, which were platted (subdivided) decades ago and don’t meet today’s minimum size requirements. Several board members suggested changing the impervious surface ratio rules specifically for lots under 8,000 square feet, potentially allowing an additional 4% coverage for pools and exterior structures.
“I would like to see it remain at 40%, and then we could allow an additional 4% up to an additional 4% for pools,” one board member proposed.
Staff indicated such changes would require several months of public hearings and workshops before the zoning board and County Commissioners could make any amendments to the code.
The board also discussed tightening regulations on recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles parked in residential driveways, another issue where current language has proven difficult to enforce.
