Frankfort Board Denies Greenhouse and Pool Variances, Citing Zoning Intent and Setback Impact

Article Summary: The Frankfort Village Board denied two separate residential zoning variances for a large greenhouse and a swimming pool, signaling a strict interpretation of village code even when faced with recommendations for approval from the Plan Commission. Trustees cited the legislative intent of a recent zoning ordinance update in denying the greenhouse and pointed to the substantial nature of a 14-foot setback reduction in denying the pool.

Zoning Variance Denials Key Points:

• A request for a 420-square-foot greenhouse at 82 Lawndale Court, where 144 is permitted, was denied despite a unanimous Plan Commission recommendation for approval.

• A request to reduce a corner side yard setback from 30 feet to 16 feet for a pool at 99 N. White Street was denied after a split 4-1 recommendation for approval from the Plan Commission.

• Board members in both cases expressed concern that the requested variances were too significant and went against the intent of village zoning regulations.

FRANKFORT – In a pair of decisive actions on Monday, September 22, 2025, the Frankfort Village Board denied two separate requests for significant residential zoning variances, taking a harder line than its advisory Plan Commission.

The first denial concerned a request from resident Justin Ozinga to build a 420-square-foot greenhouse at his property under construction at 82 Lawndale Court. The village ordinance limits such accessory structures to 144 square feet. The request also included a height variance from the permitted 15 feet to 18 feet 9 inches. Despite the Plan Commission voting unanimously to recommend approval, the Village Board rejected the motion in a 4-1 vote.

Trustee Adam Borrelli explained his opposition by referencing a recent overhaul of the accessory structure ordinance. He stated that the board’s intent was to relax rules for open-air structures like pergolas and gazebos, while specifically excluding enclosed structures like greenhouses from the expanded size allowances.

“I just always go back to legislative intent, and it appears to me that the intent here was to exclude those types of structures,” Borrelli said. “Without changing the ordinance, I can’t support the variance request.”

In a separate matter, the board denied a request from Kimberly Quinlan, owner of the home at 99 N. White Street, to reduce the required corner side yard setback from 30 feet to 16 feet to accommodate a 14-by-30-foot in-ground pool. The Plan Commission had forwarded a 4-1 recommendation for approval.

During discussion, the applicant explained that a large, newly created public utility and drainage easement along her rear property line severely limited placement options for the pool.

Trustees, however, felt the 14-foot encroachment into the setback was too substantial. “With this request, it is a variation into the corner side yard setback of which we hold to the same as the front yard setback,” said Trustee Maura Rigoni. “The request of the 14 feet, I think that is too impactful into this side yard setback that we currently have.”

After board members suggested investigating a modification of the easement to move the pool further north, Quinlan responded that altering a legally documented public easement would be a rare, difficult, and costly process.

The board ultimately voted 3-2 to deny the variance request.