CORRECTION
I really screwed up on this zoning story reporting the opposite of what happened.
A Citizen Editor brought my mistake to my attention.
He/she wrote, “The assessor was approved to work from home, as she has done for over 20 years, and she can keep three part-time employees there as well.
“The board moved the item from the consent agenda for a separate vote, and I believe it was approved 12-6. Her private residence is now approved with a zoning variance for more than one non-resident employee, which exceeds the current county UDO limits.
“Interestingly, the township is allowing the assessor to pass on nearly $3,000 (or possibly more) in legal fees for the private residence variance request.
“Based on the variance request now up to 3 non-resident employees besides the assessor since she’s a resident.
“The hearing officer stated “until she leaves office in 3 years” but none of that seemed to show up in the final report so who knows if temporary variance or if its now permanent to that residence.
“The fun of zoning variances!”
Who voted how can be seen below.
= = = = =
The original incorrect article follows:
A dispute between the Richmond Township Board and Richmond’ Assessor surfaced at the July County Board meeting.
The Board makes available what it considers adequate space for the Assessor.
Nevertheless, the Assessor wanted zoning permission to operate from home, where one or more employees might be present.
Here is what appears in the minutes:
O’Neill, Richmond Twp, E1/A1 – E1/A1V (Requires majority vote of members present.)
County board members focused on whether a variance to allow three part‑ time employees at a homebased assessor’s office was appropriate given existing zoning standards and township circumstances.
Several members questioned the hearing officer’s written comments for delving into township politics, rather than limiting the analysis to the land‑use request, and sought clarification from staff on how the one‑ employee limit is defined and enforced, confirming that only one employee may be present on site at any given time.
Members cited more than 20 objections from nearby residents, argued that the requested intensity was not consistent with the surrounding residential area, and indicated they did not see a legitimate hardship to justify expanding beyond the one‑ employee allowance.
Additional concerns were raised about using a private home for township business when the township had already invested in an
accessible office, and about the precedent that approval might set for similar requests in the future.
One member with assessor experience expressed support for the petition, noting that many assessors or contract assessors work from home and emphasizing a preference for smaller, more efficient government.
Further questions addressed the relationship between the township board, the assessor, the use of township funds, and the impact on neighboring properties.
Following this discussion, the board ultimately voted against the zoning request.
= = = = =
So what COVID made pretty much necessary for some people is not acceptable today.
= = = = =
I wrote the incorrect article after listening to the County Board meeting. Unfortionstrly, there is no way to find the vote without going back through the video.
Our Citizen Editor sent me what shows up briefly on the screen after the zoning vote:
