Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Based Business Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
No-impact home-based-business bill amended to exclude breeders and short-term rentals; final passage fails in committee
Summary
House Bill 2343, creating a "no-impact" home-based-business classification that limits municipal regulation of certain small home businesses, was amended to remove a conflict with state fire-code language and to exclude animal breeding and short-term rentals; the committee later failed to pass the bill as amended.
The Kansas Senate Commerce Committee considered House Bill 2343, the No-Impact Home-Based Business Fairness Act, and adopted multiple amendments before ultimately failing to pass the bill out of committee.
House Bill 2343, as presented to the committee, would create two categories — "no-impact home-based business" and "rural no-impact home-based business" — and would require municipalities to treat such businesses as a permitted use. The bill would prohibit cities, counties or consolidated city-counties from prohibiting those businesses or from requiring registration, permits, licenses, variances or other prior approvals solely to operate such a business.
During committee discussion, Senator Titus moved an amendment to remove language that excluded "any residential dwelling consisting of more than two dwelling units," citing a conflict with state fire-code statute. The committee adopted that amendment to avoid inconsistency with the State Fire Marshal's written testimony.
Senator Owens later offered an amendment to exclude animal breeding operations and short-term rental hosting (for example, Airbnb/VRBO-style rentals) from the definition of a no-impact home-based business. Owens said those exclusions were requested by the bill author; the amendment was designed to preserve municipalities' existing regulatory authority over breeders and short-term rentals. Owens noted that the animal-breeding exclusion covers commercial breeders operating for income, not one-off personal litters.
Committee members questioned whether some potentially hazardous or high-risk uses (for example, an auto repair business operating with flammable materials) would be covered by the no-impact classification. Committee counsel and the bill sponsor pointed to section 5 of the bill, which allows municipalities to establish and enforce regulations narrowly tailored to public-health and safety purposes, including fire and building codes, sanitation, hazardous waste and related concerns.
Several senators expressed reservations about the bill’s necessity and scope. Senator Corson said he had not heard from his cities that the problem required state-level intervention. Senator Ware said he had received many emails opposed to the bill. Senator Platt raised questions about whether certain home-based businesses (such as an auto mechanic) would still require licensing or inspections; the sponsor and counsel answered that public-health and safety regulations could still apply under section 5.
After amendments were adopted, Senator Owens moved that the committee pass House Bill 2343 as amended. The chair called for a hand vote; the chair announced, "All in favor, hold your hand. Opposed? Motion fails." The transcript shows the motion failed in committee (no roll-call tally included in the transcript excerpt).
