Cities, counties warn bill shielding some home businesses could limit local enforcement

Representatives of Kansas cities and counties told the Senate Commerce Committee on Feb. 20 that House Bill 23-43, which would classify some home occupations as "no impact" and limit local regulation, could create enforcement gaps that leave neighborhoods exposed to noise, safety and property-value harms.

The League of Kansas Municipalities' government affairs director, Spencer Duncan, said the bill's definition of "no impact" focuses on whether activity is visible from the street and whether it produces "substantial" traffic, language cities would find difficult to apply. "Under this bill, we think you could gravel your backyard, you could put cars in your backyard, and you could essentially have a used car lot in your backyard," Duncan said.

The League and county associations cited a range of concrete problems they said arise under current local practice and would be harder to address if the state preempts regulation: increased parking and paved areas in residential yards, backyard mechanical work that produces intermittent but disruptive noise, informal scrap yards and storage of construction equipment, and flea markets or other retail hosted in residential lots.

Mike Taylor of the Kansas Association of County Commissioners said local officials typically respond after complaints and that rules exist because of recurring problems. He described a case in which a resident installing and testing car stereo systems generated noise that could be heard "coming 2 blocks away," but only for brief intervals, creating enforcement gaps when ordinances rely on sustained violation thresholds.

Jay Hall, deputy director and general counsel for the Kansas Association of Counties, stressed neighbor-to-neighbor conflicts as a reason for local regulation. "These are the kinds of things that as counties, as cities, we have to deal with," Hall said, noting that regulations try to balance the right to operate a business with neighbors' right to enjoy their property.

City of Topeka testimony amplified that local rules treat home-based businesses as accessory uses meant to preserve residential character. The city representative said ordinances often limit hours of operation and that homeowners associations do not cover most older neighborhoods, so a statewide rule that privileges deed restrictions would benefit newer subdivisions disproportionately.

Speakers also flagged specific statutory conflicts and ambiguities in HB 23-43. Several local officials said Section 5, which allows municipalities to adopt fire and building codes when necessary, conflicts with Section 7, which they read as barring inspections or additional requirements in some circumstances. The League asked for clarifying amendments.

Witnesses noted other areas the bill would not address: short-term rental regulation, historic-neighborhood protections and requirements tied to commercial equipment such as venting for commercial ovens. Duncan urged targeted fixes for specific industries rather than a broad preemption: "If we have those very specific businesses that are being hampered, let's do bills that focus on those, instead of what I call the shotgun approach."

The committee closed the hearing on HB 23-43; there was no final vote in the transcript. Written opposition was noted in the committee packet.

The exchange included questions from senators about whether municipalities could still regulate certain health and safety issues, and witnesses said the bill's language was unclear on inspection and sprinkler requirements and needed technical fixes.

Ending: The committee did not take final action on HB 23-43 during the recorded session; proponents and opponents were left with unresolved statutory and drafting concerns that witnesses asked the bill sponsor to amend or clarify before further action.