Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of Zoning Appeals denies variance for unpermitted accessory building at North 51st Street

Wyandotte County City Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals · June 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Wyandotte County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for an accessory building at 3441 North 51st Street on evidence the structure was built without permits and the hardship was self-imposed. The decision was unanimous 7–0.

The Board of Zoning Appeals voted 7–0 to deny a variance requested by Federico Dominguez for an accessory building that encroaches into required side and rear yard setbacks at 3441 North 51st Street.

Attorney Alex Aen, representing Mr. Dominguez, told the board the structure was placed on a historically used parking pad and that the owner believed the pad could support a building. Aen acknowledged the building was constructed without prior permits and asked the board to grant a narrow variance and allow the owner to pursue retroactive permitting to avoid tens of thousands of dollars in removal and reconstruction costs.

Commissioners pressed the applicant and counsel on several points, including why the existence of a pad would be understood as permission to build and whether the applicant’s financial hardship was self-created. Planning staff confirmed two stop-work orders were posted — one in October 2025 and another in March 2026 — and recommended denial on the grounds the applicant built without first seeking a variance or permit, creating a self-imposed hardship.

Commissioner Dwayne Beth moved to deny the variance, saying the structure was erected without proper permits and the resulting hardship was the applicant’s own. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ward and carried unanimously.

The BZA’s ruling was strictly on the variance request and not a determination about the safety or finish of the structure; staff and the applicant noted that retroactive permitting work remains possible if the owner pursues required engineering or inspections. The denial will be reflected in the official minutes and any permit efforts must follow code-enforcement processes.