Laserfiche WebLink
October 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 20 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />violations of the Colemans' rights to equal protection and due process. <br />Variance -County grants lawn care <br />business three area variances <br />Neighboring property owners charge that <br />self-created business growth cannot <br />constitute unnecessary hardship needed for <br />a variance <br />Citation: Hacker v. Sedgwick County, 2012 WL 4039373 (Kan. Ct. <br />App. 2012) <br />KANSAS (09/14/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether self- <br />created business growth is an exception to the general rule that unnec- <br />essary hardship may not be self-created. <br />The Background/Facts: For over 30 years, the Heins operated a <br />lawn care business from their rural home in Sedgwick County, Kansas <br />(the "County"). The property on which their home and business was <br />located was zoned RR Rural Residential. In 1990, the Heins had <br />obtained two variances that allowed them: to operate within 220 feet of <br />a nearby residence; and to have up to four employees on the property at <br />any given time. In 2010, the Heins filed a petition with the County <br />Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board") for three area variances, which <br />would: (1) allow up to 20 employees with no more than 15 on site in <br />excess of one hour per day; (2) allow the use for business purposes of <br />existing outbuildings with a combined floor area exceeding 3,000 <br />square feet; and (3) allow outdoor storage closer to the street than the <br />buildings used for the business and closer than 200 feet from property <br />lines. In their petition, the Heins alleged that these variances were nec- <br />essary because they had "obtained additional customers and changed <br />the way their employees work." Specifically, the Heins stated that more <br />equipment was stored at the property and employees now met at the <br />property and rode together to job sites. <br />Eventually, the Board granted all three requested variances. In doing <br />so, the Board concluded that all five criteria under Kansas statutory <br />law, K.S.A. 12-759(e)(1), that must be met before a variance can be <br />granted had been met. As to one of those five criteria —whether strict <br />application of the zoning regulation constituted an unnecessary hard- <br />ship —the Board found that the hardship was not self-created. The <br />Board reasoned that the Heins had a vested property right in their busi- <br />6 © 2012 Thomson Reuters <br />