Crawford County survey shows strong support for housing, mixed views on countywide zoning and renewables

Crawford County planners presented the results of a comprehensive-plan survey to the Crawford County Commission on a September 2025 meeting, reporting 2,303 responses and outlining resident priorities including new housing, expanded utilities and targeted economic incentives.

The presentation by consultant Joshua Alton opened with the survey’s scope and sample: “2,303,” Alton said when asked the total responses. He told commissioners the sample was dominated by long-term, property-owning residents and that the data included both paper and electronic surveys.

The results identified housing as a primary local concern: respondents reported an older housing stock, limited new construction and a preference for single-family homes. Alton said most respondents rated housing quality “fair to poor,” and that roughly 86% of respondents had lived in Crawford County 10 years or longer. He said 96% of respondents identified as permanent residents and cited a stated margin of error of about 3%.

On zoning, the survey produced mixed results. About 40% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with countywide zoning, Alton said; a large share were neutral. Alton recommended using the survey to shape a public process rather than treat it as a final decision: ‘‘This is step one’’ and the next steps will include targeted public hearings and planning-commission review, he said.

Renewable energy questions divided respondents. Alton reported solar attracted a higher net positive perception than wind, and that wind drew a substantially higher share of negative responses. He cautioned commissioners that some question-specific skip rates were high and said certain renewables questions had more nonresponses than other sections. He also noted public comment had heavily focused on wind and solar, even on unrelated questions.

Public comments at the meeting amplified those divisions. Jackie Augustine, executive director of Audubon of Kansas, asked the county to require pre- and post-construction wildlife surveys and to avoid siting wind turbines “in the center of unbroken tracts” and in areas with endangered species such as Mead’s milkweed and gray bat roosts. Resident commenters expressed a range of concerns about utility-scale projects, including turbine siting, battery-storage fire risk and decommissioning and property impacts; one resident, Charlie Butler of Butler Rentals Inc., said, “Zone it. Shut them down.”

Commission and staff discussion focused on how to convert the survey into policy steps. Alton proposed a simplified rural zoning code that preserves agricultural exemptions while creating three broad districts for the unincorporated county and allowing incorporated cities to keep their existing codes. He recommended a work session to present draft zoning language, followed by planning-commission hearings and the statutorily required public-notice period before any county vote.

Commissioners and staff discussed the county’s existing moratorium on large renewables, which Alton and others said expires at the end of the year. No vote to extend the moratorium was taken; the county attorney was advised as the proper forum to discuss possible extension and litigation risk in executive session. Alton said a moratorium tied to demonstrable work on a comprehensive plan and zoning gives the county a “good faith” legal argument but is not a guaranteed defense in court.

Alton and commissioners also discussed concrete next steps for other survey priorities: land banks, tax abatements and targeted incentives to spur housing and employer recruitment; interlocal agreements for stormwater and regional transportation projects; and broadband and utility expansion. He pointed to grant and program opportunities mentioned during public comment, including Department of Commerce housing grants and KDOT technical-assistance funding for flood projects.

Alton recommended the county take the survey results into subject-specific work sessions (housing, zoning, utilities, economic development, transportation and natural resources), present draft code changes to the planning commission and allow the required public hearings before any commission vote. Commissioners agreed to schedule further work sessions; no formal zoning ordinance vote or moratorium extension occurred at the meeting.

The presentation and the public discussion left several items for follow-up: targeted public hearings on countywide zoning and renewable setbacks, environmental survey requirements for utility-scale projects raised by Audubon, potential eligibility and design of tax-abatement or land-bank programs to support housing, and a staff review of liability and legal exposure related to moratorium timing and zoning enforcement.