Planning commissioners recommend denial of conditional use for oil and gas drilling in Haysville area of influence

The commission recommended denial of a conditional use permit request to allow oil and gas drilling on roughly 100 acres in the Haysville area of influence, voting by voice to forward that recommendation to the county planning authority.

The case, listed as CON-2024-00271 in staff materials, concerns wells and associated surface infrastructure on two parcels (about 75 acres and just under 60 acres) that together total roughly 100 acres. Brad Ederly, senior planner for the Metropolitan Area Planning Department (MAPD), told the commission the applicants had begun operations before securing the county-required conditional use permit and that MAPD staff recommends denying the application because the proposed industrial use conflicts with growth maps that identify the site for residential development.

The recommendation matters because the site lies in the city’s zone of influence: MAPD staff explained that, after MAPC (Metropolitan Area Planning Commission) hears the case, MAPC and this commission will forward recommendations to the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners, which will consider the matter at a public hearing.

In presenting the staff report, Ederly said the site is zoned Rural Residential (RR) and SF-20 single-family residential and that the city of Haysville’s future growth map designates the property for residential uses. He also said the site is in the South Wichita/Haysville area plan and “is not in compliance with that as well.” Staff noted the packet included a site plan showing an existing well about 210 feet west of South Broadway and roughly 1,800 feet north of West 63rd Street South and a nearby tank battery; the submitted site plan did not show proposed tank locations. Ederly said MAPD received one phone call and one email opposed to the project.

The applicant’s attorney, Chris Steinkamp of Pew, Gill, Rathman & McIntyre, representing Bear Petroleum (the applicant/agent), requested the commission proceed with a recommendation despite a county deferral. Steinkamp said the county legal team had asked the parties to defer the county hearing while it reviewed a letter his firm submitted; the applicant agreed to a deferment of the county MAPC hearing to Feb. 13. Steinkamp said he could present background but that he had only recently become involved and had provided a letter to the county counselor the day before.

Steinkamp and Bear Petroleum representative Den Shreymer (identified in the record as the company president) said the well is in an existing oil field (the Gladys pool/lattice pool) with numerous historical wells, that the surface footprint of infrastructure would be “probably less than 2 acres of total impact,” and that the well was permitted by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC). Steinkamp said state law places oil-and-gas permitting with the KCC and cited K.S.A. provisions and case law as support for the limits of local zoning authority. “The Kansas Corporation Commission is the proper permitting authority,” he said, and he noted statutes stating counties “may not require any license or permit for the drilling or production of oil and gas wells” (transcript citation K.S.A. 19-101a sub.19 and K.S.A. 74-623a(1), as referenced in his letter).

Resident Kevin Swore, who lives roughly a block from the field, said neighbors rely on private wells and raised concerns about stormwater, odors and the number of wells that might be drilled along the road. Den Shreymer responded that the operator filed for a pit permit with the KCC Conservation Division, that test holes are dug and inspected to confirm suitable liners, and that the pit was holding fresh water from the prior rig.

MAPD staff noted regulatory and siting requirements that would apply if a conditional use were approved: required screening of 6–8 feet on sides facing residential zoning, minimum setbacks for tanks (an 85-foot setback from the centerline of section-line roads under the Unified Zoning Code), and state and federal permits under KCC and Clean Water Act rules (spill prevention/controls). Staff also said the use was not consistent with Haysville’s future growth map and therefore recommended denial.

After discussion, a commissioner moved and another seconded a motion to recommend denial of CON-2024-00271 based on the MAPD report. The commission voted by voice and the motion carried; the commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the county planning authorities for their public hearing on the case (the county hearing was verbally scheduled for Feb. 13 in meeting comments).