Planning commission denies request to vacate utility easement at 1940 East Diedrich

The Haysville City Planning Commission on a unanimous vote denied a request to vacate a portion of a 10-foot utility easement at 1940 East Diedrich, after staff reported objections from multiple utility companies and said equipment placed in the easement was installed without permits.

A city planning staff member told the commission the applicant had constructed an accessory structure, an air compressor shelter and three air-conditioning units on concrete pads within the easement without building permits; the encroachment reduces available easement width by about 5½ feet. The staff report, which recommended denial, said utility companies were notified and that Evergy and AT&T objected to the vacation. The staff member said Kansas 1 Gas had no conflicts and that Cox reported a line under one AC pad that “could potentially need removed if the vacation is approved.”

The matter matters because utility easements are intended to preserve access for installation, maintenance and relocation of facilities that serve multiple customers. The staff member told the commission that vacating the easement could force costly relocations and could “hinder any other utility’s ability to not only serve you, but serve your neighbors.”

The property owner, speaking at the public hearing, said contractors installed the equipment without pulling permits and that the owner was prepared to “work with it and do what’s needed.” The owner described the business as an aerospace machine shop and said the compressors and air conditioners are critical to production; moving the equipment could require a crane and cost substantial money.

Commission discussion noted the estimated cost to remove the equipment was about $140,000 and that the encroachment appears to have existed for about eight years. Commissioners said they were reluctant to permanently alter the easement and worried that a vacation could limit future access to serve neighboring properties. Several commissioners expressed a preference to deny the vacation while reserving enforcement action until it becomes necessary.

A commissioner moved to deny the vacation request and to recommend that the City Council not pursue enforcement action at this time unless required; another commissioner seconded. The motion to deny, with the recommendation to the council, passed on an aye vote by the commission. The commission’s action denies the applicant’s request to vacate the easement; the accessory structures therefore remain in violation of city code and could be required to be removed if a utility company requests it.

The staff member said the city code prohibits structures in utility easements and noted the maximum penalties for code violations include a fine (staff cited $500) and possible jail time, though staff said such penalties are typically not pursued when a property owner is cooperating. The commission suggested any decision to waive enforcement would likely be a council-level decision or require legal review.

The commission closed the hearing after no members of the public offered comment beyond the applicant’s remarks. The commission’s denial leaves the existing easement in place; if a utility later requires full access, the owner would be responsible for relocating the equipment at the owner’s expense.