Commission sends contested SF‑20 rezoning back to Planning Commission to study water and protective overlay options
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Facing concerns about well water availability, runoff and future lot splits, the Sedgwick County Commission voted 5–0 Feb. 4 to return a proposed rezoning of 25 acres to SF‑20 to the Planning Commission for additional review, asking staff to draft protective-overlay options limiting dwelling density.
The Sedgwick County Commission on Feb. 4 returned a contested application to rezone roughly 25 acres from rural residential to SF‑20 (single-family) to the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission for further study, focusing on water availability, protective overlays and density limits.
Planning staff said the applicant proposed 12 single-family lots under SF‑20. Because protests constituted 27% of the protest area, state law requires four of five commission votes to override the Planning Commission. Scott Wadell, a county planner, told commissioners the MAPC recommended approval (9–1) but that local residents and agricultural landowners had raised concerns about well water sufficiency, drainage and compatibility with the county’s comprehensive plan.
County and environmental staff flagged water risks: Susan Erlingwine of Environmental Resources said wells in the area are generally deep (70–100 feet) with the water table about 40 feet below the surface, and cautioned that multiple new wells can create cones of depression that reduce neighboring well yields. MABCD staff said soils and site conditions likely require advanced wastewater systems or lagoons rather than standard septic fields.
Commission discussion and reason for referral: Commissioners emphasized uncertainty about the long-term impacts of additional wells, the potential for future lot splits that would increase density, and the need for enforceable limits on lot size or dwelling counts. County counsel confirmed protective overlays are available under the Unified Zoning Code and can limit density or require minimum lot sizes; staff suggested an overlay could cap the number of dwellings (for example, limiting the project to the 12 units the applicant proposed).
Next steps: Commissioner Wise moved — and the board voted 5–0 — to return the case to MAPC with instructions to examine water availability, wastewater options, and the suitability of a protective overlay to limit future lot splits and density. Any ordinance or overlay recommended by MAPC would come back to the commission for decision.
— Article provenance: Topic begins at zone-change presentation (SEG 1736) and ends with the board vote to return the case to MAPC (SEG 2806).