Leavenworth County Commission remands Kaw Valley sandpit permit to Planning Commission for new review

The Leavenworth County Commission voted to remand a long‑running special use permit request from Kaw Valley Companies for a sand mining and stockpiling operation back to the Planning Commission for further review and a new public hearing.

Planning staff told the commission the Planning Commission had earlier held a public hearing and recommended denial, finding that four of the so‑called "golden factors" (1, 2, 4 and 6) were not met. Staff said the Planning Commission concluded the proposal did not match the character of the neighborhood, conflicted with nearby zoning and uses, would be detrimental to nearby properties (notably roads and route of travel), and offered insufficient public‑health and safety benefits relative to the proposed impacts.

The motion to remand (case DEV25021) was moved from the floor by a county commissioner (speaker 4) and seconded; the board voted in favor, with commissioners saying the applicant’s recent suggested changes — including a new primary haul route, possible on‑site retail sales, royalty payments to the county and a relocated operation — materially altered the record and required renewed public notice and opportunity to comment.

Residents who spoke at the meeting urged denial. "Converting this stretch of K‑32, which passes Lynnwood Elementary School, into a high‑volume industrial haul route is incompatible with the surrounding area," said Laura Wyckoff, a Bonner Springs resident. Ben Morgan said the application has a long history of contention and litigation and raised concerns about private well impacts and taxpayer costs related to legal proceedings. Nancy Carpenter told commissioners to "take care of future Leavenworth County" and to deny the SUP to prevent long‑term community harm from truck traffic, silica dust and groundwater risks.

Planning staff reviewed the Planning Commission’s analysis of the golden factors and explained that changes to the applicant’s proposed travel route were the central concern for nearby property owners and the county’s evaluation. Multiple commissioners said the only circumstance under which they might support the project would include a viable rail connection to reduce heavy truck traffic; a letter from the state senator and a separate Union Pacific note indicating a willingness to discuss rail were read into the record.

Aaron March, an applicant representative, told the board the company understood the motion and asked the county to consider a target hearing date; commissioners and counsel said adequate time would be required to distribute notices and that May would likely be the earliest viable date for a new public hearing.

The commission’s formal remand instructs the Planning Commission to conduct a new hearing and to evaluate the applicant’s revised proposal — including the new haul route, proposed on‑site retail, royalty terms and any proposed mitigation such as rail integration — under the applicable criteria and to produce an updated record for commission consideration.

Because the remand requires new public notice and a fresh Planning Commission record, no final county decision on the SUP was made at this meeting.