Cass County delays decision on proposed airpark after hours of public comment

Cass County commissioners closed a public hearing Thursday on a rezoning and subdivision request for a proposed airpark and said they would delay a decision for about 30 days while staff and the county attorney gather more information.

The hearing drew hours of public comment from residents opposed to the proposal and several supporters. Speakers raised environmental and public-safety concerns, questioned infrastructure capacity and potential litigation risks, and challenged developers to indemnify the county. Supporters said the development would attract investment and hobby pilots.

The public-comment period focused on application 3142 for a development frequently referred to in testimony as an airpark or airpark subdivision. The hearing chair (unnamed in the transcript) told the room the county attorney recommended postponing a final ruling and that commissioners would announce a decision date after further review.

Residents voiced a range of concerns. Susan Huffman, a resident, said pilots’ single-piston aircraft use Avgas and provided a health warning: “Lead is a neurotoxin,” she said, noting speakers’ statements that Avgas contains about 2.12 grams of lead per gallon and that no widely available unleaded aviation fuel is yet approved. Huffman and other speakers cited federal health agencies, and one commenter noted that the Belton School complex sits about 3.7 air miles from the proposed site and serves more than 4,000 students.

Daryl Smith, a former prosecutor, urged caution and asked whether the developer known in testimony as Arrowhead would indemnify the county against potential lawsuits tied to runoff, runway protection zones or Clean Water Act violations. “Is Arrowhead going to indemnify the county?” Smith asked, adding that if liability were left to taxpayers the county could face attorney-fee awards under federal law.

Several residents raised infrastructure and fiscal concerns. Multiple speakers cited an engineering estimate discussed at earlier meetings that road upgrades to support the development could cost about $3,000,000; one long-term resident and others said rural roads in the area are not currently designed for increased traffic and heavy construction equipment. Comments also flagged stormwater and drainage questions tied to a proposed concrete runway and denser housing on the project site.

Speakers offered competing claims about property values. Susan Huffman presented assessed-value comparisons she said showed existing nearby Cass County homes averaged about $523,393, while prototype “airpark” estate homes and hangar homes average lower values in the developer’s materials. By contrast, Bill Brown, a broker-owner of Tom Jones Realtors, cited out-of-state examples and an analysis he said shows listings in developments near airports have increased in value and defended the development as a potential local investment. “The local pilot community is very, very excited about this,” Brown said.

Other testimony criticized the procedural posture of the application. One speaker citing county zoning guidance (referred to in testimony as Section 400 0 3 0 of the zoning order) urged commissioners to weigh the county’s long-range planning, agricultural protections and infrastructure obligations before approving a rezoning. Several commenters said that, in their view, the applicant’s engineering and planning materials were incomplete and that the county should not rely on citizens to produce technical reviews.

Not all attendees opposed the project. A longtime resident who said he had spent time in government urged commissioners to look for ways to meet standards and reach an approval “with conditions,” arguing for a “yes if” approach rather than an outright denial. That supporter urged commissioners to apply “practical wisdom” and to identify what would be needed for compliance rather than issuing a flat no. “Don’t just say no,” the speaker said.

After public comments ended, commissioners closed the hearing. The chair said the county would request additional information from the developer, review submitted reports, and expected a decision roughly 30 days later though the date could be sooner or later depending on follow-up work.

The transcript shows strong emotions and heavy turnout: dozens of residents spoke over several hours, with commenters alternating between detailed technical concerns (stormwater, road cost estimates, indemnity and regulatory gaps) and appeals over quality-of-life and safety matters (noise, low flights over yards, and children’s exposure). Speakers repeatedly referenced federal agencies and statutes — the EPA, FAA and CDC were cited in arguments about lead in Avgas and health impacts — and cited local resources such as Cleveland Lake Park and the Belton School complex.

No formal vote or final action on the application was recorded at the hearing. Commissioners closed the public hearing and deferred a ruling while staff gather additional information and advise the commission.