Neighbors urge Cass County commissioners to reject Hunter's Pride lot split over lighting, industrial expansion concerns

Cass County commissioners heard extended public comment on July 2, 2025, about a minor subdivision application identified in the meeting as "Hunter's Pride," which would divide land adjacent to existing Hunter-owned property on Southeast Saddle Road south of Harrisonville.

The matter was introduced by county planning staff as a preliminary minor subdivision/preliminary bridal plat that would split off two roughly 5-acre tracts at the front of an existing parcel; staff said the remaining land would be used in conjunction with Hunter’s existing operations and that the planning commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval.

Property owner Kendra Reyes told the commission she and other neighbors oppose the application because of past and potential new lighting and industrial activity next to a residential area. “It will include more bright lights posted over that way down the yard that will shine even more in my backyard and neighboring yards,” Reyes said, adding the applicant recently built a large enclosed shop with “massive lights.” She urged the commission not to approve the split, saying neighbors want “peace, darkness, and quiet” preserved.

A neighbor who identified himself only as Richard said he had text-message exchanges with the applicant about lighting and showed the commission a photograph he said was taken at about 3 a.m. that illustrates the nighttime glare from the site.

Applicant Nate Hunter spoke briefly to confirm the application concerns the parcel adjacent to his existing property and had no additional public remarks recorded in the transcript.

Planning staff noted the parcel lies in an area the county master plan designates for heavier commercial or light-industrial use along major corridors; staff reiterated that designation during the presentation. The planning commission’s 3-2 recommendation was noted by staff, and the county commission called for a vote on the application; the transcript does not record a clear final tally of the county commissioners’ vote.

Because neighbors emphasized darkness, property values and nighttime lighting as their primary concerns, commissioners and staff discussed the application in the context of existing zoning and the county master plan but did not record additional conditions or mitigation measures in the meeting transcript. The commission proceeded to other agenda items after the vote sequence.