KSHB 41 reporter Ryan Gamboa covers Miami County in Kansas and Cass County in Missouri. He also covers agricultural topics. Share your story idea with Ryan.
—
It's been a long three years at the corner of East 203rd Street and S. Prospect Avenue in rural Belton, neighbors tell me.
"We’re kind of on edge to see what’s going to happen next," Vanessa Porembski shared. "This has been going on for three years. Will this be another three years?"
I first read about this story online in some local Facebook groups. KSHB 41 allows my colleagues and me one day to work in our designated geographical beats.
As the Cass County beat reporter, I knocked on doors to gauge interest in neighbors working on a story.
The first story we reported was at the end of August after Porembski visited our Let's Talk: Belton event. She expressed her concerns to our team and that's how we got here.
"The fact that they pulled their application means it's a positive for us right now," she said.
Porembski, alongside many of her neighbors, have pushed back against the Arrowhead Airpark development.
It's an airpark, not an airport, the developer stressed to me back in August during a phone call.
The project proposed a 3,000-foot runway with about 90 airplane hangars adjacent to that runway.
"The fact is, this property simply does not work for the project they want to do. It doesn’t fit," said another neighbor, Peter Hallberg.
Hallberg, alongside his neighbor Darrell Smith, funded two separate surveys of the project proposal — one focused on environmental impact conducted by an FAA biologist and the other an engineering survey.
Both reports identified significant issues with the proposal, which the group of neighbors asked the developer to address in public meetings with the Cass County, Missouri, Commission. Hallberg told me they have yet to address their concerns.
Including the major financial and tax implications this project would impose on Cass County residents.
After a Cass County Commission meeting in early September, Commissioners voted to take more time to review the proposal. This was after the neighborhood group presented its report to the board.
The county conducted its own report through Great River Engineering, and similar deficiencies were found with the project proposal, first shared by the residents.
"I recommend that Application #3143 be denied," the Cass County Building Codes, Environmental Health, Planning and Zoning Department Director Valeria McCubbin wrote in a letter to the Commission.
The letter identified seven areas of concern:
1. Stream Buffer and Floodplain Protection
The Zoning Order prohibits regulatory approval for development in designated stream buffer areas until all objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Order have been satisfied. The proposed design disregards entirely the mapped intermittent blue-line stream. The plat depicts numerous lots and rights-of-way crossing designated stream buffer area without meeting the objectives in the County Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Order.
2. On-Site Wastewater System Documentation
The Subdivision Regulations require the applicant to show that the proposed wastewater system is acceptable to the State for the specific use and location before a preliminary plat is filed. The applicant relies on a prior special use permit without producing site-specific feasibility or system design, leaving the County unable to confirm that the system can meet required performance and public health standards. Moreover, I previously provided the special use permit to the applicant’s engineer in 2024 for signature but never received. Nothing was submitted to demonstrate State acceptability.
3. Stormwater Management
County code requires stormwater easements to conform to watercourse lines and provide adequate drainage capacity. The applicant’s submittal omits essential TR-20/TR-55 routing and overstates runoff rates, failing to identify needed detention or BMP facilities and preventing the County from verifying that post-development runoff will not create downstream impacts. Required drainage easements, detention facilities, outlet structures, and BMPs are not shown. The narrative contains unsupported assumptions inconsistent with APWA 5600, the MARC BMP Manual, and County requirements.
4. Certified Survey
The plat is not signed or sealed by a Missouri Professional Land Surveyor. The Subdivision Regulations require a certified survey to ensure that lot boundaries, existing structures, and topographic data are accurate for regulatory review. Without surveyor certification, the County cannot rely on the plat’s accuracy, and several proposed lots even overlap stream buffer areas that are not delineated, compounding the compliance problem.
5. Utility Information
Existing and proposed utility locations, pipe sizes, and other required schematics are not shown, including the wastewater collection system and drainage for the proposed airstrip. County regulations mandate that both existing and proposed utilities be shown so that service availability, relocation needs, and construction impacts can be evaluated. The plat omits key infrastructure details such as culvert sizes, proposed roadside swales, and electrical relocation plans, preventing the County from confirming feasibility and code compliance.
6. Cul-de-Sac Length
It appears one or more cul-de-sacs may exceed the maximum 500-foot length limit measured from the centerline of an intersecting cross street to the center of the cul-de-sac. The County’s Subdivision Regulations limit cul-de-sac length to ensure adequate emergency access, reduce excessive travel distances for residents, and allow for efficient utility and service provision. Exceeding this length can create safety, access, and maintenance challenges.
7. Proximity of Lots to Paved County or State Road
Lots three acres in size or smaller must be located no more than one-half mile from a paved County or State maintained road. The west edge of the property appears to be approximately one-half mile from the nearest State maintained road.
"They’re not left with a whole lot to work with as far as homes, hangar homes and runways and things like that," Hallberg added.
With the release of those reports, two days ahead of a public vote, Arrowhead Airpark withdrew its application. That vote was scheduled for Thursday night and was cancelled on Tuesday.
I reached out to the developer over the phone, and he suggested I contact his Public Relations manager.
A spokesperson associated with Axiom Strategies in Kansas City issued me a brief statement:
"We are considering our options moving forward."
According to its website, "Axiom is the Republican full-service agency that delivers where others stall out. Full-service, full force. We bring strategy, firepower, and execution that turns close races into clear wins."
In a Facebook post, the developer wrote a more in-depth statement as to why it withdrew its application.
Pressing pause to build a stronger future for Arrowhead Airpark!
Yesterday, we decided to temporarily withdraw our county applications to ensure every detail of this incredible project is perfect. This strategic move allows us to avoid delays and come back with an even stronger plan.
Our commitment to bringing this exciting airpark community to Cass County is unwavering! This is just a detour on the path to making it a reality.
A huge thank you to all our supporters! Your passion for this project is amazing. Stay tuned for what's next!
Hallberg told me he doesn't buy the developer's reason for pulling out early.
"It’s more that they’re going to be denied than it is they’re doing some sort of voluntary withdrawal to improve things," he told me. "I do feel like they’re trying to spin it in their favor."
It's unclear if the developer is revising its plan.
I reached out again on Thursday to offer him a chance to interview and participate in this story.
I was told, "No, thank you."
"A good neighbor is someone who cares about how they affect others. If we were doing something that was upsetting our neighbors, we would want to know," Julie Walker, another neighbor, told me. "You can’t just say you’re a good neighbor and then design something and build something that damages everyone around you. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak."
The developer is within its rights to revise its plan and present it to the county zoning board again, then head for a Commission approval vote.
It's why this group of neighbors is committed to staying involved in its local government.
"We will definitely keep pushing back," Rachelle Worrall also told me. "It’s an example, if you work with your neighbors, there’s so much different talent in your neighbor that you can just divide and conquer."
The neighbors also made a point to share that they hope Cass County will reconsider how it handles development in the county. The neighbors feel the county should not force residents to conduct survey projects for private developments. They hope their work will incite change in county operations.
—
