Supplemental Clarification to the Board of Aldermen

The petitioners respectfully clarify that Volume I and Volume II were submitted together and should be considered as complementary parts of the same request for corrective action.

Volume I identifies the failure to complete the mandatory boundary-adjustment process required by §410.010(G) before the June 11, 2026, conditional site-plan approval. That procedural defect provides an independently sufficient basis for rescission.

Volume II identifies a separate threshold issue: the administrative record does not establish the legal basis for treating the proposed permanent asphalt operation as a use permitted by right in the M-1 District. Volume II asks the Planning and Zoning Commission to identify the precise listed use claimed to authorize the operation, apply the relevant provisions of Chapter 405, conduct the required supplemental and compatibility review, and provide written findings to the Board before any new site-plan vote.

The petitioners are not asking the Board of Aldermen to make a new technical use-classification determination in place of the appropriate zoning review. They are asking the Board not to leave the existing approval in effect—or approve the site plan again—while the legal authorization for the proposed use remains undocumented and unresolved.

Requested Action

Accordingly, the petitioners respectfully request that the Board:

1. Rescind the June 11, 2026, conditional site-plan approval because it was granted before completion of the mandatory parcel-adjustment process required by §410.010(G), and because the administrative record does not establish the legal basis for treating the proposed permanent asphalt operation as a use permitted by right in the M-1 District.
2. Return the matter to the required procedural posture so that the boundary-adjustment process is completed and the Planning and Zoning Commission conducts and documents the use-classification, district-fit, compatibility, desirability, and supplemental-regulation review requested in Volume II.
3. Refrain from approving any new site plan until the Board has received the legally established and recorded parcel configuration, a completed site plan based upon that configuration, and written findings identifying the lawful zoning authorization for the proposed use.

This clarification does not replace Volumes I or II. It explains how the requested actions in those volumes operate together.