Wright City Zoning Code · Chapter 405
The Codes We’re Questioning
We’re not claiming a violation — we’re asking the City to point to the words that authorized this.
Was the plat itself ever legal?
§410.010(G)
Combining the six parcels — and any right-of-way now part of the site — is itself a lot consolidation / boundary adjustment under §410.010(G), which sets its own review and recording requirements. Was a boundary-adjustment plat prepared, did P&Z make the required recommendation, and was the six-parcel tract legally consolidated before the June 11 site-plan vote — or was the Board voting on an incomplete, unconsolidated plan?
Who does this & when: the Planning & Zoning Commission makes its recommendation, and the plat must be recorded, before any site plan built on the consolidated lot goes to the Board for a vote.
Why it matters: this is the step that legally forms one buildable lot — and it appears to have been skipped here.
The same rule requirement applied here: at 41 Roelker Road, the City stated the original subdivision had not followed City rules, required the owners to return through P&Z, approved a final record plat by Ordinance No. 1104, and directed that it be recorded before the new development moved forward. Why could the asphalt site be treated as one development site on conceptual plans without a corresponding final plat, P&Z recommendation, Board ordinance, and recorded instrument — particularly after Ordinance No. 1108 made that sequence explicit?
The most current code: Wright City Bill No. 8-26, enacted as Ordinance No. 1108, amended §410.010 and became effective April 24, 2026 — before the Board’s June 11 site-plan vote. It sets this process for consolidating adjoining parcels under single ownership: (1) submit a boundary-adjustment plat; (2) P&Z review & recommendation; (3) Board approval by ordinance; (4) record with the Warren County Recorder of Deeds. §410.020(A)(2) states “shall” is mandatory, not discretionary.
The Clerk confirms no responsive record exists for any of the four steps above. The Warren County Recorder of Deeds also advised (Jun. 29, 2026) that it found no plat or survey recorded under G&M Concrete & Asphalt Co., Inc.’s name — though a search under prior owners or a professional title search would be needed to rule out an earlier recorded instrument.
The record: this tract was twice refused a rezone
Bill 6‑24
In Feb. 2024 the Board denied rezoning these six parcels to “M‑2” Heavy Industrial (Bill 6‑24, 3–0); in Oct. 2024 a mixed-use housing rezone was denied 4–2. The land stayed M‑1 — then a heavy asphalt use was approved on it by right. If heavy industry needed M‑2 here — which the City refused twice — what makes an asphalt plant a by-right M‑1 use, when it isn’t named in §405.560’s M‑1 list at all (§405.080(A)(2)(c): unlisted uses are prohibited)?
The review required before any of this
§405.100(A)(7)
Supplemental regulations “must be reviewed in every case” considering any land use; the Commission must “base its consideration” on the district’s intent and “assess the desirability” of the use — before reaching M‑1 vs. M‑2. Where is that record, and may it be produced for this review?
And the desirability of what, exactly? The Code defines a use as the “combined purposes” for which land is used, “with any combination of uses subject to the like combination of their individual requirements” (§405.090). So the use to be assessed is the whole operation — the drying, the heating, the crushing, the fuel storage and dispensing, the generators, the stockpiles — not the label “asphalt plant.” A desirability assessment cannot have covered components that appear nowhere on the site plan. If the record of this review exists, does it name them? If it does not exist, it cannot be supplied after the fact by a vote tonight.
Who does this & when: the Planning & Zoning Commission, as part of its review — before a use is classified M‑1 or M‑2 and before any site plan is voted on. This is the first question, not the last: every other question on this board comes after it.
The provision that decides everything
§405.080(A)(2)(c)
“Any use not listed is specifically prohibited.” An asphalt plant is not named in the M‑1 permitted-use list. So the threshold question isn’t M‑1 vs. M‑2 — it’s whether this is a listed use at all, and if not, what authorized it.
Who does this & when: the City’s zoning official / Planning & Zoning Commission makes this call — before any use is classified or a site plan is reviewed at all.
The whole operation must fit — not just its name
§405.090 — “USE”
The Code defines a use as “the specific purpose or combined purposes for which land or a building is designed, arranged, intended, occupied or maintained, with any combination of uses subject to the like combination of their individual requirements.”
So an operation cannot be approved under one label while its other parts go unexamined. This site combines asphalt production with fuel-oil storage, diesel generators, an asphalt oil heater, rock crushing, and open stockpiles. Each carries its own requirements, and by this definition all of them apply together. Which of these components was separately identified and reviewed?
Who does this & when: the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Planning & Zoning Commission, when the use is classified — and again at site-plan review, component by component.
It is not just mixing — it is drying, heating and crushing
M‑1 vs. M‑2 · the equipment test
M‑1 reaches manufacturing from “semi-finished materials.” The City’s position appears to be that this plant simply combines materials to a recipe. But an asphalt plant does not begin with semi-finished material and it does not only mix. It takes in raw rock and sand, dries them in a fired drum, and holds liquid asphalt hot in heated tanks. Drying, heating, and crushing raw aggregate is processing, and processing raw material is what separates heavy industry from light.
The equipment that does the processing is on the applicant’s own State filing for this address, numbered: a drum dryer rated 120 MMBtu/hr, an asphalt oil heater at 3.5 MMBtu/hr, a crusher, a baghouse, fuel oil tanks (9B), and diesel generators (10). The State conditioned operation on burning only ultra-low sulfur diesel in the dryer and the heater, with records of every fuel shipment received.
None of it appears on the site plan. Not the dryer, not the heater, not the crusher, not the baghouse, not the fuel tanks, not the generators, not the fueling area or its containment — and no heights or elevations for any of it. So the classification question cannot be answered from this plan, because the equipment that determines the classification was never shown. Whether the City calls it mixing or processing, the plan does not contain the machinery that would settle it.
The question: on what equipment description did the City classify this use as M‑1, and where in the file is that description? The applicant gave the State an itemized equipment list in February 2025 — five months before the City’s review.
The one place the Code names asphalt plants
§405.100 — Temporary Uses
Under Supplemental Regulations, Temporary Uses: “Temporary Asphalt Or Concrete Batching Plants. These uses are permitted in any district when part of a local construction project.”
This is the only provision in Chapter 405 that names an asphalt batching plant — and it treats one as a temporary use, tied to a local construction project, by permit with a stated time limit from the Zoning Enforcement Officer. A permanent commercial plant selling to outside projects is a different thing. The State authorization for this site is likewise portable, capped at twelve consecutive months, and states on its face that authority to operate here expired April 1, 2026.
Then it cannot be a use by right. The Code mentions an asphalt batching plant in exactly one place, and that place is Temporary Uses — allowed “upon issuance of a permit specifying time limit from the Zoning Enforcement Officer,” and only “when part of a local construction project.” A permit with a time limit is the opposite of by right.
And the two readings cannot both be true. If an asphalt plant were already permitted by right in M‑1, this provision would be surplus — no applicant would seek a time-limited temporary permit to do in any district what M‑1 already allowed permanently. The Code does not write itself unnecessary provisions. So an asphalt batching plant is either the temporary use the Code names — requiring a project, a permit, and a stated time limit — or it is a use not listed, which §405.100 and §405.080(A)(2)(c) both say is expressly prohibited until P&Z makes a similar-and-compatible determination and the amendment procedure is completed. Neither route is “by right,” and neither was followed here.
The question, put plainly: which is it? If this is the temporary use the Code names — which local construction project, which permit, and what time limit? If it is not, then under what listed use was it approved by right, and where is that use named in the M‑1 list?
And if it is treated as an unlisted use
§405.100 — Uses Not Listed
“When a use is not specifically listed… such use is expressly prohibited. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall determine whether a proposed unlisted use is similar to and compatible with the uses listed in a particular zoning district, and an amendment procedure is required to establish a definition, district classifications and appurtenant requirements before such use is authorized.” The Code makes “shall” mandatory, not discretionary. Was that determination made, and was the amendment procedure followed?
§405.560(A)(2)(a) — M‑1
Manufacturing from “semi-finished materials.” No “processing,” no “raw materials.”
§405.570 — M‑2
“Processing… of basic or raw materials.” DNR’s permit calls the feedstock raw aggregate.
If it processes raw materials, it reads as M‑2. If it fits no listed use, it’s prohibited. Which provision authorized it — in writing?
Use & storage
§405.070(A)(1): Which listed use authorized the plant?
§405.560(A)(5)(b): Open storage capped at 40% — what’s the calculation, on which lot?
Surfacing/drainage: Will stockpiles be paved & drained, or what exception applies?
Temporary vs. permanent: The DNR permit is portable & expired Apr 1, 2026 — yet the plat shows a permanent plant. Which is it?
§405.100(A)(7): Was the required desirability weighing done, in writing?
Ch. 410 — subdivision: No legal plats exist for the six combined parcels. Did required P&Z review happen?
Where’s the record? No minutes document the §405.100(A)(7) weighing. May it be produced, or completed now?
Prior variance, withdrawn: A Board of Adjustment variance for a Star Connection Drive asphalt-batching plant was on the Jan 29, 2025 agenda but withdrawn that morning before the hearing. What’s the relationship, and why was the variance route abandoned for the by-right M-1 path used here?
Neighbors & nuisance
§405.540(A)(4): A 5–6 ft opaque screen is required where industrial abuts residential. Is one in the plan?
§405.090 / §405.530: Were dust, odor, noise & vibration reviewed at the property line?
Lighting plan: Was the photometric plan submitted & carried into approval?
Peruque Creek: How are runoff, waste & dust kept out of an already-impaired creek?
Road repair: No signed agreement sets a repair trigger or cost split — and none distinguishes company trucks from third-party haulers. Who’s responsible?
The verbal “100 trucks/day” commitment: Appears verbal, not written or enforceable — and may not count outside haulers. If exceeded, who verifies and who pays for road damage?
Traffic, process & notice
Traffic study: ~100+ trucks/day — CBB recommended Star Connection Drive, but the approved plan uses a different turn lane; CBB flagged Roelker’s bearing capacity as “not known.” The final signed study still hasn’t been produced.
Rail crossing: Were the railroad & MoDOT consulted so trucks don’t queue on the tracks?
Horn masking: Could plant & truck noise drown out the train horn & crossing bells by the school?
§405.020 / §405.030: Were findings made on traffic, schools & protecting existing uses?
Ch. 610 RSMo: Were notice & a hearing owed to the owners of ~1,711 nearby parcels — about 1,340 of them homes — & future residents?
Screening, height & property-line standards — what the code requires
§405.540(A)(4) — screen. A 5–6 ft opaque fence, wall, or hedge required wherever industrial abuts residential.
§405.540(A)(3) — height step-back. Structures over 30 ft adjoining residential must set back 1 ft per 2 ft of height above 30 ft.
§405.540(A)(2) & §405.520. Nothing over 6 ft within 30 ft of a right-of-way; industrial structures capped at 50 ft.
§405.090 — at the property line. Dust, odor & vibration measured at or beyond the property line — independent of any state permit.
Protecting property value & welfare
§89.040 RSMo: zoning shall be made “to conserve the value of buildings and encourage the most appropriate use of land.” §405.020 / §405.030: the City’s stated purpose includes protecting the value, type & character of existing land uses. Were those weighed for the homes & common ground next door?
We’re asking, not accusing. Identify, in writing, the exact provisions that authorized this use, its storage, and its traffic; confirm the right process was followed; and reconsider the approval with the complete record in front of the Board. No code can list every use — which is why §405.080(A)(2)(c) is plain: what is not listed is prohibited.
Section numbers from the Wright City Zoning Code, Chapter 405. Compiled by residents of Alder Creek & Roelker Road.