Request to Deny the Consolidation and Boundary Adjustment

Why this plat, and why now

Condition 2 of the June 11, 2026 site-plan approval provides that no development or building permit may issue until a boundary-adjustment plat consolidating the six lots into one is submitted and approved. This plat is the last gate. Everything else in the approval sits behind it, and whatever passes through it fixes the configuration the project is built on.

One thread runs through all nine reasons. The scope of this project has been stated as 58 acres from the beginning and described that way continuously. What has narrowed is not the project. It is what appears on the drawing the City is asked to approve. The plant block shrank to about five acres, the aggregate storage area grew from 33 acres to 36.4 and was then excluded by condition, and on the current set it is gone from the plan altogether — while the tonnage the applicant has declared to the State has never changed.

Reason 1 · The aggregate storage area was labeled on every earlier plan and is absent from this one

There are three dated civil plan sets in the City’s file. Each went before a different body at a different stage, and each states a different amount of land for aggregate storage — storage that in every case lies outside the block labeled “About 5 Acres.”

The City has produced no revision log, review comment, resubmittal letter, or approval for either change. The petitioners do not assert why the label was removed; they state only what the record shows, which is that the plat now before the Commission identifies no location for storage anywhere on the property.

Reason 2 · Condition 3 excluded the storage area from the approval, and the plant cannot run without it

Condition 3 of the June 11, 2026 approval provides that the approval “does not approve any future expansion or storage areas as indicated on the note on Lot 5 or otherwise,” and that an amended site plan would be required first. The words “or otherwise” are not limited to Lot 5. They withhold approval of storage anywhere on the property. Expansion is genuinely future. Aggregate storage is not — it is what the plant runs on from its first day.

Reason 3 · The applicant told the State the operation needs that storage

• Heider Environmental to DNR, February 24, 2025: relocation requested “to allow for this relocation and a production level of 3,500 tons/day,” with moisture testing of aggregate “in the storage piles/cold aggregate bins/conveyors.”
• The site map filed with that request: “Stockpiles to plant: 200’” — a distance that places the piles outside a five-acre block. Haul in 1,720 feet, haul out 1,620 feet.
• SWPPP §3.1, June 2025: 13,000 tons stored year-round — 8,000 rock, 2,000 sand, 3,000 RAP — plus 72,000 gallons of liquid asphalt, burner fuel and diesel.
• DNR technical review, Permit 032010-001AK: 1.5 acres of storage piles, 400 tons per hour maximum design rate, 120 MMBtu/hr drum dryer.

The operation the applicant described to the State is larger and more specific than anything shown on the plan before the Commission.

Reason 4 · No record fixes how large the approved area is, or where its boundary lies

At the August 17, 2026 meeting the operating area was described as roughly eight acres. Sheet C-2 — the operative drawing, the one this consolidation is built on — still reads “About 5 Acres” and still reads “10 Employees,” unchanged. The same record carries a 33-acre figure, a 36.4-acre figure, and a 58-acre project area used to calculate fees.

There has never been an eight-acre plan. No drawing, no survey, no condition, no vote, and no written determination located to date states an eight-acre figure. It exists only as spoken words. The applicant’s own site map places the stockpiles 200 feet from the plant; a five-acre block does not contain that distance, and something closer to eight might. Whether that is why the larger number began to be used aloud, the petitioners cannot say. What can be said is that the written record was never conformed to it. The figure grew in the room and stayed the same on the paper.

Neither figure has a legal description. There is no metes-and-bounds, no recorded instrument, no survey, and no dimensioned boundary anywhere in the record fixing the perimeter of the area that was approved. The City confirmed in writing on August 6, 2026 that it was “unable to determine the specific records being requested” for any document fixing the plant’s location and setbacks within Lot 5. Whether stockpiles placed 200 feet from the plant fall inside or outside the approved area cannot be determined, because the approved area has no boundary to measure from. A limitation that cannot be located cannot be enforced.

Reason 5 · The dimensional limits were never calculated

Section 405.560(A)(5)(b) caps open storage at 40% of the lot and imposes surfacing and drainage requirements. Section 405.560 caps building coverage at 75%. Sections 405.520 and 405.540 govern structure height and additional setbacks where structures exceed thirty feet adjoining residential zoning.

The final site plan does not show or dimension any storage area, states no stack or structure heights, and gives no capacity, containment dimension, or setback for the fuel storage. On August 6, 2026 the City confirmed in writing that it holds no 40% open-storage calculation and no 75% building-coverage calculation. No structure height for this facility appears in the City’s file or the State’s: the applicant accepted a voluntary PM10 cap of 15.0 tons per year expressly “to avoid the dispersion modeling requirements found in 10 CSR 10-6.060 Section (5),” and dispersion modeling is the step that would have produced stack parameters.

What the sheet does draw cuts the other way. Sheet C-2 carries 250-foot setback lines and fire-hydrant spacing envelopes, both of which reduce the usable interior of the site. Whatever area remains available for the plant and its storage is therefore smaller than the block labeled “About 5 Acres” — and smaller still than the eight acres described aloud. The petitioners ask the Commission to identify what area remains once those drawn lines are applied, and whether any calculation of that remaining area exists in the City’s file.

Reason 6 · The project has been 58 acres throughout, and the City assessed fees on it

Sheet C-2 of the plan set states “Total Project Area: 58 Acres,” and the stormwater summary on that same sheet computes runoff over “Pasture and Timber: 58 acres.” The City Clerk’s email of June 10, 2026 — the day before the Board vote — assessed development fees of $11,600 calculated on approximately 58 acres at $200 per acre. A second email the same day addresses whether the fee applied to the whole property or only the plant footprint, so the question was raised at the time and answered in favor of the larger figure. The approval issued the following evening covers a plant block of about five acres and expressly excludes the Lot 5 storage and expansion area. The record does not reconcile the two.

Reason 7 · Fire and fuel-storage review, and the traffic study, were never completed

The site is to hold 50,000 gallons of liquid asphalt, 15,000 gallons of burner fuel, and 7,000 gallons of diesel. Sheet C-4 notes “Liquid Asphalt Tanks” with no capacity, no containment dimensions, and no setback. No separation or setback calculation for the tank farm appears in any record, and no determination under §405.510(A)(5) has been produced.

Marschke wrote to the Building Inspector on June 28, 2025 that preliminary approval had been obtained from the fire department. When records of that review were requested, the City produced the Fire Protection District’s own station site plan and conditional use application from the same August 18, 2025 agenda — a different project. No fire review of this facility has ever surfaced.

On traffic: the CBB technical memorandum of May 20, 2026 was preliminary. It was invoiced at 75% complete — $17,887.50 of $23,850, invoice 260280001 dated June 10, 2026 — and paid in full by check #57075 on June 25, 2026. On August 6, 2026 the City confirmed that no final traffic study exists.

Reason 8 · Stormwater review is not finished, and the plat’s own review items are unconfirmed

BFA Engineering, forwarded by the City Clerk on August 28, 2026: “It is our understanding that the developer has not yet submitted final construction plans as part of the building permit review process. As a result, BFA has not reviewed any subsequent or final SWPPP or other construction plans.” The completed review was BFA’s sixth, dated February 10, 2026, prepared against the five-lot configuration, and it directed that Sheets C-2 and C-5 be updated “with submittal of final plans.”

The Building Inspector’s §410.010(G) review of July 15, 2026 states that the plat “appears to comply,” while identifying open items: the Chapter 412 stream buffer, tax certification, abstract of title, an unlabeled tract, and state-plane coordinates. Several may well have been resolved before the August 17, 2026 meeting, and the petitioners do not suggest otherwise. The point is narrower: no record of their resolution has been produced or located. The petitioners ask only that the Commission confirm on the record, item by item, what closed each one and when.

Reason 9 · Outside approvals were issued against a lot configuration the City never created, and six filings have gone unanswered

Public Water Supply District No. 2 reviewed and approved the water infrastructure in January 2026, carrying it as “25-080 · Magruder Asphalt Plant — 5 Lots — Approved for Construction.” BFA’s February 10, 2026 letters were prepared against the same five-lot set. Condition 4 of the June 11, 2026 approval states that the approval “does not approve a subdivision plat or creation of the lots shown as Lots 1-5,” and that those lots are “conceptual only.” Both outside approvals were therefore issued against a configuration the City expressly declined to create and is now asked to supersede.

Seven filings have been made with the City since July 20, 2026: Petition 1 and Volumes I–IV (July 20), Supplemental Clarification No. 1 (July 21), a written public comment (July 23), Petition 2 with revised volumes and 123 verified signatures (July 31), Petition 3 with seven written questions (August 17), Supplemental Clarification No. 2 (August 18), and this petition (September 21). No body has answered any of them — no substantive response, no referral, no declination, and not the written statement of non-response the July 31 filing expressly invited. The City’s reply of July 20, 2026 at 8:57 AM confirmed only that the filing had been forwarded and “filed for the record.” That is a confirmation of distribution, not a decision.

Before any of those, residents attempted the administrative route the Council itself had suggested. Community members asked on several occasions for the applications needed to begin a Board of Adjustment proceeding, and were denied each time. They filed written requests for Board of Adjustment review anyway on July 10, 2026, within thirty days of the June 11 decision. Some received acknowledgment of receipt; others received none. On July 16, 2026 the City declined to accept or docket the requests, stating that no administrative zoning determination had been made that was subject to Board of Adjustment review.

What the Commission is actually being asked to do

The Commission is not being asked to approve a plan. It is being asked to consolidate six parcels — the same six that Condition 4 of the June 11, 2026 approval states were never created, and that the approval describes as “conceptual only.”

That is the circularity. The site plan was approved against a lot configuration the approval itself declined to create, and made permits contingent on a consolidation that would create it afterward. The parcel came second. Everything measured against it was measured before it existed.

What was bypassed in that sequence is not incidental. The setbacks, the §405.560 open-storage limit, the building-coverage limit, and the structure heights are all measured against a lot and against a defined operating area. On June 11 there was no lot. There is still no legal description, no metes and bounds, no survey, and no dimensioned boundary fixing where the plant area sits or how far it extends — the City confirmed on August 6, 2026 that it was “unable to determine the specific records being requested” for any such document, and confirmed that it holds no open-storage and no coverage calculation.

The result is a moving target. The plant block has read “About 5 Acres” throughout while being described aloud as eight. The labeled storage area was 33 acres on the set this Commission reviewed, 36.4 acres on the set the Board approved, and does not appear on the set now before the Commission. The applicant’s own site map places the stockpiles 200 feet from the plant, a distance that cannot be tested against a boundary that does not exist. Every figure the Code requires to be fixed has instead changed, and none has ever been recorded.

The Commission’s own record bears on this. Its only recorded action on this project is its vote of August 18, 2025, taken on the plan set dated June 13, 2025. The set the Board approved on June 11, 2026 is dated January 29, 2026 and carries a storage area 3.4 acres larger; the petitioners have located no record of a Commission recommendation on that set. The set now before the Commission is dated July 8, 2026 and shows no storage area at all. The plans moved three times, and the Commission reviewed only the first.

Meanwhile the City billed the project as a whole. Development fees of $11,600 were assessed on June 10, 2026 against approximately 58 acres, at $200 per acre, for the full project area — the day before an approval covering about five acres that expressly excludes the storage and expansion area. The City charged for development of ground its own conditions did not approve for development.

The petitioners respectfully submit that denial is the response that protects the integrity of the Commission’s own process. Denial does not decide the merits and does not prejudge the applicant. It returns the matter to the order the Code sets out — a defined parcel, then the determinations measured against it, then approval — rather than asking the recommending body to ratify at the end a sequence it was never part of.

The relief requested

Section 410.010(G) requires this plat to come to the Commission for review and recommendation. Section 410.010(I) provides that all plats reviewed under Chapter 410 must conform to the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code before approval of the record plat. Conformity is therefore not optional at this stage and not deferrable to another one. It is a precondition of the recommendation the Commission is being asked to make.

1. Deny the consolidation and boundary adjustment on the ground that conformity with the Zoning Code, as required by §410.010(I), has not been determined. No measurement, calculation, finding, or administrative determination establishing that conformity has been produced or located, and the City has stated in writing that it holds no §405.560 open-storage or building-coverage calculation and no document fixing the plant’s location and setbacks. On the record before the Commission, the precondition to a favorable recommendation is not satisfied.
2. Identify, on the record, the operative site plan and the measurements and determination relied upon — by plan version, date, document name, and the official who made the determination. If the Commission proceeds notwithstanding this petition, the petitioners ask that these be recorded in the minutes.
3. If no such record exists, state that on the record, and state the grounds on which the Commission nonetheless finds the plat conforms. A statement that no responsive record exists is a complete and useful answer.

The petitioners request a written response within fourteen days of this filing. A written refusal, stating grounds, is accepted as a complete response.

This petition is directed to dimensional and procedural compliance under the Code as written. It asks the Commission to act on a complete record, not to prejudge the applicant.

Petitioners

This petition is submitted by the undersigned as representative of the petitioners identified in Volume III, as most recently filed. Petitioners who authorized publication of their names are listed there; the remainder signed on the condition that their names not be published, and that condition is honored here. The signature record is incorporated by reference rather than reproduced a fourth time.

The existing signature statement in Volume III supports the request that the Board of Aldermen rescind the June 11, 2026 approval. It is not represented as individual signatures endorsing the specific relief requested here, which is stated by the undersigned as the petitioners’ representative. The petitioners’ documented concerns do include the matters at issue: signers identified legal consolidation of the six parcels, which legal lot was used for coverage, storage, setbacks and height calculations, the forty-percent open-storage limitation, and the seventy-five-percent building-coverage limitation among the issues they asked the City to review.

Sources for each reason

Every document listed is a public record: produced by the City under Chapter 610 RSMo, filed by the applicant with the State of Missouri, or recorded with Warren County. All are published at wright-city-neighbors.netlify.app/pz-sept-21-sources, the full source index for this package. Where a document is described above as not existing, that is the City’s own written answer, quoted or cited by date.