Supplemental Petition — Zoning-Conformity Record

This supplemental submission narrows my prior petitions and public-record statements to one procedural question. It does not ask the Commission to decide the pending lawsuit or to determine the ultimate legal validity of the June 11, 2026 Board action. It asks the Commission to identify the existing plan, measurements, and zoning determination on which it is being asked to rely when reviewing the pending consolidation and boundary adjustment — and, if none exists, to deny the consolidation on that ground.

Wright City Code §410.010(G) requires the boundary-adjustment plat to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation. Section 410.010(I) separately provides that all plats reviewed under Chapter 410 must conform to the applicable Zoning Code provisions before record-plat approval by the Board of Aldermen.

Why this question is now unavoidable

The City-produced record reflects materially different civil-plan configurations over time. The June 13, 2025 civil set furnished to P&Z showed an approximately five-acre projected asphalt-plant block and a separately labeled “Future Asphalt Plant Expansion and Aggregate Storage Area — 33 Acres.” The January 29, 2026 v2 set later acted on by the Board identified that storage/expansion area as Lot 5 at approximately 36.4 acres. The July 8, 2026 revised civil plan changed the site configuration again, and the labeled aggregate-storage area shown on the earlier plans is no longer depicted in the same manner.

Those changes matter because the operation cannot be evaluated only by drawing an outside parcel line. The project records also identify substantial materials and operational components that must be located somewhere on the site. The June 2025 SWPPP lists 8,000 tons of rock, 2,000 tons of sand, 3,000 tons of RAP, 15,000 gallons of burner fuel, 7,000 gallons of diesel, and 50,000 gallons of liquid asphalt. The plans and records reviewed to date do not consistently identify and dimension the full locations, footprints, capacities, or relevant heights of all of those components.

City responses already produced to residents also state that no responsive record was located for a §405.560 40% open-storage calculation or 75% building-coverage calculation, no §405.100(A)(7) desirability review, and no document fixing the plant location and setbacks within Lot 5. Those responses make the present conformity question more important, not less important.

The central issue

The issue is not simply whether the parcels may be consolidated. The issue is whether the administrative record shows how the actual operation was determined to comply after the plan geometry, storage configuration, and legal parcel configuration changed. If the conformity determination is being made now through the consolidation process, the record should identify what determination is being made, by whom, using which plan and measurements.

Two questions for the Commission

1. The civil plans have materially changed, including the location or extent of aggregate, RAP, sand and other outdoor storage, while other material elements — including fuel and liquid-asphalt storage, tank locations, operational boundaries, setbacks, coverage, and structure/equipment heights where relevant — are not consistently identified or measured on the plans that have been presented. Before this Commission recommends a consolidation/boundary adjustment that §410.010(I) requires to conform to the Zoning Code, please identify the exact operative site plan and the measurements, calculations, and determinations establishing conformity for the actual proposed operation. Who made those determinations, when were they made, and what Code authority permits the June 11 conditional approval to defer those matters rather than require review of the materially changed operation?
2. If no such zoning-conformity determination and supporting measurements exist, what existing determination, plan, and measurements is P&Z relying upon to conclude that the consolidation/boundary-adjustment plat conforms to the Zoning Code as required by §410.010(I)?

What the petitioners request

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. On the record before the Commission, the precondition to a favorable recommendation is not satisfied.
2. State the answer to the two questions on the public record, identifying the plan, calculation, determination, staff review, or other existing record relied upon by date and document name.
3. If no such record exists, state that on the record. A statement to that effect would also clarify the administrative record.

The petitioners do not ask that this item be tabled. Deferral leaves the conformity question unanswered and unanswerable. The petitioners ask instead that the Commission decide, and that its decision and the basis for it appear in the record.

The City has previously stated that no separate administrative zoning determination existed for residents to appeal. That makes it especially important to identify where the zoning-conformity determination required for this plat occurs in the present process. I am not asking the Commission to decide the legal consequence of that issue; I am asking that the factual and administrative basis for its recommendation be made clear.

Thank you for receiving this supplemental submission and including it in the record of the Magruder consolidation/boundary-adjustment matter.

Clarification — who this petition speaks for, and what it does not affect

This petition is submitted by the undersigned as representative of the petitioners identified in Volume III, which records 149 verified responses in this matter. 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 149 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 tonight: 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.

Prior filings in this matter

Each was filed with the City Clerk and, per the Clerk’s confirmation of July 20, 2026, distributed to the City Attorney, the Mayor, the Board of Aldermen, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Zoning Officer, the Building/Permits Official, and any other official responsible for this matter, and filed for the record. No substantive response has been received to any of them.

The three plan sets