Source index
Every Document Behind the September 21 Objection
Magruder asphalt plant · 50 Roelker Road · each item links to the record itself
Every factual statement in the objection package traces to one of the documents below. All are public records — produced by the City under Chapter 610, filed by the applicant with the State, or recorded with Warren County. Nothing here is inference.
June 13, 2025 — before P&Z, August 18, 2025
Sheet C-1: “Future Asphalt Plant Expansion and Aggregate Storage Area — 33 Acres.” Transmitted June 28, 2025; sent to Commissioners by the Clerk August 15, 2025.
January 29, 2026 — approved by the Board June 11, 2026
Lot 5: “Future Asphalt Plant Expansion and Aggregate Storage Area — 36.4 Acres.” 3.4 acres larger than the set the Commission reviewed.
July 8, 2026 — the current set, associated with the consolidation
No aggregate storage area. No labeled lots. Sheet C-2: “Projected Asphalt Plant (10 Employees) (About 5 Acres).”
February 24, 2025 — relocation request, cover letter, Form 1.1 and site map. Heider Environmental requests relocation of PORT-0658 “to allow for this relocation and a production level of 3,500 tons/day.” The site map states “Stockpiles to plant: 200’,” haul in 1,720 feet, haul out 1,620 feet. Form 1.1 lists the RAP crusher, stockpiles, cold aggregate transfer, fired dryer, asphalt oil heater, AC tank, fuel oil tanks and diesel generators.
Open the request →
March 12, 2025 — DNR Authorization 032010-001AK. Authority to operate at this site
expired April 1, 2026. Special Condition 5 requires ultra-low sulfur diesel with vendor records; Special Condition 6 bars operation at the site longer than twelve consecutive months. Technical review: 400 tons/hour design rate, 120 MMBtu/hr drum dryer, 3.5 MMBtu/hr asphalt heater,
1.5 acres of storage piles. The applicant accepted a voluntary PM10 cap of 15.0 tons per year to avoid dispersion modeling — the step that would have produced stack heights.
Open the authorization →
June 2025 — SWPPP, §3.1. 8,000 tons rock, 2,000 tons sand, 3,000 tons RAP stored year-round. 50,000 gallons liquid asphalt, 15,000 gallons burner fuel, 7,000 gallons diesel in bermed tanks. Describes a 33-acre facility.
Open the SWPPP →
August 18, 2025 — P&Z minutes. Site plan approved 7–0 contingent on right-of-way acquisition and review of the candlelight coverage plan. Two conditional use permits were heard the same evening, one with a noticed public hearing; the asphalt plant was taken up as a site plan with no hearing.
Open the minutes →
June 10, 2026 — the fee. City Clerk’s email assessing development fees of $11,600 calculated on approximately 58 acres, described as covering the site plan lots — sent the day before the Board approved a plant area of about five acres. A second email the same day addresses whether the fee applies to the whole property or only the plant footprint.
Clerk’s fee email ·
All acreage or footprint?
June 11, 2026 — Board minutes and the five conditions. Condition 1 requires an updated site plan before any building permit. Condition 2 requires an approved consolidation plat before any development or building permit. Condition 3 excludes future expansion and storage areas. Condition 4 states Lots 1–5 are “conceptual only.” Approved 3–1.
Open the minutes →
February 10, 2026 — BFA stormwater and SWPPP letters. The sixth review in the sequence. Directs “UPDATE Sheet C-2 and C-5 with submittal of final plans.” Prepared against the five-lot configuration.
SWPPP letter → ·
Stormwater letter →
July 15, 2026 — Building Inspector’s §410.010(G) plat review. “Appears to comply,” with open items: Chapter 412 stream buffer, tax certification, abstract of title, an unlabeled tract, state-plane coordinates. Produced August 6, 2026 with the City’s responses.
Open the review →
May 20, 2026 — the traffic study, never completed. CBB / George L. Crawford & Associates produced a preliminary technical memorandum before the June 11 vote. The study was invoiced at
75% complete — $17,887.50 of a $23,850 total, invoice 260280001 dated June 10, 2026 — and the City
paid it in full by check #57075 on June 25, 2026. The City confirmed on August 6, 2026 that
no final traffic study exists. No record shows whether CBB remains under contract for the remaining 25%, or whether the developer reimbursed the City for any of it.
Preliminary memorandum ·
Invoice, 75% complete ·
Payment detail
August 28, 2026 — BFA, forwarded by the Clerk. “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 Aug. 28 email ·
BFA’s Aug. 12 acknowledgment
Each is the City’s own written answer under Chapter 610.
June 17, 2026 — Items 3 and 9 withheld under §610.021(1) as privileged: the staff reports, zoning interpretations and memoranda relied on for the use determination, and City–counsel correspondence on zoning compliance. No privilege log has ever been provided.
Open the letter →
June 29, 2026 — response to the second request, producing the draft June 11 minutes, the approved site plan and the CBB preliminary memorandum.
Open the letter →
July 1, 2026 — on the Board of Adjustment, and stating the Clerk was “not aware of a separate formal written determination or report by an administrative/zoning-officer regarding the M-1 classification.”
Open the letter →
July 2, 2026 — “there are no documents related to this request,” in response to a request for the staff report, zoning interpretation, administrative determination or written finding identifying the M-1 basis. This answer cannot be reconciled with the June 17 withholding of the same subject matter as privileged.
Open the letter →
July 7, 2026 — the consolidated records response, with eleven attachments.
Open the letter →
July 20, 2026 — on the prior variance and rezoning history and the §405.100(A)(7) desirability review. No desirability review exists.
Open the letter →
August 6, 2026 — the largest production, and the source of most of these admissions: no §405.560 40% open-storage calculation and no 75% building-coverage calculation; “unable to determine the specific records being requested” for the document fixing the plant’s location and setbacks within Lot 5; no final traffic study; no permits issued; no conditional-use application; and no application, narrative or operations description apart from the plan set.
Open the letter →
Never answered at all — the foot-candle photometric lighting plan, requested July 14, 2026, on review of which the August 18, 2025 approval was made contingent; and the §610.023.4 written statement of grounds, requested July 7 and renewed July 22 and July 31. Silence is not one of the three responses §610.023.3 permits.
Petition 1, Part 2 · July 21, 2026 — Supplemental Clarification No. 1, explaining how the requests in Volumes I and II operate together. Filed and distributed; the Clerk confirmed in writing July 22 at 4:26 PM.
Read the clarification →
Petition 2 · July 31, 2026 — volumes updated, 123 verified signatures; each body asked for a written response, with a written refusal accepted as a complete answer.
Vol. I ·
Vol. II ·
Vol. III ·
Vol. IV ·
digital version
Petition 3, Part 1 · August 17, 2026 — filed at 4:07 PM with seven written questions; emailed directly to officials at 4:29 PM after four City addresses returned undeliverable.
Vol. I ·
Vol. II ·
Vol. III ·
Vol. IV
No body has replied to any of them — no substantive answer, no referral, no declination, and not the written statement of non-response the July 31 filing invited.
Compiled by Dr. Jackie D. Ramey, 701 Seaside Drive, Wright City, Missouri. Records obtained under Chapter 610 RSMo, from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and from Warren County. Where a document is described as not existing, that is the City’s own written answer, quoted or cited by date.