• No written record identifies the M-1 use basis — no staff report, interpretation, or determination for the plant as a permitted M-1 use, in any of 4 different phrasings asked.
• No “use dedication” instrument, covenant, or written assurance exists.
• No zoning-verification/compliance letter was issued to the applicant, consultants, or DNR/EPA.
• The six parcels were never made a legal lot — no consolidation application, no lot-of-record/vesting determination, no parcel certification.
• This also comes before the use question. The M-1 use determination hasn’t actually been approved by the City — no one has issued a written finding that a permanent asphalt plant is a permitted M-1 use. Completing the §410.010(G) boundary-adjustment process first would have asked, and answered, that use question from the very start — giving residents the chance to know what was actually being proposed before anything was built on paper, instead of afterward.
• No CUP, special-use permit, variance, or rezoning application exists for this project, nor documentation that such approvals were required (confirmed June 17, 2026).
• No NDA, development agreement, MOU, or letter-of-intent between the City and applicant exists.
• No approved truck route, school-hours restriction, staging plan, or off-street parking plan exists.
• No dust/noise/vibration/odor control plans or engineering/compliance review exist (only plan sheets were produced).
• No separation/setback analysis to nearby homes/school exists, despite homes abutting the lot line.
• No executed right-of-way dedication instrument or road-maintenance agreement exists.
• No permits (zoning, grading, access, building) were issued or pending as of July 7, and the City again answered “no responsive records” as to permits in its August 6 production — though a water permit and stormwater permit have separately been confirmed to exist against the six-lot plan, which contradicts that answer and has not been reconciled with the City.
• Answered “no responsive records” on August 6, 2026: the final traffic study, the 40% open-storage and 75% building-coverage calculations, any permits, the August 17 Commissioner packet (Item 12, which did not yet exist), and any record of the §405.100(A)(7) review — the desirability and district-intent review the Code requires in every case in which a land use is considered.
• No condition of approval has been determined “satisfied.”
• No audio/video recording of the June 11, 2026 regular Board meeting exists — the City does not record meetings (confirmed per the July 14 checklist). The final, adopted minutes have been received.
• No recording of the June 11, 2026, 5:00 p.m. special meeting (Comprehensive Street Plan / CBB firm interviews) exists; the agenda and minutes for that meeting have already been received.

• Some records requested regarding communications surrounding the August 18, 2025 Planning & Zoning meeting (produced July 7) were withheld/redacted citing §610.021(1) attorney-client privilege — no privilege log (date, author, recipients, specific exemption) has been provided yet for those.
• The M-1 classification itself rests on “advice of counsel only” per the City — meaning the underlying legal reasoning may be shielded as privileged even though the Code says the use-determination itself isn’t a legal-advice question.
• Unreconciled contradiction: the City’s June 17, 2026 response withheld Items 3 and 9 of our records request under §610.021(1) as privileged, while its July 2, 2026 letter states no responsive documents exist for the M-1 basis. We’ve asked the City to clarify whether Items 3 and 9 relate to the M-1 determination and, if so, to provide a privilege log (date, author, recipients, exemption) and release any non-privileged portions — and to confirm whether any privileged analysis was shared with the applicant, owner, or their consultants (which could waive privilege). Not yet answered.

Plant location and setbacks within Lot 5, the applicant’s operations narrative, the $23,850 CBB study’s full payment and reimbursement records, and the Star Connection Drive 2025 variance file. Several items formerly listed here — the final traffic study, the 40%/75% calculations, permits, and the §405.100(A)(7) review record — were answered “no responsive records” on August 6 and have moved to the confirmed column above.

• Written confirmation reconciling the “no permits issued or pending” answer against the separately-confirmed water and stormwater permits issued against the six-lot plan — and, if any building/grading/access/occupancy permit has since issued, its date, given Condition 2 of the June 11 approval bars such permits until the consolidation plat is approved.
• The June 1, 2026 joint-workshop packet and confirmation of whether a recording exists (the workshop minutes themselves were produced July 7).
• The setback determination and the lot dimensions/survey or plat that building coverage and the 40% open-storage limit were measured against, given the lots are described as “conceptual only.”
• Reconciliation of the research-fee billing rate ($34.87/hr billed vs. $31.13/hr in effect when the request was received/could begin) and an itemized receipt matching each payment to the records it covers.

Our request (July 1, 2026): pending the Board's July 9 consideration, we asked the City to hold off on (1) any “conditions-met” determination under the June 11 approval, (2) any grading/land-disturbance/building/development permit, (3) recording or accepting any six-parcel consolidation/boundary-adjustment plat, and (4) accepting the 90-foot right-of-way dedication — and to give advance written notice before any of these steps were taken.

The City's answer (July 2, 2026, the City Clerk): the Clerk's office says it has no independent legal authority to suspend or delay permits, condition-satisfaction determinations, plat recordings, or right-of-way acceptances absent Board direction or a legal requirement to do so — staff will continue processing matters in the normal course of business. The City also declined to commit to advance written notice of future administrative steps beyond what law or ordinance requires. The City noted the Board itself must be careful not to infringe the applicant's due-process rights or impair any rights the applicant may have already vested by relying in good faith on the June 11 approval. Our agenda request (M-1 use classification; reconsideration/amendment/remand) was confirmed received for the July 9 meeting, though the Clerk's office could not speak to the Board's intended course of action.

Left open: whether any of the four listed steps were in fact taken between July 1 and the Board's action, and whether any “vested rights” the City alludes to could have accrued before the §410.010(G) consolidation and right-of-way dedication were ever completed.