With one lawsuit already filed against the city and other residents considering separate litigation over a planned asphalt plant, at a packed meeting last week, the Wright City Planning & Zoning Commission backed off from approving another step toward making the facility a reality.

At their Monday, Aug. 17, meeting, the commission had been scheduled to potentially approve consolidating 58 acres into a new plat at the request of Magruder Paving LLC, but following extensive public comments in opposition to the plant, the commission tabled the proposal.

In June, on a 3-1 vote, the Wright City Board of Aldermen approved a smaller, eight-acre site plan for the proposed asphalt plant to be located south of the Norfolk and Southern railroad tracks and east of Roelker Road. Since then, however, the city has faced a public outcry from concerned residents, some of whom have filed a lawsuit over the asphalt plant.

An attorney for Larry and Vickie Zuhone, who own property adjacent to the plant site, filed a petition July 10 alleging, among other things, that the asphalt plant project does not meet the requirements for the city’s M-1 zoning. 

“We don’t feel the city really followed their own ordinance by allowing an asphalt plant in a light industrial M-1 area, and if you look at their zoning, it definitely says the stuff that’s going to be happening at the asphalt plant does not conform with it,” Larry Zuhone told the Record. “It should be in M-2, which is heavy industrial.”

The lawsuit further alleges that the asphalt plant will be injurious to the Zuhones “by smell, traffic, and annoyance” and will lead to a decline in their property value, and seeks a declaratory judgement and injunction to prevent plans for the facility from moving forward.

Jackie Ramey, who has been one of the Wright City residents most active in researching city ordinances and opposing the asphalt plant, bought a home last year in the Alder Creek subdivision, a new development that was approved around the same time as the initial approval of plans for the asphalt plant.

“We had just moved in, we were here one month, when the P&Z board met last year, and then it didn’t come up again until a full year later,” Ramey said.

About 27 homes have been built in Alder Creek, with another 35 currently planned to be built. While the subdivision was initially planned as a 151-lot development, however, the primary builder for the project has pulled out in the wake of plans for the asphalt plant emerging, Ramey said, and the subdivision’s future is uncertain.

Ramey said she and other residents are considering litigation against the city. While becoming part of the Zuhones’ lawsuit could be an option if the Zuhones are interested, Ramey said, she and others are also weighing the possibility of suing the city separately.

“I got a group together and created an LLC, and we’ve been collecting money, and we’re kind of doing the grassroots thing, and we’re getting advice from a lawyer,” she said.

Ramey said that if Magruder had gone to the city initially with a proposal for a 58-acre facility, the company would have needed a conditional use permit.

By first getting an eight-acre site approved, then expanding it, Ramey said, Magruder seemed to be looking for a way around having to get a conditional use permit. Storage cannot exceed 40 percent of the area of a site plan, Ramey said, and Magruder would not actually have been able to build a plant on eight acres that did not exceed the 40 percent storage limit. On a 58-acre site, however, the 40 percent storage rule would no longer be a problem for the company, she said.

Ramey noted that the city approved Magruder’s eight-acre site plan with conditions, including that a road study be conducted. While other conditions have been met and the road study is about three-quarters of the way done, it is not yet complete, she said.

She added, however, that in her opinion even the eight-acre site plan should not have been allowed “by right” and should have instead needed a conditional use permit, given Magruder’s plans to later expand beyond eight acres.

“I don’t think the Board of Aldermen, maybe the mayor, quite understands what codes were surpassed and what it looked like by going out of order like that, and what puzzle pieces were missing that caused it to be able to go to this point,” Ramey said.

“By going out of order like that, it was able to get a lot of codes overlooked.”

Another property owner opposed to the asphalt plant, Tony Beeny, said the city probably zoned the smaller lots that Magruder hoped to consolidate as M-1 originally due to their size and the smaller scope of development that would be possible on a single lot.

Following the Aug. 17 meeting, Magruder released a statement saying its plans for a Wright City asphalt plant have complied with city requirements.

“Throughout the process, Magruder provided all information requested by the City and incorporated the City’s comments into its final site plan. Wright City's approval process was thorough and thoughtful, and the approved site plan reflects that process,” the statement read, in part.

Besides the local government in Wright City, the statement notes, Magruder’s operations are also regulated by other agencies.

“For instance, Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources regulates air quality at the site, including permit approval, stack testing, and ongoing emissions monitoring, and the DNR regulates and monitors all stormwater associated with asphalt plants. Magruder is responsive to traffic, health and safety concerns and is committed to working through local issues as a good neighbor and job provider,” according to the statement.

“Magruder values its relationship with the Wright City community. It will continue to engage in constructive dialogue with residents and local officials as the project moves into its next phase, and it looks forward to remaining an engaged and conscientious member of the Wright City community for years to come.”

As for Ramey, she has gathered signatures for multiple petitions regarding the asphalt plant and is continuing to encourage residents to contact city officials to voice their opposition. Since more than 60 days have passed since the Board of Aldermen’s approval of the Magruder site plan in June, it is too late for Ramey and other concerned citizens to sue the city over that vote. She said that as soon as the city takes any further steps toward approving plans for the plant, however, the opponents of the facility may get their opportunity.

“So we were wondering if it was going to happen this week, if we were going to say ‘OK, there’s been a new action, they approved this consolidation, which now changes all the boundaries and allows them to put whatever they want on all 58 acres,’” she said.

“But we don’t need to now, until next month maybe.”