I have a problem understanding what the village of Sunrise Beach has against Magruder Quarry and Construction and Charles and Phyllis Turner.
I have a problem understanding what the village of Sunrise Beach has against Magruder Quarry and Construction and Charles and Phyllis Turner. First of all, the Sunrise Beach Board of Trustees denies the Magruder company it's request for a CUP (Conditional Use Permit). Magruder asked for this CUP to temporarily put an asphalt plant at their quarry on Rte. 5. This plant was to be used to supply the asphalt for the recapping of Rte. 5 from the Niangua bridge to Versailles.
By their denial of the CUP, the board of trustees now requires the trucks needed to carry this asphalt to travel further distances. This mushrooms into more wear and tear on the roads they have to travel and adds to the traffic congestion. It also requires more fuel thus emitting more contaminants into the atmosphere. This is a lose-lose situation.
Again, in their infinite wisdom, the same board denies Magruder an SUP for adjacent land owned by the Turners. I'm sure the excavation of this land and future retail businesses on this site would create a larger tax base than what is present. It seems that if you are not a "clean" business, the Sunrise Beach Board of Trustees does not care about what your future tax base could be.
It appears to me that the Sunrise Beach board of trustees does not have the best interests of the community and the world as a whole. They seek more pollution and less taxes. That is not someone I'd have faith in.