Manchester planners: prospective nursery buyer says Farr Greenhouse site could reopen as plant nursery; conditional-use review required

Joe Summers, proprietor of a Manchester aquatic-plant nursery operating as Chilili, told the Manchester Development and Zoning Review Committee on a remote meeting that he plans to consider bidding in an April 30 auction for the roughly 5.5-acre site of the former Farr Greenhouse.

The Department of Planning told the committee that the property predates much of St. Louis County zoning and has been treated as a legal nonconforming use; planners said a new conditional use permit would be required and that the city would hold a public hearing with mailed notice if Summers or another buyer pursues a nursery and retail sales use. Department staff presented aerial photos of the center 5-plus-acre parcel and described the timeline pressure created by the auction.

Why it matters: the parcel at State Highway T between Route 100 and the Franklin County line has been used as a greenhouse/farm complex for decades. Residents opposed a recent proposal by Solus Agriscience over concerns about lighting, noise and potential runoff; committee members said Summers’s presentation and answers could affect neighborhood support and the city’s review of any new application.

Summers said his business, which he said started in February 2011, has outgrown its Manchester location and that consolidating operations on a single site would let the business expand beyond the roughly 1.5 acres he said the company currently uses across multiple locations. He described Chilili’s production focus as aquatic plants and related retail sales — water lilies, shallow-water pond plants, and koi and goldfish — and said his production method uses tanks that hold water in-place and typically require less irrigation than terrestrial greenhouse production.

“I think this allows us to more than double what we’re currently doing,” Summers said about the roughly 5.5-acre parcel. He told the committee the business does not use industrial aeration in its production areas and only operates pumps and aeration for retail fish tanks; those tanks are quieter and more similar to aquarium equipment than to large outdoor fish-farm aerators that neighbors had raised as a concern during an earlier application.

Mayor Gaertano and several committee members asked specific technical questions about water use, aeration noise, lighting and possible chemical runoff. Summers said production tanks are filled and reused, cleaned about once a year, and that overall water use for aquatic production would be less than what Farr used for terrestrial crops. On noise, he said, “The last thing you want to hear is a motorized [sound] all the time. All the mechanics are much quieter.”

Committee members also raised infrastructure questions: whether on-site septic and electrical systems would support commercial retail and production, and whether debris and remnants from prior greenhouse operations might require cleanup. Summers said he visited the site during an open house in early April and acknowledged there is a substantial amount of material to clear, and he said he would seek technical information and advice from longtime property neighbor Pat Belrose.

Planning staff said they cannot pre-approve a use or guarantee the outcome before a formal application. “We advised them that it’s going to require a new conditional use permit,” a Department of Planning representative said, adding that the city would post and mail notice for a public hearing if an application is filed.

The committee offered conditional support for Summers pursuing the property and urged early, proactive outreach to nearby residents. Councilman Rambo, who said he and other council members met with up to 30 residents during the prior Solus application, encouraged Summers to be transparent about chemicals, drainage plans and infrastructure upgrades. Several members suggested Summers consult with neighbors and the city staff promptly because of the auction timetable.

The meeting concluded with an adjournment motion that passed by voice vote.

Votes at a glance: The only formal action recorded in the meeting minutes was a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn: moved by Councilmember Brost; seconded by Councilmember Rambo; outcome: approved by voice vote (all present responded “aye”), no detailed roll-call recorded.