Newspaper not telling whole story on McManus zoning, reader says

To the editor:

I have recently attended St. Louis County Council meetings and want to make an observation about the McManus Construction situation.

I think it is important the whole story be told. The Call has reported the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend amended C-8 zoning for the former Tee Time Family Fun Center property. What it didn’t report, however, is that the first application for M-1 zoning was recommended for denial and McManus withdrew its request without prejudice.

Subsequently, McManus’ second request for amended C-8 included a caveat.

According to a March 20 Department of Planning report, “Additionally, the petitioner is requesting all C-7 General Extensive Commercial District uses be allowed at the site.”

The report further states that “The commission is of the opinion that it is not appropriate to recommend the approval of the full range of C-7 District uses, as many of them would increase the intensity of use at the site.”

A reasonable assumption would be that the commission had concerns with the M-1 request, along with the C-7 caveat in the second request. I wonder what the charm was to eventually grant C-8 with amendments as opposed to a full industrial use? Quite frankly, a snow-plow company, along with a construction company, would seem to fall under the category of a General Extensive Commercial District.

Additionally, St. Louis County real-estate records indicate McManus Construction sold its previous building on Feb. 1 before a new hearing took place before the Planning Commission.

It seems like McManus Construction Co. was going to have its way no matter what, and the Planning Commission finally acquiesced.

Lynn Lebaube

Affton