ShareThis Page
Supervisors table church’s requests to change site plans |

Supervisors table church’s requests to change site plans

Peter P. Scolieri And Mark Berton
| Tuesday, October 8, 2002 12:00 a.m

Pine supervisors Monday tabled a pair of requests by New Community Church to change a site plan approved over the summer.

New Community Church is planning to build a 1,000-seat church and parking area on the North Park side of the Route 910 and Pearce Mill Road intersection.

Church officials wanted to begin grading on the site, taking advantage of the dry summer, before acquiring all necessary permits. And they wanted to reduce the length of a bridge on the site from 85 to 46 feet. The longer bridge would add $146,000 to construction costs.

The supervisors asked church officials to obtain a letter of credit or bond that would allow Pine to regrade and reseed the land in the event the project never became a reality.

Prior to approval in June, members of the township’s planning commission and environmental advisory council both urged supervisors to reject the church’s plan because they thought it would be too difficult to shoehorn the church into the environmentally sensitive site.

The site is peppered with wetlands and high-quality trees.

No site work has been performed to date. The church bought the property in November for $399,000. The congregation currently meets at Marshall Middle School.

The supervisors will meet for a work session Oct. 21.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.