I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Lancaster area. I am saddened by some of the feelings that have been created during this process. As I was sitting in our worship services on Sunday after I read this article, I looked around me and saw good people who are trying with all they have to raise their families with good moral values and contribute positively in a world where these values are being attacked all around them.
As I looked at the picture printed in the paper of the local residents, I saw good people who are trying to raise families and provide a nurturing environment for their children. I really do believe that the goals of both groups are very similar.
No matter the outcome of these processes, I hope that we can all embrace the virtue of respect and brotherly kindness.

It sounds like the church folk have all of the land that they believe that they need. The easement violation is simply a statement that the church folk have no right to actually build a church there. They say that the supervisors didn't make the partking lot big enough, but there's very little proof of that. (Face facts. This isn't Salt Lake City. Even if its size is indicative of the area it plans on covering, there probably won't be that much of a parking issue.)

I'm not saying that this is a result of anti-Mormon sentiment but I do wonder if the community would have the same problem if it was a Methodist church being built there. It may not be as my cynicism views it though. After all, a community which, along with some of the more mainstream Christian churches, deals with much smaller Christian sects such as the Amish and Mennonites are likely to be more tolerant of the Latter-Day-Saint cowd.

I do think that it is an odd situation. Twenty years ago, I doubt that this would have been an issue. The idea of a church being built in the neighborhood might have been seen as a boon to the area. It would raise property values and be welcomed by the residents as being good neighbors. Now it is a horrible thing. (This, of course, assumes that it isn't anti-Mormon sentiment.)

Aside from the unnecessarily nasty lawyers representing the church, the biggest villian here is PennDOT. PennDOT will not allow the church, which fronts Harrisburg Pike to have entrance on Harrisburg Pike, or Sylvan Road, which runs along the side of the property. They are requiring traffic to enter and exit onto a small residential street that apparently doesn't have sidewalks.

Churches grow. To build without anticipating that growth and steadily increasing traffic is short-sighted.

Calvary Church faced more than a year of wrangling about traffic issues, even service times, and other churches which exit on to the Oregon Pike were eventually asked to coordinate the times of their services to lessen the impact on a major road. My understanding is that The Worship Center just broke ground (?) after several years of negotiating with their area planners and govt. This Mormon church instead hired no-compromise lawyers to fight even the smallest adjustment.

And this is a traffic issue. Who in their right minds would want to empty that parking lot into a small neighborhood? The traffic eventually has to get on to either of the major roads!!! Why not just require traffic lights and be done with it! Crisis over! Instead, PennDot, area supervisors, and the Mormon church have all entrenched in a position that forces the existing neighbors to bear the full brunt of this building/parking impact. It just isn't right.

Churches do grow. The question is whether, in its design, it accounted for that growth.

I don't accept the traffic issue. There may be community events at the church. However, most traffic is going to be on Sunday morning. This is not exactly rush hour on Harrisburg Pike. (In fact, the only time it might be an issue is near Christmas when ANY traffic on Harrisburg Pike is at a standstill.) There just isn't justification to say that it truly inconveniences anyone. The existing neighbors need to actually show that there will be a "full brunt" to bear. The church owns the land and should have the right to build what they want (within reason but I think that the church is definitely within reason for a residential neighborhood).