ShareThis Page

Efforts to save Sewickley's 'pink house' continuing

Bobby Cherry
| Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2013, 3:15 p.m.

As a grass-roots group continues raising money to save Sewickley's so-called “pink house,” owners of the home have pledged to reuse it only if variances from the borough are granted.

Save the Pink House member Donald Traviss said his group gave $20,000 to The Presbyterian Church, Sewickley, last year as part of a community campaign to raise up to $200,000 of the estimated $1.6 million needed for an 1800s-built home at 202 Beaver St. to remain standing.

Church leaders last year announced plans to raze the house — originally built in the 1860s with later additions made in the early part of the 20th century — and replace the structure with a new facility to house youth and fellowship activities.

Those plans changed when organizers of the Save the Pink House group pleaded with church leaders to keep the home standing.

Traviss said he is “confident we can raise another $180,000,” adding that about $50,000 already has been pledged to reach that goal.

In a zoning hearing board meeting last week, some residents spoke out against proposed parking plans that could create up to 48 spaces on property between the church and “pink house.”

Group member Peter Floyd said he supports the church's plan to reuse the home, but said he wants to see parking plans for the reused “pink house” fall under the borough's residential district guidelines and also wants the property to meet the borough's requirement for allowable setbacks.

Church elder Tim Merrill said the church has “gone to great lengths to make sure the proposed parking lot is as unobtrusive as possible.”

Landscaping features including a dense row of trees and LED lights would offer a buffer for nearby residents, church leaders said.

Zoning board members are expected to consider the church's variance requests at their March 5 meeting.

Bobby Cherry is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-324-1408

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.