[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6668356,"mediaKeyId","2228494-17483a4c0b582c2579eb157052e73364","parentId",2228494,"title","Commission denies special-exception request for Chin United Pentecostal Church; approves plat to split property","audioSeconds",3318,"startMs",1479000,"endMs",4797000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2228494-17483a4c0b582c2579eb157052e73364&start=1479&end=4797","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2228494-17483a4c0b582c2579eb157052e73364/thumbnail_1479000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6668356/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Commission-denies-special-exception-request-for-Chin-United-Pentecostal-Church-approves-plat-to-split-property","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668356-3cf6a78cca977df8b1c67de9517f506f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770959362&Signature=dvtlFcMKePhYnBtQvbz626HLQHNYlqVHFPgKcAQH4Yz3FUOZoUhLvbGIeKJrL5kBmqIk9m73CARI9W9oSOtIELpDnL1XfbH2F7fZBEQavBGieaxtfRC2c0PzqdTGoyQxmzSHw2wBLqzU~NdR28FVPYvKZkVwJXuwVM2iT4OQ8bwZLsC0hntrrh68GWoNjvLZQUVqOS4VFGCEoWgt43oVP0j4G3~XDqMBIltzpTFUi6yoc99sVCZiS11pTGMdy18xLn~I1ruUJiZAbruYaigRVv7T2Ij7Ka5WNmwBvDaamXzJmfD7fhxQuZI7tmuj0~bmnAF3NnOGudbqBPNU6kO8Bw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Indianapolis, IN","date","2025-02-05T00:00:00Z","article","The Metropolitan Development Commission voted 5-2 on Feb. 5, 2025, to deny a special-exception request (2024 CVR 834, third amendment) from Chin United Pentecostal Church to permit religious uses on Lot 1 of a 14.68-acre property at 6650 South Meridian Street. The commission separately approved a plat (2024 CPL 834) to split the property into two lots by a 6-1 vote.

The petitioners sought permission to create a new house of worship and to replat the property into Lot 1 (an L-shaped parcel the church proposed to purchase) and Lot 2 (a smaller front parcel). Commissioners heard about the church's plans, neighborhood concerns and staff recommendations during a public hearing that included sworn testimony from the petitioner's representative and multiple neighbors.

Why it mattered: The denial halts the requested land-use change that would explicitly allow a religious facility on Lot 1; the approved plat formalizes the parcel split so the smaller Lot 2 (the front parcel) can proceed through subdivision procedures. Commissioners folded several commitments into the action on the special exception before voting, and staff's conditions were incorporated into the overall record.

What petitioners said: Caitlin Gray, the property owner, told the commission she and her husband are the sellers of the property and that the church is under contract to purchase Lot 1 contingent on securing the special exception. Sarah Thacker, speaking for Chin United Pentecostal Church, summarized the congregation's goals: \"The plan is to build a new house of worship on the property. They're a few years out from being able to do that, but they want to secure the property now so they can start their planning process.\" She and the church representative said they would follow city development requirements and submit required site, landscaping, photometric and elevation plans before any construction.

Neighborhood concerns: Dozens of neighbors and remonstrators urged denial or delay, saying the proposal was incomplete and would affect neighborhood character. Molly McCoy, a nearby resident, asked the commission to withhold the special exception \"until the commitments are made,\" citing unanswered questions about stormwater, tree preservation, noise and light from up to several hundred cars. Rob Thomas, another nearby resident, argued the property is in a low-density residential area and warned that additional churches and growth of congregation size would increase traffic and noise.

Staff recommendations and commitments: Staff and the hearing examiner recommended approval of the religious use with conditions and requested that the petitioner submit a final site plan, landscaping plan, photometric plan and elevations for administrator approval before any building permit or site work. Staff also recommended a heritage-tree study and mitigation plan where required and asked that the improved area be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. Commissioners accepted staff's three commitments and added three more requested by remonstrators: that remonstrators and the district councilor receive review copies (for comment, not approval) of any final plans; that trash pickup occur only Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.; and that a screening measure (a 3-foot berm or a 6-foot privacy fence) be installed along the northwest and south property edges.

How the commission voted: The special-exception petition (2024 CVR 834, third amendment) was denied; the secretary read the result: \"There were 7 ballots cast. There were 5 no votes and 2 yes votes. This petition has been denied.\" The plat (2024 CPL 834) was then approved; the secretary read: \"There were 7 ballots cast. There were 6 yes votes and 1 no vote. This petition has been approved.\" (The transcript does not record individual commissioner votes by name.)

Process notes and next steps: Because the plat was found to comply with subdivision standards subject to 12 staff conditions, the recorded plat action will move forward administratively. The denial of the special exception means the petitioner cannot proceed to develop Lot 1 for religious use without a successful future zoning or variance action. Staff said that if the petitioner submits final plans for administrator approval and the administrator denies them, the petitioner may appeal that decision through the city's established process.

The public hearing lasted through testimony from the petitioner, remonstrators and staff. Commissioners emphasized that any future site development will require the submission of technical plans (engineered drainage, photometric and landscape plans) and that neighborhood review (for comment) will be provided once those documents are filed.

Ending: The commission's actions split the outcome: the legal parcel division was approved so property transactions and plat-recording steps can proceed, while the underlying land-use exception needed for the church was rejected by the majority of commissioners, keeping the proposed religious use from advancing without further approvals.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council of Indianapolis, IN - Metropolitan Development Commission - Feb 05, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Metropolitan Development Commission voted 5-2 on Feb. 5, 2025, to deny Chin United Pentecostal Church's request for a special exception to allow religious uses at 6650 South Meridian Street, while approving a plat to split the 14.68-acre property into two lots by a 6-1 vote.","taxTitle","Indianapolis City, Marion County, Indiana","taxId",3627,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6668346,"Commission rejects Mid Harper Properties' request to transfer rezoning fees to variance filing",330,423000,753000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2228494-17483a4c0b582c2579eb157052e73364&start=423&end=753","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2228494-17483a4c0b582c2579eb157052e73364/thumbnail_423000.jpg","/articles/6668346/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Commission-rejects-Mid-Harper-Properties-request-to-transfer-rezoning-fees-to-variance-filing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668346-7fd2d82d9a29f4f25194e4fc100d86ac/orig.mp4?Expires=1770959362&Signature=nHozdY2x7ZPTdNzUDg0lnzyKp6~yvhf5FXA0PiZcNB69PobHjkonBubTFcX~yd~8WjiqyPsuoQjUBgEiEukFx8jTN~BWf-bqgQBnwKe0qgeWE6SsF4GyGZnOlaS13AZQl6Ag2MEEeWlLMReNzUBput8jRzKTAQhwZ6VYZjtOcxtV93ocNmV1e9c2gk2N-uLQnVSHauaBF1N6-PWtvhsAZ9AReaqYoIHOqi172cxUr6Ig1aaxulxu1UlBE2751J7hfKQZlDNZxVMKc6oerGOqluRjzNDO~SsuUGgxtmYCyIzFIDjbVcsG9EeA-4a7hiVXAxxYASGtSJBO~ArovTTeKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A request from Mid Harper Properties to transfer fees paid for a rezoning petition to a new variance-of-use petition was defeated by the Metropolitan Development Commission at its Feb. 5, 2025 meeting. The petitioner's representative, David Wilson, asked that fees already paid toward a rezoning petition be applied to a new variance filing; staff opposed the request and the commission voted it down unanimously.

What was requested and why: David Wilson, representing Mid Harper Properties, asked the commission to transfer paid filing fees from zoning petition 2024ZON-124 toward a variance-of-use petition. Wilson said the new filing concerns the same parcel but a different procedural path. Staff opposed the transfer, stating that the variance-of-use is evaluated through a different process, requires new legal notice and other work (including site visits) and that \"none of the work is directly transferable\" to a variance filing.

Motion and vote: The commission moved and seconded the special request for a fee transfer and then voted; the roll call recorded all commissioners voting \"no.\" The secretary announced that the special request to transfer fees \"has been defeated.\" The transcript records the roll-call responses (Dillon: no; Schumacher: no; Murphy: no; Moriarty: no; Lyle: no; James: no; Garber: no).

Why staff opposed: Staff reiterated two reasons: (1) the applicant had been told at the prior meeting additional filing fees would be required to file a variance of use; and (2) even if the proposed use were superficially similar, the variance is processed under a different procedure that requires staff to begin work anew, including republication of notices and possibly redoing the site visit.

Outcome and next steps: The petitioner was told they must file and pay the separate fee for the variance-of-use filing; the withdrawn rezoning petition remains on record as acknowledged by staff. Staff offered to answer commission questions during the meeting and to continue to process the new petition following standard procedures.

Ending: Commission members emphasized adherence to established filing processes and fees; the petitioner will need to submit a new variance filing and associated fee for the matter to proceed.

","A special request to transfer filing fees from a withdrawn rezoning petition to a new variance-of-use petition (2024ZON-124) was denied unanimously by the Metropolitan Development Commission on Feb. 5, 2025; staff had recommended denial.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6668351,"Metropolitan Development Commission approves resolutions package and no-appeal docket",235,164000,399000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2228494-17483a4c0b582c2579eb157052e73364&start=164&end=399","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2228494-17483a4c0b582c2579eb157052e73364/thumbnail_164000.jpg","/articles/6668351/Indianapolis-City/Marion-County/Indiana/Metropolitan-Development-Commission-approves-resolutions-package-and-no-appeal-docket","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6668351-47dcfb6c4a3156b2f33b690c11e786f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770959362&Signature=kS9BFFx8kEXjFD5NjsHeR5FxhJD3VlPNkzBqr3OFQDpWWMV8jvyeqxt8b7qIcEPaNE761nF9qx8Pn3m3TT9Tj1QDpFQSAxkx25VMCvcID4Bw2xVb4oC7VRw5fQLehDc-oIYK02cENhP1UGrOAmT1wFulsJ94HXZf-uHfhERDPt1NDxUh2TKfDwMLgLJuJYvcVqeMm3zGWDKLfTVo3Iik6RQ~ef3FSS5hB7wJp~YBocPJM9sSDFUZZO8pxYM9FLYH~Q8~moxCOZh6toWLo9CxZUhg-8T9r-4dLEay5SXGSQ0jvR2-EPVYFtjArYTAStsEFNIN29I8dcmlo9na8VvESw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Metropolitan Development Commission took grouped votes at its Feb. 5, 2025, meeting to approve a package of eight resolutions and a no-appeal docket of 14 petitions recommended for approval by the hearing examiner.

The resolutions read into the record included preliminary economic revitalization area resolutions, property-tax abatement recommendations and a resolution authorizing a funding agreement to support a CSX redevelopment project. The secretary read the full list of resolutions and identifiers into the record before commissioners moved to take them as a block.

Commission action: Commissioners approved the package by roll call. The secretary recorded that the resolutions passed 7-0 overall, with the exception of agenda items 2 and 8, which passed 6-0 with recusals recorded for those items. Immediately afterward, the commission took a single vote on 14 petitions of no appeal from the hearing examiner; commissioners approved that docket 7-0.

Why it mattered: The resolutions authorize preliminary steps for economic revitalization areas and tax-abatement recommendations and formalize staff authority to enter a funding agreement for a named redevelopment project. The no-appeal docket clears multiple minor subdivision and administrative items for final processing.

What was on the record: The transcript includes the secretary's readout of specific items, among them: \"Preliminary economic revitalization area resolution for Dallara USA Holdings Incorporated located at 1201 Main Street, Council District 16\" and items identified as 2025 A-4, 2025 A-5, 2025 R-012 and related case numbers as pronounced into the record. The no-appeal docket included multiple addresses across Centre, Wayne, Franklin and Pike townships and several MOD and CZN items. Staff noted the hearing examiner recommended approval of the no-appeal petitions.

Process notes: Commissioners elected to take the resolutions as a block; consistent roll-call language appears in the transcript. The secretary announced the vote outcome and any recusals. The action clears these matters for the next administrative steps and public hearings where required.

Ending: The grouped approvals moved a slate of tax-abatement, ERA and funding-resolution items and a set of non-appeal petitions forward without separate discussion. Individual petition identifiers and staff report page references are on file with the Metropolitan Development Commission record.

","At the Feb. 5, 2025 meeting the Metropolitan Development Commission took a grouped vote on eight resolutions (including tax-abatement and preliminary economic revitalization area resolutions) and approved a 14-item no-appeal petitions docket. Most resolutions passed 7-0; two items recorded recusals and passed 6-0.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission denies special-exception request for Chin United Pentecostal Church; approves plat to split property

Commission rejects Mid Harper Properties' request to transfer rezoning fees to variance filing

Metropolitan Development Commission approves resolutions package and no-appeal docket