The hearing examiner approved a subdivision plat for 6650 South Meridian Street and recommended approval of a special exception to allow religious use at the site, while remonstrators urged denial citing traffic, drainage and neighborhood-scale concerns.

The petitioner, Chin United Pentecostal Church, is proposing to split about 14.68 acres into two lots and develop a place of worship on proposed Lot 1. The plat (2024 CPL 834 amended) was approved by the hearing examiner subject to 12 conditions listed in the staff report; the special exception petition (2024 CVR 834 second amended) was recommended for approval subject to three commitments requested by staff. The hearing examiner said she would forward the recommendations to the Metropolitan Development Commission for consideration on Feb. 5, 2025.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the site’s size, proposed parking and outdoor activity areas risked noise, light and traffic impacts and possible effects on wells and drainage. Staff and the petitioner agreed to post-development review steps — including submission of a final site plan, lighting/photometric plan, and a certified-arborist tree inventory and preservation plan — intended to limit off-site impacts before construction proceeds.

Petitioner and staff positions
Sarah Thacker, representing Chin United Pentecostal Church (738 Wood Creek Court, Greenwood), described the congregation’s history and said the church expects moderate growth over the next decade. Owner Caitlin Gray (1412 W. County Road 1000 S., Cloverdale) explained she had subdivided the parcel and is cooperating with the church’s acquisition and development process. The petitioner withdrew requests for development-standard variances related to setbacks during the hearing and agreed to the staff-requested commitments.

Planning staff, through Kathleen (planning staff), told the hearing examiner the subdivision plat complies with subdivision regulations and recommended approval of the plat. Staff noted outstanding concerns about parking, hours of operation, outdoor activities, lighting and landscaping and asked for commitments and administrative review of final site plans and elevations before any work begins. Staff also requested a tree inventory and preservation plan prepared by a certified arborist and a commitment that site areas remain neat during and after development.

Neighborhood concerns
Councilor Paul Ahnay, representing Perry Township (City-County Council, District 22), said he had attended neighborhood meetings and opposed the request in its current form: "I am taking a position, that I would like to see this denied," he said, citing location and traffic. Multiple residents argued the proposal would not fit the area’s suburban neighborhood character, raised drainage and well-water concerns, and said required materials were missing from the petitioner’s special-exception checklist.

Remonstrator Eric McCoy (127 W. Loretta Drive) told the hearing examiner the application lacked required documentation (drainage plan, photometric plan, elevations, complete parking/ADA detail) and argued the project could "materially and substantially interfere with the lawful use and enjoyment of adjoining properties." Other neighbors said parking and headlight glare, nighttime lighting, and occasional outdoor events (Easter, July picnic) could be disruptive.

Hearing examiner’s action and next steps
The hearing examiner said she would "approve plat 2024 CPL 834 subject to the 12 conditions listed in the written staff report" and "recommend approval of 2024 CVR 834" subject to the three commitments noted in staff’s report; she also noted the petitioners must submit commitments to staff by Jan. 29, 2025, for the MDC meeting. The examiner reminded parties that any recommendation may be appealed to the Department of Development within five business days; if appealed the Metropolitan Development Commission will hear the matter at its Feb. 5 meeting.

Clarifying notes from the hearing
- The petitioner withdrew development-standard variance requests for setbacks during the hearing; the special-exception request remains.
- Staff required submission and administrative approval of final site plans, lighting/photometric and landscape plans, and a certified-arborist tree preservation plan before site work.
- The hearing examiner’s recommendations are not the final action; final decisions will be made by the Metropolitan Development Commission (Feb. 5, 2025) and any council-level review afterwards if applicable.

The Metropolitan Development Commission will receive the hearing examiner’s recommendations on Feb. 5, 2025. Neighbors and the petitioner were urged to continue discussions and to provide any appeals or additional evidence within the five-business-day appeal period.