Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Construction of a proposed senior group home in Carmel cannot move forward after a split panel of the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed a preliminary injunction challenging the underlying building permit.
The case began in December 2020, when Willow Haven on 106th Street LLC applied for a permit to build the senior home at 2080 W. 106th St. in Carmel.
The home, a residential structure, would hold up to 10 senior citizens who have been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia. The plan was to provide food and entertainment to the residents, but not medical care, so Willow Haven did not obtain any sort of medical or caregiver license.
But Hari and Saranya Nagireddy lived directly adjacent to the lot where the home was being built, and they told the city they believed it would be an unlicensed assisted living facility in violation of the city’s Unified Development Ordinance. According to the Nagireddys, that meant Willow Haven needed to obtain a variance from the local Board of Zoning Appeals.
But the city declined to issue a stop-work order, citing Mike Hollibaugh, the city’s director of the department of community services who had previously determined that a nearly identical proposal for a group home did not require a variance.
The Nagireddys responded with a complaint for injunctive relief against Willow Haven, which the Hamilton Superior Court granted.
Willow Haven filed an interlocutory appeal, but the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Willow Haven’s first argument on appeal was that the Nagireddys weren’t entitled to a preliminary injunction because they did not timely pursue administrative challenges to the building permit.
But pointing to Bixler v. LaGrange County Bldg. Dept., 730 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), Chief Judge Robert Altice wrote, “They (the Nagireddys) are adjoining landowners who are not responsible for monitoring the issuance of building permits for which they have not applied. Here, they had no notice of the issuance of the building permit until after it was too late to appeal such issuance to the BZA. Under these circumstances, the Nagireddys were not required to exhaust administrative remedies with the BZA before pursuing declaratory and injunctive relief with the trial court.”
As for the injunction itself, the COA ruled, “Clearly, the Home does not fall within the UDO’s black-letter definition of group home as it is not a licensed facility of any kind.”
Further, “Even assuming the Home is a statutorily authorized housing with services establishment, whether such is a permitted use in an S1 (single family residential) district or the result of a reasonable accommodation under federal law is a matter to be addressed and decided by the BZA.”
Finally, “The trial court concluded that enforcing the UDO as it is written and enjoining further construction of the Home serves the public interest. We agree,” Altice concluded.
“The UDO states that an impermissible use is a public nuisance. Willow Haven’s intended use for the Home is not a permitted use under the express language of the UDO. Under the circumstances presented, imposition of a preliminary injunction best serves the public interest.”
Judge Peter Foley concurred.
But in a dissent, Judge Leanna Weissmann said the majority’s ruling has two flaws.
First, she wrote, “Because Carmel adopted its UDO three years before the legislature added this category of group homes, it is of no moment that the UDO fails to reference them.”
And second, “The majority’s definition of group home risks illogical application by allowing residential zoning for licensed group homes but requiring variances for unlicensed group homes which closely emulate traditional family environments.”
“Carmel interpreted its UDO to allow Willow Haven’s construction within its S1 zoning,” Weissmann wrote. “Because this interpretation is correct, I would reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate the preliminary injunction.”
The case is Willow Haven on 106th Street, LLC v. Hari Nagireddy and Saranya Nagireddy, 22A-PL-2931.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.