Carmel council questions Restorecy senior‑care expansion amid flooding, road and timing concerns

Councilors and residents clashed over a proposed Restorecy (Greenhouse Cottages) PUD amendment at the March 16 Carmel City Council meeting, centering on stormwater problems, the future of Richland Avenue and how quickly the project must move to meet state licensing timelines.

Ally Missler, a neighbor of the proposed site, told the council the area has "decades‑long" flooding, documented tens of thousands of dollars in damage and that last year she discovered $141,000 in structural water damage that insurance denied because the flooding is longstanding. "Fix the flooding first, then plan the growth," she said.

Petition counsel Rachel Connor and Brian Lindsey, operations director for the petitioner, presented a revised preliminary site plan that included a 6‑foot natural‑color fence option, a conceptual buffer landscape with more than 200 new trees, commitments to dedicate a 50‑foot half right‑of‑way along City Center Drive, and stormwater features such as a rain garden. Connor said the revised materials reflect engineering requests and will appear in both clean and redline versions attached to the ordinance.

Lindsey said the operator turns away roughly 80 applicants a month and that the total number of residents turned away annually approaches 1,000, arguing the expansion responds to a demonstrated community need. He also said the state licensing process requires action by June 30 for certain submittals.

Council members expressed sympathy for both sides. President Snyder and others noted the comprehensive plan has incorporated a potential Richland Avenue connection since the 1980s; councilors said right‑of‑way language and whether homes could be required to move if the road were built warranted close consideration. Legal counsel reminded the body it has 90 days from plan commission certification to act; counsel gave an April 22 date as the last meeting before a rezone could be deemed approved if the council takes no action.

A motion "to not approve the PUD amendment" was made and seconded on the floor; council members then clarified the negative wording for roll call (for this motion, a "yes" vote would mean not to approve). The transcript records the motion, a second and the call for the vote but does not contain the final tally or a fully recorded outcome in the provided segments.

Why it matters: The petition affects nearby homeowners, stormwater infrastructure and the city’s long‑range street network. Council and petitioner both acknowledged continuing steps in the development process — including development‑plan and ADLS reviews — that will address technical landscaping and stormwater design, but neighbors urged that unresolved flooding not be exacerbated by the expansion.

Next steps: The petitioner may meet further with council leaders and land‑use chairs; legal counsel indicated the council has at least one more meeting before a rezone could be deemed approved by plan commission certification. The transcript does not record a conclusive final vote in the provided segments.

(Reporting note: Article uses direct quotes and figures from the March 16 meeting transcript. Where transcript phrasing was ambiguous about counts of additional beds, the piece avoids an exact bed count and focuses on the documented statements about waiting lists and developer commitments.)