HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter #23 Tom EckerleJanuary 8, 2020
BZA Board Members
c/o Joe Shestak
Administer — BZA/Plan Commission
Department of Community Services
One Civic Square
Carmel, IN 46032
Via: Email and Hand Delivery
Re: In the Matter of Willow Haven Senior Home, LLC's Variance Petitions, Docket
Nos. 19090019UV, et al
Dear BZA Board Members:
My name is Thomas N. Eckerle. I reside, together with my wife Jane, at 13345 Winter
King Court, Cannel, Indiana, which is Lot 45 of the Glen Oaks neighborhood of single family
estate homes and which is zoned "S-1 ". Our house is situated on the north border of the south
pond directly across from and adjacent to the lighted parking lot of the commercial, nursing
home development, which is the subject of the variance petitions. Also, the primary
ingress/egress driveway and entry to the facility are in clear view of the south pond homes.
Therefore, we and our other neighbors with homes on the Glen Oaks south pond are the folks
who will be most adversely impacted, if the BZA were to grant the procedurally defective, ill-
conceived, inadequately documented and terribly misleading variance petitions advocated by
Willow Haven.
The petitions are being vehemently opposed by residents of Glen Oaks, the Bellewood
single family neighborhood and other persons residing on West Road between 131 Sc and 141"
streets. In addition, the organization, Carmel Citizens for Responsible Zoning, has recently
joined the fray by emphasizing the improper "spot -rezoning" nature of the petitions. All of us
who oppose the petitions seek the preservation and protection of the unique, bucolic character of
the single family residential developments in West Carmel. All of us demand the proper
interpretation and application of the zoning ordinances by the boards of our local government.
None of us are motivated by a biased or "stigmatized view" of alzheimers and dementia related
diseases, as was implied in the Ross letter, which was submitted in support of the petitions. Such
a suggestion is offensive to the many of us who have personally experienced the heartbreak of
placing a parent into a memory care unit of a nursing home facility.
Our Glen. Oaks HOA has formally responded in opposition to the petitions through our
capable attorney, Michael J. Andreoli. Also many Glen Oaks residents have submitted excellent
written opposition letters, the most notable of which was from our neighbor, Mark DeBruler.
My letter will not simply repeat or echo these remonstrances. Its primary purpose is to focus on
the disingenuous representations of the petitioner in its submission papers.
First, the October 22, 2019 letter from petitioner's architects, "Impact Architects," states
that: "Even though it will provide Memory care this home will only provide residential care and
is Lop hibited from providing medical care." The Impact letter also emphasizes that the
commercial facility will be providing only "personal care," and will not be providing "medical
or custodial care." The letter states that the facility will provide activities which "foster
continued independence" of its residents and affirms that its residents are fully capable of "self-
preservation." Finally, the Impact letter asserts that its residents will participate in fire drills and
will be able to attend to "their own evacuation" in the event of a fire. These are all inaccurate
statements crafted to circumvent zoning use and fire code requirements. The image of residents
portrayed by the Impact letter suggests a population of seniors returning from an early morning
game of pickle ball to converse over coffee about the news of the day. The letter does not
accurately depict the typical memory care patient.
Several years of experience with my own mother in a memory care facility informed me
of the reality that memory care units are the last stop before death. Memory care patients require
more, not less attention. They need constant medical attention and medication management.
They need physical therapy. They and their physical condition need to be constantly monitored
by medical professionals. As explained at the website "Seniorly.com,"
"...memory care facilities are staffed with registered nurses, licensed vocational nurses
and certified nurse assistants in numbers great enough to care for residents' needs and
maintain residents' safety..."
To suggest, as the Impact letter does, that Willow Haven residents will enjoy "continued
independence" and that they will be able to "overcome their limitations" so that they can fend for
themselves is dishonest. Will the marketing brochures of Willow Haven emphasize all the
limitations, which are to be placed on the care to be provided to their residents? Will family
members making the memory care decision be shown a copy of the Impact letter?
There is a reason why "memory care facility" is not a defined "use variance." It is that
memory care units are just that, "units" of a nursing facility, which is part of a community
providing several levels of care so that residents who progress towards a need for a skilled
nursinghnemory care facility don't need to be moved. Even Jean Ross' letter acknowledges that
moving a dementia patient from one facility to the next causes the patient to "become
increasingly agitated," leading to "increasing" dosages of psychothropic drugs. The petitioner's
facility is the worst of all worlds for the dementia patient. That patient will be required to be
moved several times, first from a nursing home facility to Willow Haven and then from Willow
Haven to a proper memory care unit of a nursing home facility, which is not "prohibited" from
providing medical services.
Bottom line, either the petitioner is being untruthful to BZA as to the level and nature of
services to be provided, or the Willow Haven "home" will be completely incapable of caring for
the normal needs of its dementia patients. If the latter is true, Willow Haven will need to advise
its prospective residents that they will operate as nothing more than a warehouse for medically
unattended patients, and that they will need to be moved again to a memory care facility, which
provides nursing care and therapy. Properly advised, it can be expected that families will choose
an alternative "haven."
K
Second, what if a Willow Haven's "independent" resident "overcomes her limitations"
and escapes from the facility in order to swim in the nearby pond — the south pond adjacent to
our property? If she drowns, and if her family sues our HOA, will Willow Haven agree to
indemnify and hold harmless the HOA in such event? Will the BZA agree to be responsible?
Will those supporting the petition come to our aid?
Third, a business model based upon assertions that it will be "prohibited" from rendering
services of a nature to be reasonably expected by its customers must surely fail. Families of
dementia patients, who are adequately informed of these prohibitions, will inevitably decline
invitations to take "haven" in a facility whose services are strictly limited. In the event of a
financial failure, what is to become of the facility? Will it sit vacant for a protracted period?
Will it become a home for the homeless? Will it become a drug treatment center? Will more use
variances be granted? What about adjoining properties? What spot zonings will they be
granted?
Finally, access to the facility and parking will be a comedy of errors which,
unfortunately, will be less than amusing to those of us who will have to witness the future
fiascoes from a front row seat. Daily delivery trucks will be lined up and parked directly on
West Road for the reasons that they can't negotiate the drive into the facility and that there is no
shoulder or lane on which to pull off. Egress and ingress to and from the parking area over the
single lane driveway will involve constant showdowns as to who will back up and give way.
Emergency calls (at all hours) involving lights and sirens will be frequent in the cramped parking
lot. Visitors for the twelve -bed facility will have no available parking and, no doubt, will park
on the grass along the north bound lane of West Road adjacent to Glen Oaks or on the streets of
Bellewood.
Please do the right thing. Please save our rustic neighborhoods. Please protect the
vehicular and bike traffic on West Road, which is no more than a narrow rural connector
between 141" and 131" streets. Please save the dementia patients and their families who might
be lured to a facility "prohibited" from attending to their legitimate and predictable medical
needs. And, finally, please save the petitioner from itself by requiring it to seek a more suitable
location which would allow it to conduct a proper memory care facility. Please deny the
petitions.
spectfully submi
Thomas N. Eckerle
3