Lawrence BZA affirms Indianapolis finding that Hickory residential substance‑use treatment is similar to a nursing home, 3‑2

The Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3‑2 on Feb. 18 to affirm a 2020 administrative determination by the City of Indianapolis that the Chosen Lawrence Manor LLC facility (doing business as Hickory) operates as a specialty residential substance‑use disorder treatment facility whose characteristics align with the zoning definition of a nursing home.

The board’s decision follows a contested public hearing in which attorneys and clinicians for the applicant described the program and neighborhood residents and others raised concerns about past permitting, neighborhood impacts and enforcement. Supporters said the facility operates at ASAM level 3.5 with clinical staffing and controlled admissions; opponents said the operator misled the city and neighborhood and that the designation will limit future zoning control.

Kevin Bucheit, a land‑use planner with the law firm Krieg Devault, told the board the item before the panel was to “affirm the 2020 administrative determination of the City of Indianapolis” under Indiana Code 36‑7‑4‑918.1 and the Indianapolis zoning ordinance. He summarized the operation as a licensed, short‑term residential program that provides high‑intensity clinically focused services (ASAM level 3.5), does not provide medical detoxification on site, and uses controlled admissions and discharge protocols. Bucheit also said the facility is licensed by the Indiana State Department of Health and Marion County Public Health and that the building’s size and scale have not expanded since the 1970s.

Valerie Jones Turner identified herself as executive director and corporate clinical director for Hickory and told the board referrals come primarily from hospitals and that the program keeps clients on site through completion, does not allow routine visitors during the program, and maintains anonymity for clients.

Dr. Timothy Kelly, MD, who described himself as a referring clinician at Community North, told the board he views the facility as a “convalescent” form of care for people recovering from substance‑use disorders and said the program is part of regional efforts to treat severe addiction. “This is killing our country,” Dr. Kelly said, arguing residential convalescence is an appropriate zoning analogue. He noted the Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development had reviewed the facility and concluded it “aligns with the intent of the ordinance to provide convalescent care.”

Several neighbors and other remonstrators disputed the applicant’s account and raised operational and procedural concerns. Cathy Clark, who lives on East 40th Street and identified a block of about 11 nearby parcels, said she and neighbors were told years ago the nursing home would close and reopen as a drug‑treatment center and described repeated contacts with city staff, a billboard and a web presence that she said contradicted the operator’s representations. Remonstrators reported increased police and fire responses, early‑morning commercial dumpster service, parking and lighting impacts and said they believe the operator was not forthright with the city. One resident who said she previously worked in drug‑and‑alcohol services questioned the program’s business model and success claims.

City staff and the mayor spoke in favor of affirming the Indianapolis administrative determination. City staff described the site’s prior land‑use variance for a nursing home, said most code enforcement issues connected to renovation work have been resolved, and said the Indianapolis administrative determination created an available administrative path under the ordinance for uses not specifically listed. The mayor said the administration would continue to work with residents and the operator to address neighborhood concerns.

The board discussed the limits of the administrative determination. Board members and staff noted the Indianapolis determination imposed conditions and that any physical expansion or change in use would require further review; they also discussed appeal paths and acknowledged that the Metropolitan Development Commission (Indianapolis) could review or overrule local decisions and that appeals could ultimately proceed to court.

After discussion the BZA voted to affirm the administrative determination. The tally was three votes in favor and two opposed; recorded roll‑call names were not provided in the hearing transcript. The board’s approval affirms that, for the purpose of the local zoning code, the facility’s described operation is to be treated similarly to a nursing home.

The board’s ruling resolves the outstanding land‑use enforcement item that city staff said was pending from renovation‑related zoning violations, though opponents said they will pursue additional remedies and some speakers described plans to seek records on emergency‑response runs and other operational impacts.

The decision is subject to appeal under the ordinance and state law; board members discussed the Metropolitan Development Commission as a possible next forum for appeals.