Fishers plan commission splits over Story Cottage memory‑care rezoning; no recommendation sent to council

The Fishers Plan Commission on Feb. 4 took public testimony and debated RZ‑26‑1, a request to rezone 0.86 acres at 10990 Brooks School Road to allow a 7,500‑square‑foot, 12‑bed memory‑care group home operated by Story Cottage. Ross Hillary, City of Fishers community economic development, told commissioners that staff was recommending the petition favorably while noting the comprehensive plan designates the parcel as suburban residential.

Attorney Rick Lawrence, representing the applicant, said the zoning change is necessary because Fishers’ unified development ordinance defines “group home” in a way that references children, creating an anomaly that prevents adults from qualifying for the same residential classification. Developer David Lusenby and owner‑operator David Morgan described Story Cottage’s model as a single‑story, residential‑appearing, private‑pay memory‑care home with 2–3 caregivers on duty, limited signage and night impacts, and security upgrades intended to prevent past incidents of residents stepping off porches during the early opening of prior cottages.

During the public hearing dozens of residents spoke, producing a mix of endorsements and strong opposition. Supporters living nearby said Story Cottage is a well‑run, quiet option that would allow local families to keep loved ones close; Tracy Nicholson of Sandstone Knolls and several other neighbors cited positive experiences at other Story Cottage locations. Opponents, largely from Breakwater, raised safety concerns about placing the facility at the crest of a hill on Brooks School Road, questioned whether the property is structurally suitable, criticized the traffic memo as limited to AM/PM peak hours, and warned of potential legal challenges. Several speakers also expressed that the rezoning would amount to a spot‑zone that departs from the comprehensive plan.

Commissioners asked about which statutory categories residents at Story Cottage fit, medication handling (the applicant said medications are managed by a contracted concierge nurse), parking counts and emergency access, and whether the proposal aligns with the city’s housing guidance. The applicant pointed to a city traffic engineer report and to Fishers’ own housing studies recommending more memory‑care capacity.

Commissioner Selena moved to send a “no recommendation” (neutral) to City Council to allow additional time, a motion that drew a second and produced a 4–2 roll call in favor. Under the commission’s procedural rules, that outcome did not meet the required unanimous (six‑member) threshold and therefore did not carry. A later motion to send a favorable recommendation received no second. As a result, the petition will advance to Fishers City Council without a recommendation from the plan commission.

The commission’s action is advisory; City Council will take final action at a subsequent meeting. The application file is listed as RZ‑26‑1, Story Cottage PUD, and staff indicated that if the PUD proceeds there will be additional review at the PUD committee level for architectural elevations and detailed engineering.