Abbey Senior Apartments

Pros

• They care deeply for their service dog, Kovu.
• They advocate for fair treatment of service animals.
• They sought lawful guidance to resolve the issue.
• They value respectful communication from property management.
• They are hopeful about finding a living situation that respects their rights and needs.

Cons

• The reviewer believes the landlord discriminates against service dogs over 25 pounds.
• The reviewer feels the 25-pound weight limit is illegal, while the manager says it isn't.
• Two months of waiting and repeated inconveniences are unacceptable.
• The service dog is discriminated against because of its size.
• The manager is not personable and does not attempt to solve problems.
• Maintenance is lax.
• The reviewer would not feel comfortable living there due to distrust of the landlord.
• A deposit for a service dog is improper.
• The barking restriction on the service dog is seen as unreasonable and burdensome.

Review

The reviewer begins by recounting a drawn-out ordeal when applying for an apartment for themselves and their service dog, Kovu. They explain that the weeks of paperwork stretched into a frustrating back-and-forth, with the status of their application changing over time. The tension built as they navigated what they perceived as shifting requirements and unclear expectations from the leasing office.

A central source of frustration was the service dog rule itself. At first, the reviewer alleges they did not qualify, then later qualified, but their service dog did not because he exceeded a 25-pound weight limit. The reviewer recalls telling Debbie, the property manager, that this seemed illegal, to which Debbie allegedly replied that it wasn't. They recount being told that a lawyer might be needed and that they would have to wait - two months of delay and ongoing inconvenience while the situation was resolved.

The size-based discrimination against Kovu is a major theme of the account. The reviewer asserts that the issue was not just about the animal's presence, but specifically about his size, which they describe as discrimination centered on the dog's weight. They describe feeling unsupported and targeted as they watched the process drag on, feeling that the apartment complex was singling out their service animal in a way that was not consistent with expectations or policies they had heard from others in similar situations.

Then, a surprising turn in the story occurs. Debbie later contacts the reviewer to say that they could move in after all. However, there were new conditions attached: Kovu would not be allowed to bark excessively, and the dog would need to cope with a new living environment full of unfamiliar noises. The reviewer interprets these conditions as practical hurdles that would be difficult to manage for a service animal, raising questions about how the complex balances quiet, pet-related expectations, and the needs of a service dog.

A separate and troubling point concerns deposits. The reviewer claims they were told a deposit would be required, but they insist that no deposit should be charged for a service animal. They note conversations with acquaintances who either currently live there or used to live there, who asserted that the only deposit was for pets. This inconsistency fuels their distrust, leaving them feeling that the property was not applying its policies fairly or transparently, especially regarding service animals.

Ultimately, the reviewer decided not to move forward with the apartment because they could not trust the landlord. The decision was framed as a broader statement about comfort and reliability: if the property management could not be trusted to apply policies consistently and treat a service animal with respect, the reviewer did not want to invest in living there. The closing sentiment warns others with service animals over 25 pounds to be aware of potential doorways that may be closed or complicated by shifting rules and uneven enforcement.

Beyond the policy tension, the reviewer also criticizes maintenance and overall management culture at the property. They describe maintenance as lax and failing to address issues promptly, which compounded their concerns about residing there. The manager is painted as not personable and not proactive about solving problems, contributing to a sense that living there would be more about navigating administrative hurdles than achieving a comfortable, straightforward rental experience.

In summary, the account portrays a defensive and frustrating journey through an apartment application process marked by inconsistent rules, perceived discrimination based on a service dog's size, and a lack of reliable problem-solving from management. The final takeaway is one of caution: for anyone with a service animal over 25 pounds, this reviewer urges others to be aware of potential unfair treatment and to weigh the risks of a landlord who seems slow to resolve concerns and ambivalent about responsibilities toward tenants with service animals. The combined grievances about policy ambiguity, deposit notices, barking-related conditions, and maintenance shortcomings leave the reviewer unsatisfied and wary about the prospect of comfortable living in that complex.

This part of Indianapolis, Indiana offers a convenient and diverse array of amenities for senior living. With multiple pharmacies within close proximity, accessing medication and healthcare supplies is easily manageable. There are also various dining options ranging from fast food to sit-down restaurants, catering to different culinary preferences. Additionally, there are several reputable physician offices nearby for medical care needs. The area provides easy access to transportation services, including the airport, making travel convenient. Parks and places of worship offer opportunities for outdoor recreation and spiritual fulfillment. Various hospitals are available within a short distance for healthcare emergencies. Lastly, cafes and theaters provide entertainment and socializing opportunities for seniors looking to stay engaged in the community.

Pharmacies

• CVS Pharmacy (0.4 miles)
• Sunnylife Pharma (4 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (4.3 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (5 miles)
• Walgreens (5 miles)
• Walgreens (5.6 miles)
• Dista Products Company (5.8 miles)

Restaurants

• Jimmy John's (1.7 miles)
• McDonald's (3 miles)
• McDonald's (3.2 miles)
• McDonald's (5 miles)
• Mug'n Bun Drive In (5.1 miles)
• Big Woods Speedway (5.1 miles)
• The Crane Bay (5.3 miles)

Physicians

• US HealthWorks Occupation Health Center (2.2 miles)
• Dr Thomas (3.4 miles)
• Oak Street Health (4.7 miles)
• Indiana Kidney Specialists (5 miles)
• Windrose Health Network (5 miles)
• Riley Pediatric Neurology - IU Health Simon Cancer Center (5.8 miles)
• IU Health Meridian South Surgery Center - Methodist Medical Plaza South (6.4 miles)

Places of Worship

• Valley Mills Christian (2.7 miles)
• St Ann Catholic Church (2.9 miles)
• Speedway Christian Church (5.5 miles)
• New Hope Church (6.4 miles)
• Suburban Baptist Church (7.1 miles)

Transportation

• Concourse A (3 miles)
• Delta Sky Club (3 miles)
• TSA Screening (3.1 miles)
• Delta Air Lines Ticket Counter (3.1 miles)
• Indianapolis International Airport (IND) (3.1 miles)
• Concourse B (3.1 miles)

Parks

• Meridian Woods Park & Neighborhood (4.6 miles)
• White River State Park (5.5 miles)
• Military Park (5.9 miles)
• Meadowood Park (6.9 miles)

Hospitals

• Assurance Of Indianapolis (5.2 miles)
• Richard L. Roudebush Va Medical Center (5.7 miles)
• Sidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital (5.8 miles)
• Newborn Follow-Up Program, Riley Hospital for Children at IU Health (5.9 miles)
• Simon Family Tower (5.9 miles)
• Indiana University Hospital (5.9 miles)
• Eskenazi Hospital (6.3 miles)

Cafes

• Starbucks (6.1 miles)
• Panera Bread (6.2 miles)
• Starbucks (6.4 miles)
• Starbucks (6.6 miles)
• Starbucks (6.7 miles)
• Starbucks (7.1 miles)

Theaters

• AMC Perry Crossing 18 (6.4 miles)
• Regal Shiloh Crossing (6.7 miles)