Cedar Lake Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting Minutes

Pledge of Allegiance

Mr. Kiepura called the meeting to order and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Roll Call

Members Present: John Kiepura, Chairman; Eric Burnham, Vice Chairman; Ray Jackson; Jerry Reiling; Pete Swick.

Staff Present: Tim Kubiak, Director of Operations; David Austgen, Town Attorney; Cheryl Hajduk, Recording Secretary.

Staff Absent: Benjamin Eldridge, Town Manager.

Minutes

Minutes of the March 12, 2026 regular meeting were distributed in advance. No corrections were noted.

Motion to approve the March 12, 2026 regular meeting minutes made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Jackson.

Motion carries, 5–0.

Old Business

1. 2025-45 – Botterman – Developmental Variance – Deferred

The petitioner was not present at the meeting. Mr. Kubiak noted that Mr. Botterman had attempted to contact him earlier in the day but the call was not returned in time. Mr. Kiepura deferred the item pending petitioner’s arrival, then at the end of the meeting Mr. Kubiak reported that Mr. Botterman sent a text message indicating his father was out of town, he had made adjustments to his petition, and he was requesting a further deferral to the May 14 meeting.

Motion to defer 2025-45 (Botterman) to the May 14, 2026 BZA meeting made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 5–0.

2. 2025-46 – M&L Adventures – Developmental Variance – Deferred

Note: Items 2025-46 and 2026-05 were deferred together by motion at the end of the meeting after the Board confirmed a formal motion was required for the record. See combined deferral motion below.

3. 2026-05 – M&L Adventure, LLC – Developmental Variance – Deferred

The petitioner requested a deferral of both items 2025-46 and 2026-05 to the next meeting. The Board confirmed that a formal motion was required for both items to be on the record.

Motion to defer 2025-46 (M&L Adventures) and 2026-05 (M&L Adventure, LLC) to the May 14, 2026 BZA meeting made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Reiling.

Motion carries, 5–0.

4. 2026-04 – 2M Land Group, LLC / Dolder – Developmental Variance – Approved

Petitioner’s Comments

Michael Dolder appeared. He explained that following feedback from the Board at the prior meeting, he submitted a revised plan increasing all setbacks from the previously requested 5 feet to 25 feet in all directions, centering the house on the lot and moving it back. The future deck was also reduced in size. The revised request is within what was advertised (the advertisement sought 5-foot setbacks; requesting 25 feet is less relief, not more), so no re-advertisement is required. Mr. Dolder also noted the home has a full basement and two-and-a-half car garage, neither of which count toward the 2,092 square foot footprint.

Legals

Legals were confirmed in order by Mr. Austgen after review of the revised petition.

Remonstrators

Terri Cox, 8505 W. 139th Avenue, Cedar Lake — President, Lakeshore Subdivision Association, Inc., appeared as remonstrator. Ms. Cox acknowledged that the revised plan is a meaningful improvement over the original, particularly the increased setback from 139th Avenue. However, she maintained that the petition still includes multiple variances on a sensitive corner lot — reduced lot area (9,167 sq. ft. vs. 12,500 sq. ft. required), reduced lot width, reduced front yard setbacks, and a reduced rear setback — and that the Board must determine whether the relief is the minimum necessary and whether it can be granted without jeopardizing public safety.

Ms. Cox noted that 139th Avenue functions as the primary internal access corridor for the subdivision, used by pedestrians, cyclists, golf carts, and seasonal lake traffic including pier and lift movement. She also stated that the Association submitted a separate request to the Town on the same day for inspection of existing encroachments along 139th Avenue where landscaping extends into the public right-of-way, reducing the effective roadway width. She asked that any relief granted be limited to the minimum necessary and that public safety along the corridor be a primary consideration.

Ms. Cox also briefly referenced a neighboring property where encroachments into the roadway exist. Mr. Burnham clarified that those encroachments pertain to a different property and are not before the Board tonight. Mr. Kiepura concurred, noting the Board is ruling only on Mr. Dolder’s petition. Ms. Cox confirmed the Association had sent their encroachment concerns to the Town’s engineer and administrator that day.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak noted that at 2,092 square feet, the proposed home is slightly under the 2,200 square foot minimum required for a two-story home in the R-2 district. Further reducing the house to accommodate larger setbacks would push the footprint below even the minimum standard. He characterized the revised plan as a reasonable middle ground given the constraints of the corner lot. He confirmed Mr. Dolder is not creating any new encroachments along 139th Avenue — the existing encroachments referenced by Ms. Cox involve other properties.

Board Discussion and Decision

Board members expressed support for the revised plan. Mr. Burnham noted that at 25-foot setbacks on all sides, Mr. Dolder’s house will be set back further from 139th Avenue than virtually every other existing house on the street, one of which sits as close as 3–1 foot from the lot line. The revised plan addresses the sight line concern that was the primary issue at the prior meeting. The Board confirmed the setbacks in the revised drawing are all 25 feet, except for one side yard measurement at approximately 21.6 feet (related to the driveway placement), which requires no variance. The rear setback in the drawing was also confirmed at 25 feet, not 28 feet as originally stated.

Motion to approve 2026-04 (2M Land Group, LLC / Dolder) developmental variance to build a new home on a corner lot with a lot size of 9,167 sq. ft., front width of 87.5 feet on Huseman Street and 103 feet on 139th Avenue, and setbacks of 25 feet on all applicable sides, with a two-story home of 2,092 sq. ft. footprint and attached garage exceeding 400 sq. ft., consistent with the revised site plan submitted, and contingent upon confirmation of legals, and to the Findings of Fact made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 5–0.

New Business

1. 2026-06 – Marconi – Developmental Variance – Withdrawn

Petitioner’s Comments

Tom and Alisa Marconi appeared. Mr. Marconi explained the backyard is limited in size and slopes toward a detention pond at the rear. A covered lean-to patio (metal roof over a concrete patio, attached to the house at approximately 9 feet) was constructed after they moved in at significant expense. Because the covered patio now functions as an extension of the house, a pool placed at the desired location would be only 4 feet from the structure rather than the required 10 feet. The tight placement is driven by the grade change toward the rear and the desire to keep the pool on level ground. Mrs. Marconi noted that since the original application, they had already downsized the pool from 12′ × 25′ to 10′ × 23′, gaining approximately 2 additional feet of separation.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak confirmed the petitioner is well clear of the rear property line and the utility easement. The issue is the 10-foot separation requirement between the pool and the covered patio structure. He noted that the 10-foot standard exists primarily as a safety requirement.

Board Discussion

The Board discussed the request at length. Key points:

• The 10-foot separation requirement exists as a safety standard to prevent people from jumping from a roof or elevated structure into a pool. Mr. Swick stated he would not vote to reduce it below 10 feet. Mr. Kiepura and others agreed.
• The covered patio roof is a metal lean-to structure attached to the house. Because it is attached, it constitutes an extension of the house for purposes of the setback calculation. The Board discussed whether detaching the roof or removing it entirely would eliminate the need for the variance.
• Mr. Burnham identified a practical path forward: if the petitioner removes the attached roof and installs a freestanding pergola or shade structure instead, the pool setback would be measured from the house wall, not the patio edge, and no variance would be needed. The pool could then be placed where desired, and a freestanding shade structure could be installed over the patio separately (subject to applicable permits).
• The Board noted that denying the variance means the petitioner cannot reapply for the same relief for one year unless there is a substantial change to the request.

The petitioners acknowledged the cost concern of modifying the patio roof but understood the Board’s position. The petitioners elected to withdraw the petition to avoid a denial and preserve the option to work with Mr. Kubiak on an alternative approach.

The petitioner withdrew petition 2026-06. No vote was taken. Petitioner directed to coordinate with the Building Department on a revised approach.

2. 2026-07 – Yonan – Developmental Variance – Approved

Legals

Legals confirmed in order.

Petitioner’s Comments

Ryan Yonan appeared. He explained he purchased the property intending to remodel the existing house, encountered significant structural problems, and ultimately decided to demolish and rebuild properly. The lot is only 65 feet wide rather than the required 80 feet, making a width variance necessary, but all other zoning requirements — front, rear, and side yard setbacks, garage dimensions, and minimum house square footage — are met. The proposed house is approximately 45 feet wide on a 65-foot lot with appropriate setbacks on both sides. The lot is 200 feet deep, providing ample overall square footage (13,000 sq. ft.).

Remonstrators

Gina Podis, 14329 Hobart Street (adjacent property), appeared in support. She stated she has watched the existing dilapidated structure for three years and welcomes a new home in its place.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak confirmed the petitioner meets all setback and square footage requirements. The variance is solely for the 15-foot lot width deficiency. He expressed full support, noting the petitioner is doing everything the right way and the demolish-and-rebuild approach is the correct solution given the condition of the prior structure.

Board Discussion and Decision

Board members expressed unanimous support. No concerns were raised.

Motion to approve 2026-07 (Yonan) developmental variance to rebuild on a lot with a width of 65 feet by 200 feet (13,000 sq. ft. total) to the Findings of Fact made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Reiling.

Motion carries, 5–0.

3. 2026-08 – Pizer – Developmental Variance – Approved

Legals

Legals confirmed in order.

Petitioner’s Comments

Scott Pizer appeared. He explained the lot is small and has a patio in the rear. If placed at the required 6-foot setback, the shed would land on the existing patio. The only viable location for the shed is the rear corner of the lot, which will be 2 feet from the fence line. The shed will be inside his fence and not encroaching on any common area. Mr. Pizer noted the area has been graveled and prepped (no structure was built without a permit — he contacted the Building Department before proceeding after being informed a permit was required). The shed will be professionally built and finished with cedar shiplap siding, a repurposed door, and is intended to be an attractive addition. He cited grading and stormwater concerns in the area as reasons to keep the shed on pads (gravel base) rather than a concrete slab.

Remonstrators

Mr. Paul DeYoung, 13925 Butternut Street appeared in support, noting Mr. Pizer is an excellent neighbor, takes good care of his property, and that every house in the surrounding cul-de-sac already has a shed near the fence line — some the full length of the fence. The neighbor expressed confidence the shed will be well-constructed.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak confirmed the lot is small and the options for shed placement are limited given the grade, the patio, and the existing lot configuration. He noted there is no better alternative location and expressed support for the request.

Board Discussion and Decision

The Board had no significant concerns. Mr. Burnham noted the variance is for placement, not construction quality. The Board confirmed the shed will be within the fenced yard and the 2-foot setback will be from the fence line, not a shared common area.

Motion to approve 2026-08 (Pizer) developmental variance for an 8′ × 16′ shed with a 2-foot rear yard setback from the property line and 2-foot side yard setback to the Findings of Fact made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Jackson.

Motion carries, 5–0.

4. 2026-09 – Bies & Fernandez – Developmental Variance – Approved

Legals

Mr. Austgen noted the legals may not have been fully confirmed at the time of the item’s hearing; Ms. Hajduk indicated she would re-check the file the following day as the documentation may have been filed with the Plan Commission packet. The motion was conditioned upon legal confirmation.

Petitioner’s Comments

Marino Fernandez appeared on behalf of both petitioners. He explained the property consists of two lots accessed via Morse Street, which dead-ends near the property. The parcels have been difficult to develop for over 20 years. The petitioners plan to split the approximately 6.89 acres into two lots: Lot 1 (Fernandez, 1.89 acres) and Lot 2 (Bies, 5.0 acres). A 20-foot private shared driveway with an ingress/egress and utility easement will run across Lot 1 to provide access to Lot 2, connecting from the end of Morse Street.

The variance for the 14-foot front yard setback applies to the garage on Lot 1, which will be 14 feet from the easement centerline but 30 feet from the actual property line. The variance was filed for clarity to ensure the Board understood the relationship between the house and the shared driveway easement. Mr. Fernandez noted the house on Lot 1 is constrained from moving further back by a ravine, requiring a minimum 30-foot setback from the ravine’s edge.

Mr. Kubiak confirmed both lots have recorded ingress/egress and utility easements in place. The access road runs across Lot 1 and terminates at the Lot 2 boundary — once past that point, the property is entirely Lot 2. Neither house is currently built; all development will be new construction.

Remonstrators

No remonstrators appeared.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak confirmed the easement arrangement is legally documented and provides proper access. He noted this property has been an ongoing challenge for the Town for many years and the current approach represents a proper path forward.

Board Discussion and Decision

Mr. Swick asked about the access arrangement and whether a future owner of Lot 1 could block Lot 2’s access. Mr. Burnham and Mr. Fernandez confirmed the cross-access easement is recorded and runs with the land — it cannot be extinguished by a subsequent owner of Lot 1. Mr. Austgen confirmed that landlocking is illegal in Indiana; the easement structure legally ensures perpetual access. The Board found no substantive concerns.

Motion to approve 2026-09 (Bies & Fernandez) developmental variance to build on two lots with no dedicated or improved frontage, with Lot 1 proposing a 14-foot front yard setback from the ingress/egress easement, consistent with the submitted site plan, contingent upon confirmation of legals, and to the Findings of Fact made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 5–0.

Public Comment

Mr. Kiepura called for public comment. No public comment was received.

Adjournment

Mr. Kiepura adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:20 p.m.