Town of 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

Minutes

Minutes of the April 9, 2026 regular meeting were distributed in advance. No corrections were noted.

Motion to approve the April 9, 2026 regular meeting minutes made by Mr. Jackson; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 5–0.

Old Business

1. 2025-45 — Botterman — Developmental Variance — Approved (3–2)

Legals confirmed in order.

Petitioner’s Comments

Mr. Botterman appeared. He explained the property is a legacy lot (built in 1926) that predates Town incorporation and zoning. He referenced Zoning Ordinance § 7.7, Section B (Legacy Lots), which establishes minimum interior side yard setbacks of 5 feet and a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet for legacy lots, and states that variances are not required for those minimums. Under the original plan, the existing structure had setbacks of 2 feet on the front (east) and 3 feet on the south side. Mr. Botterman’s proposal is to demolish the existing structure and rebuild with 5-foot setbacks on all sides.

The Board raised a key issue: once the existing structure is demolished, the legacy lot protections under § 7.7 apply to improvements on a structure in place, not to new construction on a cleared lot. Mr. Reiling explained that “improvements to a structure” requires a structure to exist; demolishing it creates a vacant lot to which standard zoning requirements apply. Mr. Botterman acknowledged this interpretation and agreed to the 5-foot setbacks as a variance request rather than relying on the legacy lot provisions.

Regarding the garage setback: the original petition included a request for only 1 off-street parking space. Mr. Botterman revised the proposal during the hearing: by increasing the garage setback to 20 feet from the front property line (reducing the garage footprint), he can accommodate two off-street parking spaces, meeting the ordinance requirement. The off-street parking variance is therefore no longer needed. The revised proposal covers 5-foot setbacks on all sides, a 66-foot front width, and a 5-foot rear setback.

The proposed two-story home has an estimated living area of approximately 2,600–2,700 square feet with a cathedral ceiling on the lake-facing portion, and a 700 sq ft garage. The total building footprint is less than 25% of the lot area. The lot extends to the lake.

Remonstrators

No remonstrators appeared.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak acknowledged the underlying dynamic: Mr. Botterman could alternatively choose to rehabilitate the existing structure in its current footprint — retaining the 2-foot and 3-foot setbacks for decades to come — without needing any variance. By opting to demolish and rebuild with 5-foot setbacks, the net outcome for the neighborhood is an improvement. The proposed house will be aligned with the adjacent son’s house and gains an additional off-street parking space.

Board Discussion and Decision

Mr. Reiling expressed concern that the proposed footprint is too large for the lot, though he acknowledged the comparison to neighboring structures. Mr. Burnham and Mr. Swick noted that the 5-foot setbacks represent a significant improvement over the existing 2-foot and 3-foot conditions, and that approving the demolish-and-rebuild is in the community’s interest. Mr. Kiepura noted the Board had asked for the parking situation to be addressed and Mr. Botterman complied.

Motion to approve 2025-45 (Botterman) developmental variance to demolish the existing structure and rebuild with a 66-foot front width, 5-foot side yard setbacks on all sides, 5-foot rear yard setback, and two off-street parking spaces (parking variance no longer required), consistent with the revised site plan, to the Findings of Fact, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 3–2.

2. 2025-46 and 2026-05 — M&L Adventures / M&L Adventure LLC — Deferred to June 11, 2026

The petitioner’s representative contacted Mr. Kiepura prior to the meeting to request a deferral. No specific reason was provided beyond a general request for more time. Mr. Kiepura indicated he asked for a reason and received only the general request. The Board noted that if a further deferral is needed at the June meeting, the petitioner must come prepared to explain why.

Both items (2025-46 and 2026-05, including Requests 1 and 2 within 2026-05) are deferred together to the June 11, 2026 meeting.

Motion to defer 2025-46 (M&L Adventures) and 2026-05 (M&L Adventure LLC) to the June 11, 2026 BZA meeting made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Jackson.

Motion carries, 4–1.

New Business

1. 2026-10 — Wicker Enterprises — Developmental Variance — Approved (5–0)

Legals confirmed in order.

Petitioner’s Comments

Trent VanderZee (13731 Deodor Street, Cedar Lake), general contractor representing Wicker Enterprises, appeared along with Jamey Glynn (13321 Wicker Avenue), co-owner. Mr. VanderZee explained the property is unusual: there is approximately 30 feet between the petitioner’s west property line and US 41, with no INDOT right-of-way involved — the state owns the adjacent parcel outright, not as a right-of-way. The petitioner is seeking to place a sign as close to the property line as possible to compensate for the significant setback from the highway. Signs at comparable properties along US 41 (Taco Bell, McDonald’s, CVS, Centier Bank, People’s Bank) are all set at similar or closer positions relative to the highway.

The original petition requested 312 square feet and 17 feet 6 inches because the petitioner initially believed the 10-foot setback requirement applied, pushing the sign further back. Once it was clarified that the adjacent property is state-owned (not right-of-way) and the sign can be placed at 1 inch from the property line, the petitioner agreed to significantly scale down the proposal. The 60 sq ft signage panel was always intended to remain compliant; the 312 sq ft figure included all monument and base elements. Discussion clarified that the ordinance’s 60 sq ft limit applies to the sign face, not the total monument.

The Board and petitioner agreed on the following revised parameters during the hearing: sign face area 60 sq ft (compliant); total monument including base — not to exceed 150 sq ft; maximum height — 10 feet; setback — 1 inch from the west property line (minimum, with no encroachment onto adjacent state-owned property). The petitioner accepted these terms.

Remonstrators

No remonstrators appeared.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak noted the ordinance’s 60 sq ft sign limit refers to the sign face and does not explicitly address monument base structures, which creates ambiguity in how total sign area is calculated. The 60-square-foot sign face is compliant. He had no objection to the revised proposal, noting the unusual 30-foot separation from US 41 makes this a unique case.

Board Discussion and Decision

Board members preferred the smaller design presented during the hearing over the original 17′–6″ version, describing it as cleaner and more consistent with the character of the area. Mr. Kiepura noted the support pole base must be at 1 inch from the property line so that the sign itself does not encroach on the state-owned parcel.

Motion to approve 2026-10 (Wicker Enterprises) developmental variance to place a monument sign at 1 inch from the west property line, with a maximum total sign area (including base and monument) of 150 square feet, a 60-square-foot sign face, and a maximum height of 10 feet, based on the revised design presented at the hearing, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Reiling.

Motion carries, 5–0.

2. 2026-11 — O’Donnell Homes — Developmental Variance — Approved (5–0)

Legals confirmed in order.

Petitioner’s Comments

Michael O’Donnell, 812 Whitehawk Drive, Crown Point, appeared. He explained a homeowner is seeking to build a ranch-style home on a lot in the Lakeside subdivision. The proposed home includes a three-car garage and a 14′ × 14′ covered patio. Actual lot coverage comes to approximately 27–28%, exceeding the 25% maximum but remaining under 30%. The Board noted it has approved several similar variances in this same Lakeside section under the same circumstances. The design is consistent with prior approvals.

Remonstrators

No remonstrators appeared.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak confirmed this is consistent with prior variance requests for ranch homes with three-car garages in this area of Lakeside. The 25% threshold is reached quickly on these lots with that footprint. No concerns.

Board Discussion and Decision

No significant discussion. The Board recognized this as a consistent pattern for this subdivision area.

Motion to approve 2026-11 (O’Donnell Homes) developmental variance to increase lot coverage from 25% to 30% for a ranch-style home at 5892 W. 136th Avenue, to the Findings of Fact, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Reiling.

Motion carries, 5–0.

3. 2026-12 — Beacon Pointe of Cedar Lake LLC — Developmental Variance — Approved (5–0)

Legals confirmed in order.

Petitioner’s Comments

Richard Anderson (9211 Broadway, Merrillville, IN) appeared on behalf of McFarland Homes / Beacon West LLC. He explained that both homes were inadvertently constructed with the south side of the building positioned slightly inside the required 8-foot setback. The variance requests incorporate a small buffer to account for the surveyor’s plus-or-minus tolerance. Lot 73 is the model home (now for sale); Lot 74 is occupied by the current homeowners, who were informed of the situation and signed the variance application. Both existing homeowners/buyers are aware. Without the variance, the title would reflect a zoning violation that would surface in any future sale survey.

Mr. Anderson noted McFarland Homes has built many homes in Cedar Lake and this is the first time they have had this type of issue.

Remonstrators

No remonstrators appeared.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak acknowledged that the as-built was reviewed and the setback discrepancy was not caught during the inspection process. He stated this is the proper way to rectify the problem: the variance, once approved, is recorded with the property and will be disclosed in future title searches, protecting future buyers. He noted the site plan for similar homes in this development typically shows all foundations with 5-foot offset stakes, and the small discrepancy was not visually apparent during inspection. Mr. Reiling questioned who bears the penalty for the error; Mr. Kubiak acknowledged responsibility within the building inspection process. The Board noted this appears to be a first occurrence with McFarland Homes.

Board Discussion and Decision

Discussion focused on the appropriate response: the variances are the legally correct remedy, protect all parties including future buyers, and the discrepancies (3.6 inches and 7.2 inches) are minimal. Granting the variance does not increase the non-conformity; it merely ratifies the as-built condition. The Board agreed the Building Department and builder should exercise greater caution going forward, and Mr. Kiepura noted this type of situation is rare in Cedar Lake’s construction history.

Motion to approve 2026-12 (Beacon Pointe of Cedar Lake LLC) developmental variances to permit completed one-story residences with reduced south side yard setbacks: Lot 73 at 7.7 feet and Lot 74 at 7.4 feet (from the required 8 feet), based on findings of fact, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Jackson.

Motion carries, 5–0.

4. 2026-13 — Johnston — Developmental Variance — Approved (5–0)

Legals confirmed in order.

Petitioner’s Comments

Sean and Elizabeth Johnston appeared. They explained they purchased the home approximately six years ago. A 6-foot wood privacy fence exists along the backyard and has been in place for approximately 20 years. The fence is in poor condition. They wish to replace it with a 4-foot white picket fence. The existing fence is located 12 feet from the sidewalk (20 feet from the street), matching the current footprint. They are not moving the fence — they are replacing it in place. The variance is required because the 12-foot setback is less than the 20-foot requirement on the designated side yard (Park Place). The homeowners noted existing landscaping, a batting cage, and a small dog necessitate keeping the fence line where it is.

Mr. Kubiak added that the existing fence actually extends slightly onto the park property at the dead end; the replacement fence will be corrected to the proper property line, representing a further improvement.

Remonstrators

No remonstrators appeared.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak confirmed no concerns. The fence has existed for many years; the replacement is an improvement in height (from 6 feet to 4 feet), material, and appearance. The rear portion of the existing fence — which encroaches into the park — will be removed and re-established at the correct property line.

Board Discussion and Decision

Board members who had viewed the property noted the existing fence is in poor condition. The picket fence replacement is an aesthetic improvement. No concerns were raised.

Motion to approve 2026-13 (Johnston) developmental variance for a 4-foot picket fence at 12-foot front yard setback on Park Place made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 5–0.

5. 2026-14 — PPB Holding — Developmental Variance — Approved (5–0)

Legals confirmed in order.

Petitioner’s Comments

Camille Shoop (3811 W. 105th Avenue, Crown Point) appeared on behalf of PPB Holding 101 LLC. She explained the lot was purchased in September 2022. Prior to purchase, the buyer contacted the Town and was advised the lot was buildable without a variance; however, upon submitting a permit application, the Building Department determined the lot’s 50-foot frontage and 9,000 sq ft area fall short of the R-1 minimums (80 feet and 10,000 sq ft respectively) and a variance is required. All other zoning requirements are met — setbacks, minimum square footage, minimum garage — and the house fits within the lot with 10-foot side yards and a 31-foot front setback. The lot is 180 feet deep and backs up to the golf course.

Remonstrators

John Cappadora (14744 Blaine Street) appeared in opposition. He expressed concern about stormwater runoff from the proposed home draining toward his front yard and the storm sewers on W. 147th Court. He noted flooding has improved since Town drainage work completed in 2018–19 but remains a concern during heavy rain events. He asked whether the additional impervious surface from the new home would worsen conditions.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak addressed the remonstrator’s drainage concern: for any new home on a remote lot such as this one, the Town’s engineer (Christopher B. Burke) reviews and must sign off on the site plan prior to permit issuance. The engineer will evaluate and address drainage, grading, and stormwater management. Any required drainage infrastructure (such as rain gardens or detention) will be specified before a permit is issued. Mr. Kubiak confirmed the house meets all applicable setback, square footage, and garage requirements. The only variance required is for the 50-foot frontage (vs. 80 feet required) and the 9,000 sq ft lot area (vs. 10,000 sq ft required).

Board Discussion and Decision

No concerns were raised by the Board. The lot is the only remaining buildable lot of this configuration on the street. Lot 42 to the north (adjacent) appears to include a wetland area and is likely not buildable. The Board found the variance appropriate given the lot’s configuration and the petitioner’s pre-purchase inquiry to the Town.

Motion to approve 2026-14 (PPB Holding) developmental variance for a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet and lot frontage of 50 feet at 14745 Blaine Street, to the Findings of Fact, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Jackson.

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.