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 May 14, 2026 regular meeting were distributed in advance. No corrections were noted.

Motion to approve the May 14, 2026 regular meeting minutes made by Mr. Jackson; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 5–0.

Old Business

1 and 2. 2025-46 and 2026-05 — M&L Adventures / M&L Adventure LLC DEFERRED

Mr. Kiepura reported that Mr. Vis contacted him prior to the meeting to request a deferral to July 9, 2026. No reason was provided beyond a general request for additional time. The Board noted at the prior meeting that if a further deferral was requested, the petitioner would need to come prepared at the July meeting to explain why and with progress to report.

Motion to defer 2025-46 (M&L Adventures) and 2026-05 (M&L Adventure LLC) to the July 9, 2026 BZA meeting made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Jackson.

Motion carries, 5–0.

New Business

1. 2026-15 — Gust — Developmental Variance APPROVED 3–2

Petitioner’s Comments

Suzanne Gust and Michael Gust appeared. They described the situation: the property is a corner lot with a smaller usable backyard than adjacent lots because the HOA-required fence line reduces the usable rear space. They wish to install a 12×24-foot oval aboveground pool and a 10×16-foot shed. The pool cannot be sized smaller — this is the minimum production size for an oval pool that fits the configuration needed to navigate the space.

Discussion during the hearing resolved the shed variance as unnecessary: after measuring the drawings with the Board, it was determined the shed can be placed at 6 feet from the side property line (meeting the ordinance requirement) without compromising the overall plan. The shed variance is therefore withdrawn.

The remaining variance needed: 9 feet of separation between the pool and the covered porch structure (required: 10 feet). The one-foot gap exists because the 40-foot utility easement at the rear constrains the pool’s placement, and the covered porch’s overhang brings the effective distance to 9 feet.

Mr. Reiling noted the Board has generally held to the 10-foot minimum for pool-to-structure separation in recent cases, though it has approved 9-foot separations in prior years. Mr. Burnham noted the corner lot constraint is a genuine hardship not of the petitioners’ making.

Remonstrators

No remonstrators appeared.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak noted the unique constraint of the corner lot and the HOA fence line limitation. The pool-to-structure separation concern is a safety issue; the 9-foot distance leaves adequate clearance for emergency access.

Board Discussion and Decision

After discussion, the Board agreed that only one variance is required: 9-foot separation between the pool and the covered porch structure. The shed does not require a variance as the petitioners will maintain the required 6-foot side yard setback.

Motion to approve 2026-15 (Gust) developmental variance to permit a 9-foot minimum separation distance between the pool and all other building structures (including the covered porch and the shed), to the Findings of Fact, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Jackson.

Motion carries, 3–2. Variance APPROVED.

2. 2026-16 — Turpin — Developmental Variance APPROVED 4–1

Petitioner’s Comments

Tesnie Turpin appeared. She explained the existing single-car garage was built in approximately 1950 and currently sits approximately 9.77 feet from the road — a longstanding non-conforming condition. The proposal is to demolish the existing garage, re-level the concrete, and construct a new two-car garage at approximately the same front position. The petitioner requested an 8-foot variance (rather than 9 feet) to allow minor construction tolerance without needing to return for a permit amendment if the structure ends up 8 feet 10 inches from the street rather than exactly 9 feet. A 19×20-foot composite deck to the rear of the proposed garage was a factor in not wanting to push the garage further back.

Mr. Kiepura clarified for the record: the building permit will reflect 9 feet from the road; the 8-foot variance simply provides a buffer against minor construction variance. If the structure is built at 9 feet, it meets the approved setback; the 8-foot variance is a backstop only.

Remonstrators

No remonstrators appeared.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak noted this represents an improvement on an existing non-conforming condition. The setback is virtually the same as the current garage and the result is a nicer, functional two-car garage. No engineering concerns.

Board Discussion and Decision

Mr. Reiling maintained his standard position of not approving below the minimum setback. The majority found the application reasonable — the existing condition is already non-conforming and the new structure is no more non-conforming than the old one.

Motion to approve 2026-16 (Turpin) developmental variance to demolish the existing single-car garage and construct a new two-car garage with an 8-foot setback from the street, to the Findings of Fact, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Jackson.

Motion carries, 4–1. Variance APPROVED.

3. 2026-17 — Azucar Ice Cream Shop — Use Variance CONTINUED

Julian Bravo, owner of Azucar Ice Cream Shop, appeared. Mr. Kubiak reported that the legal publication requirements were not completed — the hearing notice was not published in the newspaper and certified mail notifications to adjacent property owners were not sent. The legals are not in order.

Mr. Kiepura advised Mr. Bravo that the matter cannot proceed without proper notice. Mr. Austgen directed Mr. Bravo to return to the Building Department, obtain a new application, ensure newspaper publication, and obtain the list of adjacent property owners from the county auditor and complete certified mailings. Mr. Bravo explained that a family circumstance (first visit of in-laws from out of the country) made the past two weeks unavailable for follow-up. The Board accepted the explanation and continued the matter to July 9.

Motion to continue 2026-17 (Azucar Ice Cream Shop) to the July 9, 2026 BZA meeting, with direction to the petitioner to complete all required newspaper publication and adjacent owner certified mail notifications prior to the next hearing, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 5–0.

4. 2026-18 — Smit — Developmental Variance DENIED 5–0

Petitioner’s Comments

Steve and Angela Smit appeared. Mr. Smit explained the timeline: an existing aboveground pool was already in place. He pulled a permit for an open pergola over a new 16×20-foot deck. During construction, he changed the pergola to a covered roof structure (adding shingles and a solid roof) for additional shade. He did not pull a new or amended permit for the covered roof, believing it was in the same category as the pergola. He did not consult the Building Department about the change. Tony Gatto inspected and identified the covered roof as requiring a variance for the 7-foot pool-to-roof setback.

The covered roof overhang extends to within 7 feet of the pool edge. The footings, pool, and deck are all in place and interconnected; moving the pool would require excavating footings and replumbing, at substantial cost. The petitioner noted a neighbor’s pool-to-structure distance appears to be 9 feet.

Remonstrators

No remonstrators appeared.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak confirmed Tony Gatto conducted the inspection and identified the issue. The permit was for a pergola; the covered roof is a different and more substantial structure requiring its own permit and meeting setback requirements. Mr. Kubiak noted the options available to the petitioner: (1) cut the roof back by 3 feet to achieve 10-foot compliance; or (2) move the pool back by 3 feet. Either resolves the matter without a variance. Mr. Kubiak committed to working with the petitioner on the permit adjustment.

Board Discussion and Decision

The Board noted that 7 feet is the smallest pool-to-structure separation it has ever been asked to approve; the prior minimum presented to the Board was 9 feet and more typically the 10-foot standard has been held firm. Mr. Burnham noted a safety rationale for the 10-foot requirement: emergency responders need adequate clearance around a pool. The petitioner himself acknowledged his background as a safety coordinator and understood the concern.

Mr. Kiepura noted that if the Board denies the variance and the petitioner returns with the same request, they must wait one calendar year. However, if the petitioner modifies the structure (cuts the roof back or moves the pool) to comply, no variance is needed and no waiting period applies.

Motion to deny 2026-18 (Smit) developmental variance for a covered deck roof with a 7-foot setback from the pool, to the Findings of Fact, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Reiling.

Motion carries, 5–0. Variance DENIED.

Public Comment

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

Adjournment

There being no further business, Mr. Kiepura adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:45 p.m.