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 June 11, 2026 regular meeting were distributed in advance.

Motion to approve the June 11, 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 LLCWITHDRAWN

Mr. Kiepura reported that the owner, developer, and attorney for these two items have withdrawn the requests until further notice, with the intention to refile when ready to proceed with the project. Mr. Austgen recommended the Board formalize the withdrawal by motion and that staff send written confirmation to the attorney following the meeting, memorializing the withdrawal for the record.

Motion to accept the withdrawal of 2025-46 and 2026-05 (M&L Adventures / M&L Adventure LLC) without prejudice to refiling, and to direct staff to send written confirmation to the petitioner's attorney, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Reiling.

Motion carries, 5–0.

3. 2026-17 — Azucar Ice Cream Shop — Use VarianceDEFERRED to August 13, 2026

Julian Bravo, owner, appeared. Mr. Austgen advised that while the legal notice requirements are largely in order, a deficiency remains — the newspaper publication portion of the required advertisement is not complete. Mr. Austgen confirmed the Board may not proceed with the hearing until this deficiency is corrected.

Mr. Bravo explained he had sent letters and emails to try to resolve the outstanding item but had not yet received confirmation. Mr. Austgen noted that email is not part of the Board's formal notice requirements and cautioned that the process should be completed properly through the Recording Secretary's office to avoid confusion or missed notice to affected citizens.

Discussion addressed whether the deferral should require Mr. Bravo to fully restart the notice process (including new certified mailings to adjacent owners) or simply complete the single missing item (newspaper publication). The Board's consensus, with Mr. Austgen's concurrence, was that since the certified mail notices already correctly informed adjacent owners of tonight's hearing date, those owners had the opportunity to appear or raise objections and did not; therefore, only the newspaper publication needs to be completed prior to the August hearing, without need to re-certify the mailings. The Board cautioned Mr. Bravo that if the outstanding item is not resolved and confirmed with Ms. Hajduk before the August meeting, a request for a further deferral should be made in advance; if the matter is not ready by August and a full restart becomes necessary, the complete notice process (including recertification) would then be required.

Motion to defer 2026-17 (Azucar Ice Cream Shop) to the August 13, 2026 meeting, with direction to the petitioner to complete the outstanding newspaper publication requirement in coordination with Ms. Hajduk prior to that date, made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Reiling.

Motion carries, 5–0.

New Business

1. 2026-19 — Robinson Outdoor LLC — Developmental VarianceDENIED (4–1)

Petitioner's Comments

Danny Marler (50 Robinson Industrial Drive, Perryville, Missouri), representing Robinson Outdoor LLC, appeared. Key points presented:

• Sign specifications: 8-foot by 16-foot, two-sided, V-shaped digital billboard; overall structure height approximately 19 feet; company is in the process of purchasing the underlying land, contingent on obtaining all required permits.
• Community benefits package: Free use of the display for National Weather Service tornado warnings (automatically overrides advertising and reverts control to NWS during an active threat), Amber Alerts, Silver Alerts, fugitive alerts, and Town department needs (Fire Department, Public Works notices such as boil water orders or road closures). No cost to the Town for any of this.
• Brightness/technical: Auto-dimming technology adjusts for ambient light and weather; sign operates below the state maximum nit level; no motion, flashing, or video — content changes are instantaneous only.
• Advertisers: Maximum of 8 advertisers per side per state law; limited to local/regional businesses (company does not accept certain categories of advertisers).
• Cameras: Two camera-like devices on the sign structure are used solely for the company's own 24/7 remote monitoring of the display (to detect tampering, damage, or unauthorized content) — not general surveillance. Mr. Marler stated the cameras do not record, are not shared with or accessible to any third party (including the Town), and are oriented toward the sign face itself, not toward surrounding properties.
• Storm response precedent: Mr. Marler described the company's billboards remaining functional after an EF4 tornado struck Mayfield, Kentucky, and being turned over to FEMA/Red Cross/city officials for four months of public emergency communication use at no cost, as an example of the community value the displays can provide during disasters.
• Chamber of Commerce: Mr. Marler indicated he has informally met with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss potential future coordination, though nothing is finalized.

Remonstrators

Terry Broadhurst (14513 Morse Street) raised a question regarding the on-sign cameras, noting this was the first time camera details had been disclosed publicly through the review process (having followed the item through the Plan Commission as well) and asking what rights the company retains over any footage and whether the cameras could be used by law enforcement. Mr. Marler responded that the feed is continuous and unrecorded (comparable to a doorbell camera live view), is not accessible to the Town or any third party, and exists solely to allow the company to monitor the physical condition and displayed content of its own sign.

Building Department's Comments

Mr. Kubiak had no additional comments beyond the discussion.

Board Discussion

Extensive discussion followed regarding the appropriateness of the requested setback relaxation:

• Mr. Kiepura confirmed the sign would be located approximately 63 feet from the nearest residential structure, against a required minimum of 600 feet — a reduction of 537 feet, or roughly one-tenth of the required distance.
• Mr. Reiling stated that while the ordinance allows some flexibility (the Board has historically granted reductions on the order of 20–30 feet), a request to relax the standard down to one-tenth of the required distance defeats the purpose of the 600-foot requirement, which exists specifically to protect nearby residential properties.
• Discussion confirmed the sign would also need to maintain the required setback from a nearby condominium development across the street, in addition to the single-family residence directly behind the proposed site; members expressed doubt the site could satisfy the requirement in any direction given its location.
• Mr. Marler clarified the sign faces north-south (parallel to the roadway) rather than directly toward the residential structures to the east, and that existing landscaping on the condominium property would provide some seasonal screening, though members noted the screening would be far less effective once deciduous trees lose their leaves in fall and winter.
• Mr. Burnham and other members expressed support for the concept of a digital community-benefit sign in Cedar Lake generally, and acknowledged the value of the emergency alert and community messaging features, but concluded the specific proposed location does not allow for a variance of this magnitude without setting a precedent that would be difficult to deny to future similar requests.
• Mr. Kiepura stated his personal view that he would like to see this type of sign in Town and voted in favor of allowing the variance to proceed.

Motion to deny the developmental variance request for 2026-19 (Robinson Outdoor LLC) made by Mr. Burnham; seconded by Mr. Reiling.

Motion carries, 4–1. Variance DENIED.

Public Comment

Terry Cox — 8505 W. 139th Avenue (President, Lakeshore Subdivision Association)

Ms. Cox, appearing in her capacity as President of the Lakeshore Subdivision Association (a nonprofit homeowners association), addressed the Board regarding the home under construction at 8421 W. 139th Avenue. This matter is not a formally noticed agenda item for this meeting; Ms. Cox's appearance was during the general public comment period. A summary of her statement:

• On April 9, 2026, the Board unanimously approved a developmental variance for this property based on a specific revised site plan showing the home's location, approved setbacks, and a driveway oriented toward Huseman Street. She stated the home currently under construction does not match that approved plan.
• She described the sequence of events since construction began differing from the approved plan became apparent: residents notified the Association, the Association reported the discrepancy to Town Hall, a stop-work order was issued by the Building Commissioner, and the stop-work order was subsequently lifted. She stated the Building Commissioner told her the stop-work order was lifted at the direction of the Town Council.
• She stated that at the July 7, 2026 Town Council meeting, she learned the full Town Council had never formally voted to lift the stop-work order; rather, a decision had reportedly been made following a private meeting involving three Town Council members (acting under the Council Affairs Committee), a surveyor, and an attorney other than the Town Attorney. She noted the Town Attorney recommended at that meeting, on two occasions, that a new stop-work order be issued and that the Town Engineer inspect the site.
• She confirmed a site review is scheduled for the following Monday involving the Town Engineer, the Building Inspector, herself as Association President, and Mr. Kiepura, to examine emergency access, drainage, safety, and construction conformance.
• She cited provisions of the Town's zoning ordinance placing enforcement responsibility with the Building Commissioner, Plan Commission, and this Board, and providing that permits issued in conflict with the ordinance are void, and that permits must conform to Board-approved variances.
• She posed a series of questions for the record: Who approved the revised construction plans, and under what authority? Why were any material changes not returned to this Board for public review, consistent with the process followed for the original approval? Given the Town Attorney's recommendation for a new stop-work order, why has construction been permitted to continue pending Monday's review? Who authorized construction to continue in the absence of a Town Council vote?
• She emphasized the Association is not asking that the property owner be treated differently than any other applicant — only that the same process and standards be applied consistently. She requested the Board determine whether the current construction matches the April 9 approval, and, if not, take whatever action is within its authority or refer the matter to appropriate Town officials for enforcement, including consideration of pausing construction until the review is complete.

Board Response

Mr. Kiepura responded that the variance this Board approved on April 9, 2026 was limited to setback relief — 25 feet on all applicable sides — and that, based on his review, those approved setbacks are being met by the structure as currently under construction. He explained the Board's approval did not specify or approve a particular driveway location or building orientation; those elements, he stated, are not typically within the scope of a setback variance and may fall under Plan Commission or Building Department review depending on the circumstances.

Mr. Kiepura acknowledged he had watched the July 7 Town Council meeting and found Ms. Cox's points substantive. He explained his understanding that the Council Affairs Committee (three Town Council members) reviewed the stop-work order and recommended it be lifted after concluding there was no zoning violation, though he noted the broader concerns raised at the Council meeting (drainage, emergency access) prompted the scheduling of Monday's engineering site review. He stated this Board has no authority to act on drainage, engineering, or permitting questions outside the scope of the setback variance it approved, and that those questions are appropriately being directed to the Town Council, Town Engineer, and Building Department. He recommended the Board and public await the outcome of Monday's site review before drawing further conclusions.

In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Cox regarding who has authority over building orientation if not this Board, Mr. Kiepura indicated that could fall to the Plan Commission or Building Department depending on the specific permit history and any subsequent modifications.

Becky Davis — 8504 W. 139th Avenue

Ms. Davis reiterated a statement from the April 9, 2026 hearing, stating that Mr. Reiling had explicitly confirmed at that meeting, in response to her direct question, that there would be no driveway access onto 139th Avenue for this property, and that this exchange is documented on the meeting video recording.

Mr. Kiepura thanked those who spoke, noted the matter would be further examined at Monday's site review, and declined to reach further conclusions at this meeting given the Board's limited jurisdiction over the issues raised. No further public comment was received.

Adjournment

There being no further business, Mr. Kiepura adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:54 PM.