Cedar Lake Plan Commission Public Meeting Minutes

Call To Order:

Mr. Kiepura called the Plan Commission Public Meeting to order on Wednesday, December 17, 2025, at 7:00 pm with its members attending on-site. The Pledge of Allegiance was said by all.

Roll Call:

Members Present via Zoom: None

Members Present On-Site: Chuck Becker; Greg Parker; Robert Carnahan; Pete Swick; James Hunley; Jerry Wilkening, Vice President; and John Kiepura, President. A quorum was attained. Also present: Luke Sherry, Town Engineer; David Austgen, Town Attorney; Ben Eldridge, Town Manager; Tim Kubiak, Director of Operations; Cheryl Hajduk, Recording Secretary

Absent: None

Board Appointments:

Board of Zoning Appeals:

A motion was made by Mr. Hunley and seconded by Mr. Wilkening to nominate Pete Swick to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Swick accepted the nomination. Motion passed unanimously by roll-call vote:

Mr. Austgen reminded Mr. Swick to review the legal criteria for findings of fact and hardship requirements, as there have been matters at the Board of Zoning Appeals that did not meet the proper legal criteria. Mr. Kiepura noted he provided Mr. Swick with findings of fact documentation for use variances and developmental variances, and arranged for him to receive an ordinance book.

Unsafe Building:

A motion was made by Mr. Wilkening and seconded by Mr. Becker to nominate Greg Parker to the Unsafe Building Commission. Motion passed unanimously by roll-call vote:

Minutes: August 20, 2025 Public Meeting; September 3, 2025 Work Session

A motion was made by Mr. Becker and seconded by Mr. Swick to approve the August 20, 2025 Public Meeting; September 3, 2025 Work Session. Motion passed unanimously by roll-call vote:

Old Business:

1. 2025-37- Quick Run Gas Station Lakeview Business Park lot 1.5 – Preliminary Plat Approval

Mr. Kiepura commented the first order of old business is for Petitioner is requesting Preliminary Plat approval.

Mr. Max Jureske (spelling) with DVG Team, representing CLBD South LLC and Shamir Manhani, commented they are requesting approval of preliminary plat for Lot 1.5 in Lakeview Business Park PUD. The preliminary plat creates two new lots (Lots 1 and 2) from the consolidation of three existing lots (Lots 1, 2, and 3). At the prior Plan Commission meeting, the consolidation was declared a minor change to the PUD, allowing this administrative preliminary plat process.

Mr. Sherry commented he had a couple of typos noted on the plat which were fixed. The engineering comments are fairly minor and won’t be addressed until next month anyway. The plat is in good shape.

Mr. Austgen noted this is a public hearing requiring legal review and public comment. He did not have the legals in hand but noted if proofs of publication are an issue, any action should be contingent upon verification of accuracy and compliance.

Mr. Kiepura confirmed the legals are in order and an affidavit of publication from Northwest Indiana Times is in the file.

Mr. Kiepura called for remonstrators for or against. Hearing none, remonstrations were closed.

Mr. Austgen confirmed there is a letter from Christopher B. Burke dated December 2nd in the file.

A motion was made by Mr. Wilkening and seconded by Mr. Becker to approve the petitioner’s request for preliminary plat approval with the following contingencies: (1) legals being in order, (2) verification of public notification mailings, and (3) reference to four pages from Christopher Burke Engineering dated December 2, 2025. Motion passed unanimously by roll-call vote:

2. 2025-40 Dynasty Homebuyers LLC

Mr. Kiepura commented the next order of old business is for Petitioner is requesting approval to divide one existing apartment into two separate units on a B-1 zoned property.

Mr. Jake Rhodes, Dynasty Homebuyers, 200 West Glen Park Avenue, Griffith, Indiana, commented this is his third appearance before the commission. He initially received approval for exterior improvements to the building at 14445 Morse Street, and the roof has already been completed. At the December work session, there were concerns about the deck sticking out too far and the gravel drive. He is now seeking approval to divide the upstairs unit into two residential apartments.

Mr. Rhodes addressed the deck concerns, noting the deck will be a total of 6 feet off the back of the building and will not extend beyond the storage garage next to it, so the setback issue should not be a problem.

Regarding the gravel drive behind the building off 145th Street, Mr. Rhodes indicated it is an existing gravel surface. He asked if gravel is acceptable or if the commission requires asphalt, stating they are willing to make that adjustment.

Discussion occurred regarding parking:

• Residential tenant parking will be in front of building and in back of building
• Two-car attached garage will have two residential spots
• Two cars can park inside the garage
• Additional parking pad proposed toward back of building on right side (east)
• Total of 12 parking spots available not counting the two residential garage spaces
• Site plan shows seven very small lots, but actual parking layout shows 12 spots

Mr. Austgen asked about retail space. Mr. Rhodes confirmed:

• Small retail area downstairs (approximately 1,000 square feet) completely blocked off from garage area
• Will come before commission for retail tenant approval when identified
• Currently planning to create white box space for future tenant
• Garage is for residential tenants, not included with retail space
• Each residential unit would get one garage space

Regarding the metal building, Mr. Rhodes noted there is no running water in it. It could potentially be used as storage but no tenant has been identified. He will come before the commission for any future use of that building.

Mr. Wilkening asked about concrete on the south side of garage at 144th. Mr. Rhodes explained it’s currently a gravel situation. If gravel is acceptable and more cost-effective, they would clean it up and make it look nice. He deferred to the commission whether asphalt is required.

Mr. Kubiak commented:

• Everything on the site plan looks like it will work out
• Never had chance to check on two entrance/exit requirements for each apartment – will review during permit process
• Building needs firewalls upstairs between units
• Residential code requires two and a half parking spaces per unit – this will be achieved with extra space
• Three-unit building (two residential plus retail) may need state release – will determine during permit application
• Total investment north of $200,000 in rehabilitation

Discussion occurred regarding egress requirements. Mr. Rhodes referenced Indiana Residential Code R311.2 which states not less than one egress door shall be provided for each dwelling unit. Windows are present and they are on the second floor. Mr. Kubiak indicated he would verify requirements but believed one exit with egress windows in bedrooms should be sufficient.

Mr. Wilkening asked about entrances to apartments. Mr. Rhodes explained the north unit entrance is on the east side where a red car is shown on the plan, and the south unit entrance is also on the east side of the building.

Mr. Wilkening confirmed Mr. Kubiak is comfortable with the plan. Mr. Kubiak confirmed everything looks fine, and asphalt should be required rather than gravel for the drive area.

A motion was made by Mr. Wilkening and seconded by Mr. Hunley to approve the petitioner’s request to divide one existing apartment into two separate residential units at 14445 Morse Street on a B-1 zoned property, with the contingency that the gravel drive area be asphalted and be in compliance of egress. Motion passed unanimously by roll-call vote:

3. 2025-45- RHB Properties, LLC – Site Plan Waiver

Mr. Kiepura commented the next order of old business is for Petitioner is requesting a Site Plan waiver for business occupancy.

Mr. Nathan Vis, on behalf of RHB Properties, 12632 Wicker Avenue, commented he is seeking a site plan waiver as required by Chapter 17 for new businesses in town. His client purchased the property in May 2022, approximately three to four months after the prior owner went through a site plan revision, complete rezone, and one or two lot modifications bringing everything under the B3 umbrella. Since that time, the client has been leasing out the residential structure on the property. In back there are two commercial buildings leased to three businesses for general storage: HVAC, asphalt, and concrete businesses.

Mr. Vis received a letter in July/August from Mr. Conley inquiring about the property status. There was a complaint about a semi-truck in the driveway which was quickly rectified. The tenant was ordered not to park it there. At that point, there was a request to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to allow the residential structure, which occurred the previous week. There was also a request to come before the Plan Commission for site plan review as the B3 zone is being used for B3 purposes.

Extensive discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of Chapter 17 requirements:

• Mr. Becker questioned whether a site plan exists and whether Chapter 17 applies to like-for-like business use in existing buildings
• Mr. Kubiak confirmed the property was previously used for a cabinet shop and residence
• Mr. Vis explained no alterations, modifications, or expansions to structures or site plan are proposed – only use of existing buildings
• Mr. Wilkening noted there is still outdoor storage and a large pile of stone that was recently spread out
• Mr. Austgen clarified that a waiver of site plan would waive all required subdivision and/or improvements to B3 property
• Discussion occurred about whether this constitutes a pre-existing non-conforming use versus new B3 uses requiring approval
• Mr. Vis referenced prior applications where existing buildings continuing B3 use were not required to install asphalt driveways or parking lots

Significant discussion occurred regarding multiple businesses:

• Property previously had one business, now has three businesses operating
• Mr. Austgen clarified the new zoning ordinance allows multiple businesses in a single building, but each business must be approved
• Mr. Vis was unclear there was a restriction on how many businesses can operate on B3 property
• Mr. Kubiak confirmed each business needs approval, which is why the petitioner appeared before the commission

Mr. Wilkening raised concerns about property compliance:

• A red tag was placed on the property in June 2024 regarding a business (Seal It Up LLC) having a sign with no occupancy
• The property has not been in compliance for approximately a year and a half
• Eyewitness accounts of outdoor storage and driving through grass
• Property has residential properties on two sides requiring screening
• Mr. Vis noted the tenant driving through grass received an eviction notice two days ago

Mr. Vis presented a proposal for screening and separation:

• Orange fence would be installed to provide blockade from residential area
• Client also owns the residential house on the corner
• Willing to install arborvitaes (50% coverage, 4 or 6 feet) to create separation as required by code for residential separation
• Along 135th Place, half is covered with nicely manicured pine trees

Commission members expressed concerns about approving a waiver with zero improvements:

• Mr. Becker suggested this should be discussed in a work session rather than public meeting
• Mr. Wilkening emphasized need for drawings showing parking, business separations in the building, loading/unloading areas
• Need for screening along 135th Place to prevent access from that direction
• Mr. Sherry needs to conduct site visit to assess where engineering requirements may be modified
• Requirements include blacktop, lighting, stormwater management per Chapters 9 and 17
• Property needs proper site plan documentation for enforcement purposes
• Stipulations needed to prevent problems for residential neighbors

Discussion occurred regarding parking and outdoor storage:

• Current parking is all pre-existing gravel
• ADA parking requirements need to be addressed for multiple businesses
• Property is being used for storage for businesses – HVAC units, equipment
• Any outdoor storage requires blacktop or hard surface
• Recent gravel pile was spread out creating more outdoor parking area
• B3 outdoor storage requirements have always included blacktop

Mr. Austgen asked what direction the commission wanted the petitioner to follow. The commission requested the following items for the work session:

• Site drawings showing parking layout
• Documentation of how businesses are separated in the building
• Loading and unloading areas for each business
• Screening/landscaping plan along 135th Place and adjacent to residential properties
• Written commitments for screening requirements
• Site visit and assessment by Mr. Sherry regarding engineering requirements
• Clarification on outdoor storage needs and hard surface requirements
• Three separate entrances to be documented on plans

Extended discussion occurred among commission members and staff regarding the process for existing buildings with new uses:

• Mr. Kubiak explained he is addressing numerous compliance issues from the past eight months
• Existing buildings have been treated differently than new buildings depending on circumstances
• Some existing properties have perfect parking lots with handicap spots and entrances; others do not
• The commission’s role is to determine what improvements are needed for existing uses
• This property has three businesses operating that need individual approvals
• Mr. Eldridge noted the process worked as intended – petitioner came seeking waiver, did not receive it, commission identified what needs to be addressed
• Petitioner will return to work session with requested information

Mr. Wilkening emphasized this is different from previous uses because:

• Former use pre-existed town incorporation – was residence with business before town was established
• Never received approval because it existed before zoning
• Now property is a rental dwelling with three other rental businesses – completely changed use
• Heavy electric in buildings indicates more than cold storage
• Chapter 17 requirements must be followed

A motion was made by Mr. Wilkening and seconded by Mr. Hunley to deferred the site plan waiver request for RHB Properties LLC at 13418 Wicker Avenue to the January 7, 2026 work session to resolve outstanding compliance issues and clarify usage conditions. Motion passed unanimously by roll-call vote:

Letters of Credit:

1. Beacon Pointe Unit 6 – Performance Letter of Credit in the amount of $133,733.95 to expire on January 27, 2026
2. Beacon Pointe Unit 7 – Performance Letter of Credit in the amount of $309,673.13 to expire on January 27, 2026

• The commission reviewed two letters of credit for Beacon Pointe Unit 6 and Unit 7, totaling approximately $443,407 expiring on January 27, 2026, with confirmation from the developer that six-month extensions will be requested before expiration to maintain financial security.
• Staff will verify timely renewal submissions prior to the January 7 meeting to ensure continuous coverage for performance guarantees tied to ongoing developments.

Discussion ensued with Mr. Kubiak and the Board to monitor and enforce compliance with B3 zoning codes on outdoor storage, lighting, and landscaping, especially between commercial and residential zones; schedule follow-up inspections and potential enforcement.

Public Comment:

None was had.

Adjournment:

Meeting adjourned at 7:58 pm.