Town of Cedar Lake
Plan Commission
Public 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, President; Greg Parker, Secretary; Robert Carnahan; Chuck Becker; James Hunley; Jerry Wilkening; Pete Swick.

Members Absent: None — full board present.

Staff Present: Tim Kubiak, Director of Operations; Luke Sherry, Town Engineer (CBBEL); David Austgen, Town Attorney; Cheryl Hajduk, Recording Secretary.

Staff Absent: Benjamin Eldridge, Town Manager.

Minutes

The minutes of the December 3, 2025 Work Session and the December 17, 2025 Public Meeting were distributed in advance. No corrections were noted. Mr. Kiepura called for a motion.

Motion to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2025 Work Session and December 17, 2025 Public Meeting made by Mr. Becker; seconded by Mr. Parker.

Vote: Becker — Yes; Parker — Yes; Carnahan — Yes; Swick — Yes; Hunley — Yes; Wilkening — Yes; Kiepura — Yes. Motion carries, 7–0.

Old Business

1. 2025-27 — M&L’s Adventure, LLC — Rezone, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan

Request: Rezone from B-3/R-2 to B-2; Preliminary Plat; and Site Plan approval for a one-lot subdivision to accommodate a multi-tenant commercial strip center (up to seven retail/service units) with a Starbucks as one anticipated anchor tenant.

Note: This item was taken in three separate actions — Rezone, Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan — as reflected below.

Petitioner’s Comments

The petitioner’s representative, Nathan Vis appeared on behalf of M&L’s Adventure, LLC and provided an update. He acknowledged the extended review process and thanked Town Engineer Luke Sherry and his engineering team for their work resolving the site’s significant drainage challenges. Key changes since the last review:

• A second lot (Lot 2) was added to the preliminary plat to accommodate an overflow drainage swale that will direct excess stormwater toward the existing drainage swale along the railroad right-of-way. This required acquisition of additional property and re-advertisement of the petition.
• The water service configuration was resolved: a 4-inch water main will extend from the public main to the building, with individual service connections to each of the up to seven units, served through an accessible utility/meter room. Mr. Kubiak noted that a final plumbing plan showing internal water distribution and individual meters is the remaining item to finalize.
• Car stacking: a depiction was included in the packet showing that the site can accommodate stacking of 19 vehicles before reaching the parking lot, addressing a concern raised at a prior meeting.
• A B-2-to-residential-compliant fence will run along the rear of the property and continue along the drainage swale triangle to the roadway.

Legals

Mr. Austgen confirmed that any action taken should be contingent upon completion of legal review. He noted an approximately 1.5-inch file of materials had not yet been fully reviewed. Legal review contingency was incorporated into all subsequent motions.

Town Engineer’s Comments

Mr. Sherry confirmed the project is near completion from an engineering standpoint. A preliminary plat was received at approximately 3:15 p.m. on the day of the meeting. He noted a handful of minor cleanup comments on the preliminary plat but no substantive issues. The remaining engineering item is the final plumbing plan showing how the 4-inch service will branch to individual unit meters.

Remonstrators

Mr. Kiepura called for remonstrators three times. No remonstrators appeared for or against.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak stated the site plan has been before the Commission for approximately four months and is unchanged; the only new element is the addition of Lot 2 for drainage, which was expected and previously discussed. He noted the rezone from B-2/B-3/R-2 to a clean B-2 designation is appropriate for the intended use, and that BZA variances for parking (side yard and rear yard) were previously obtained. Outstanding BZA items — the expanded monument sign and the electronic off-premise billboard sign — had not yet been heard by the BZA and remain pending. Mr. Kubiak suggested that if the Commission was uncomfortable with outstanding items, the preliminary plat could be approved with contingencies and the site plan deferred one month to allow BZA action and additional engineering cleanup.

Discussion — Traffic and Ingress/Egress

Members discussed traffic and ingress/egress on W. 133^rd Avenue. The petitioner noted two ingress/egress points are planned on 133^rd Avenue, designed in coordination with the anticipated anchor tenant’s site requirements. Mr. Becker raised concerns about westbound drivers using the 133^rd center turn lane before the railroad tracks to turn left into the site. The petitioner and Mr. Sherry confirmed that the western driveway is located approximately 150 feet west of the concrete median termination point, providing adequate queuing distance. Mr. Wilkening noted an existing INDOT traffic study from the 133^rd Avenue widening and industrial park project was on file at Town Hall, though dated. Members agreed that the corridor design was always intended to support commercial development, and that lane markings maintained by public works would be critical as the corridor develops.

Discussion — Billboard vs. Monument Sign

Extended discussion addressed the proposed off-premises electronic billboard sign, which is distinct from the standard monument sign to which the petitioner is entitled. Mr. Parker expressed concern that the billboard — as an advertising sign not exclusively serving the on-site businesses — would clutter the 133^rd corridor and effectively create an eighth revenue-generating use on a seven-unit property. Mr. Kiepura noted that other businesses along 133^rd (banks, gas stations, the school) have pole signs and he did not view an on-site monument sign as problematic, but concurred with the distinction between a monument sign advertising the site’s tenants versus a third-party advertising billboard. Mr. Parker clarified he has no objection to a monument sign for the businesses; his concern is the off-premise billboard component. The BZA will determine both sign variance requests.

Action — Rezone (B-3/R-2 to B-2)

Mr. Austgen clarified that the rezone requires a favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission to Town Council. Town Council takes final action. At Mr. Austgen’s suggestion, the motion was amended to make the favorable recommendation contingent upon approval of the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan.

Motion to forward a favorable recommendation to Town Council for the rezone of the subject parcels from B-3/R-2 to B-2, contingent upon Plan Commission approval of the Preliminary Plat and Site Plan, made by Mr. Becker; seconded by Mr. Wilkening.

Vote: Becker — Yes; Parker — Yes; Carnahan — Yes; Swick — Yes; Hunley — Yes; Wilkening — Yes; Kiepura — Yes. Motion carries, 7–0.

Action — Preliminary Plat

Mr. Austgen clarified that Preliminary Plat approval is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Plan Commission and does not go to Town Council. Mr. Parker called for remonstrators on this portion, and none appeared. Discussion continued regarding contingencies. Four contingencies were identified: (1) resolution of all engineering comments in the CBBEL letter dated February 6, 2026; (2) legal review completion; (3) BZA approval of the pending sign variance requests (expanded monument sign and off-premises billboard); and (4) final plumbing plans submitted and approved. Members debated whether the BZA sign approval should be a contingency of the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Kubiak clarified that if the billboard is denied by the BZA, the site plan would simply not include it; the building itself is not conditioned on the billboard. After further discussion, the contingency was agreed to encompass both pending BZA sign items.

Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for 2025-27 contingent upon: (1) resolution of all comments in the Christopher Burke Engineering letter dated February 6, 2026; (2) completion of legal review; and (3) approval of pending BZA sign variance items, made by Mr. Parker; seconded by Mr. Wilkening.

Vote: Becker — Yes; Parker — Yes; Carnahan — Yes; Swick — Yes; Hunley — Yes; Wilkening — Yes; Kiepura — Yes. Motion carries, 7–0.

Action — Site Plan

Mr. Parker moved to defer the Site Plan to the March 18, 2026 public meeting to allow: completion of engineering comments, legal review, resolution of the BZA sign items, and submission of the final plumbing plan. Mr. Wilkening seconded. The vote was not unanimous; Mr. Swick and Mr. Hunley voted no, preferring to act on the site plan the same evening.

Motion to defer the Site Plan for 2025-27 to the March 18, 2026 public meeting made by Mr. Parker; seconded by Mr. Wilkening.

Vote: Becker — Yes; Parker — Yes; Carnahan — Yes; Swick — No; Hunley — No; Wilkening — Yes; Kiepura — Yes. Motion carries, 5–2.

2. 2025-35 — Diamond Towers V — Site Plan Review

Request: Updated Site Plan review for a cell phone tower.

No petitioner or petitioner’s representative appeared. Mr. Kubiak noted that at the prior meeting the petitioner indicated she would appear or have her attorneys contact the building department, but no contact had been received. Mr. Sherry confirmed there was no updated drainage plan or engineering submission since the last meeting. Members noted outstanding items remain unresolved, including a 50% cost-sharing question on drainage infrastructure.

Motion to defer 2025-35 to the March 18, 2026 public meeting made by Mr. Carnahan; seconded by Mr. Parker.

Vote: Becker — Yes; Parker — Yes; Carnahan — Yes; Swick — Yes; Hunley — Yes; Wilkening — Yes; Kiepura — Yes. Motion carries, 7–0.

3. 2025-43 — Lakeview Business Park, Lot 9 — Site Plan

Request: Site plan approval for a new structure and occupancy for Modern Heating and Cooling.

Petitioner’s Comments

Josh Penley of DVG Team Engineering, 1155 Troutline Road, Crown Point, Indiana, appeared as engineering consultant, accompanied by Brad Zditosky of Modern Heating and Cooling. Mr. Penley stated there have been no changes to the plans since the last review and that all engineering comments in the CBBEL letter dated January 26, 2026 have been addressed, including the water service configuration (the last outstanding item).

Mr. Kubiak noted for the record that the building will house two operations under the same ownership: Modern Heating and Cooling (HVAC contractor) and a Modern Home Builders affiliate (home builder/contracting), both operated by the same owners. Additionally, a second tenant space will be occupied by Mackie Insurance. Mr. Kubiak indicated this was disclosed so the Commission was aware of the full building use without requiring the insurance tenant to come back for a separate site plan approval for occupancy, as no structural or site changes are involved.

Town Engineer’s Comments

Mr. Sherry confirmed all items in the January 26, 2026 review letter were addressed. No outstanding issues remain.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak stated no concerns. The water service matter was resolved. He noted the two co-located businesses (Modern Heating and Cooling and the Modern Home Builders affiliate) operate under the same ownership and no additional site plan review would be needed for that arrangement. The Mackie Insurance tenant was disclosed as a second-occupancy use for the record.

Board Decision

Motion to approve the Site Plan for 2025-43 for a new structure and occupancy at 13721 Osborn Street (Lot 9, Lakeview Business Park), to include occupancy by Modern Heating and Cooling, Modern Home Builders/contracting affiliate, and Mackie Insurance as disclosed, contingent upon full compliance with the Christopher Burke review letter dated January 26, 2026, made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Hunley.

Vote: Becker — Yes; Parker — Yes; Carnahan — Yes; Swick — Yes; Hunley — Yes; Wilkening — Yes; Kiepura — Yes. Motion carries, 7–0.

4. 2025-47 — Wedding Development, LLC — Site Plan

Request: Site plan approval for a single commercial/industrial building on Lot 13, Lakeview Business Park.

Petitioner’s Comments

Ryan Torrenga of Torrenga Engineering, 907 Ridge Road, Munster, Indiana, appeared as engineering consultant. Mr. Torrenga confirmed there have been no changes to the plans since the last meeting, and that all engineering items raised by Mr. Sherry have been addressed and resolved, including the lighting plan.

Town Engineer’s Comments

Mr. Sherry confirmed that all outstanding items — including lighting — were addressed and resolved. No further comments.

Building Department’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak stated no concerns.

Board Decision

Motion to approve the Site Plan for 2025-47 for a single building on Lot 13, Lakeview Business Park, 13791 Osborn Street, contingent upon full compliance with the Christopher Burke Engineering (CBBEL) review letter, made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Vote: Becker — Yes; Parker — Yes; Carnahan — Yes; Swick — Yes; Hunley — Yes; Wilkening — Yes; Kiepura — Yes. Motion carries, 7–0.

5. 2026-01 — Diamond Peak Homes — Extension of Primary Plat for Harvest Creek

Request: One-year extension of Primary Plat for Harvest Creek (98-home subdivision).

Petitioner’s Comments

Michael Herbers, Diamond Peak Homes, 1313 White Hawk Drive, Crown Point, Indiana, appeared. Mr. Herbers noted that nothing has changed in the Harvest Creek plat over the past approximately three years. The development has been ready to proceed but has been unable to commence due to Cedar Lake’s water infrastructure moratorium — the town cannot issue an NOI (Notice of Intent) until the water capacity situation is resolved. Mr. Herbers stated the developer was prepared to begin when the project was originally approved and is seeking a one-year extension of the Primary Plat to maintain the approval while awaiting infrastructure availability.

Legals

Mr. Austgen confirmed that review of legals is not required for a primary plat extension.

Engineering/Building Department Comments

Mr. Sherry and Mr. Kubiak had no objections. The extension request is solely to preserve the approved plat pending resolution of the Town’s water capacity constraint. Mr. Austgen noted the Town’s subdivision control ordinance does not expressly authorize or prohibit extensions; the Commission has been exercising discretion to grant them. He confirmed the inability to start is the Town’s fault, not the developers.

Commission Discussion

Members discussed whether there is a limitation on the number of extensions that may be granted. Mr. Austgen noted no express limitation exists in the ordinance. Members confirmed this is the appropriate action given that the delay is attributable to the Town’s infrastructure constraints. Mr. Parker asked whether any Diamond Peak property adjacent to the subject parcel lies outside town limits; Mr. Herbers confirmed the subject property is within town limits and that he was not aware of adjacent property outside town limits. Mr. Kiepura asked that this be noted for the record.

The extension was approved for one year from the expiration of the current primary plat approval (not from the date of this meeting). The exact expiration date was not recited on the record; Mr. Kubiak noted it is approaching soon.

Motion to extend the Primary Plat for Harvest Creek (2026-01 / Diamond Peak Homes) for one year from the current expiration date – February 15, 2027, made by Mr. Parker; seconded by Mr. Wilkening.

Vote: Parker — Yes; Becker — Yes; Carnahan — Yes; Swick — Yes; Hunley — Yes; Wilkening — Yes; Kiepura — Yes. Motion carries, 7–0.

Update Items

1. Friary Farms Planned Unit Development Update

Note: This was an informational update item only. No action was taken by the Commission. The Friary Farms PUD is headed to Town Council.

Mr. Kubiak provided a status update on the Friary Farms PUD, which previously received a conditional recommendation from the Plan Commission. Key developments since that recommendation:

• Development Plan clarified: A revised plan with specific dimensions, square footages, outside wall heights, and overall heights for every proposed building has been prepared, eliminating previous ambiguities. Each structure now has defined maximum sizes. The plan also includes the previously-discussed fence line along the southern property boundary.
• Water infrastructure: The plan now calls for a public municipal water main extended onto the property via an easement, with individual meters for each commercial unit. Fire hydrants required by the building department will be installed by the developer and turned over to the Town as public infrastructure. Water service lines from the main to each building remain the property owner’s responsibility, consistent with standard Town practice.
• Sewer/Lift Station: A private lift station will serve the development, discharging via force main to the Town’s sewer system. The Town will own from the connection point to the main; the property owner will own and maintain the lift station and all internal sewer lines. Mr. Kubiak acknowledged the Town originally preferred public ownership but concluded that the revenue generated by a small development (initially a wedding venue and a main building, potentially up to six total buildings on 61 acres) does not justify the Town taking on maintenance, electrical, monitoring, and liability costs for the lift station. Individual water meters will allow the Town to track gallonage billed to the property for sewer charge purposes.
• Animal units: The PUD now contains a clear chart specifying animal units: 14 animal units permitted on 30 acres, providing a concrete and enforceable standard.
• Parrish Avenue turn lane: The developer is required to fund and construct a turn lane on Parrish Avenue to accommodate traffic ingress/egress. This is incorporated into the PUD agreement, not merely an easement.
• Timeline: The six-month action deadline (from November 5, 2025 Town Council meeting) was adjusted to September 2026 in recognition that four months had already elapsed since November.

Mr. Kubiak noted the update was presented as a courtesy to allow Commissioners to ask questions or flag concerns before the item proceeds to Town Council. He and the petitioner’s representative confirmed that Mr. Austgen’s legal red-line comments have been incorporated as of the most recent document revision.

Mr. Wilkening and Mr. Parker asked questions about the private lift station arrangement, the IDEM permitting requirements, and the accountability structure.

Mr. Austgen confirmed IDEM will impose permitting requirements including redundancy, capacity, and emergency power specifications. The property owner will be responsible for maintenance; tenants would look to the property owner, not the Town, for sewer service issues. Mr. Kubiak committed to ensuring backup power, monitoring, and maintenance standards are addressed in the engineering approval process.

Public Comment

Rob Henn, 13455 Parrish Avenue

Mr. Henn addressed the Commission regarding Chapter 17 of the Cedar Lake Zoning Ordinance (site plan review requirements), which was amended in a prior year. Mr. Henn noted that under the current language of Chapter 17, any commercial or industrial business must come before the Plan Commission for site plan approval or a site plan waiver — including businesses moving into buildings within PUDs that already have approved site plans. He offered Railside PUD as the example: a business listed as a permitted use in the PUD, moving into a building that already received site plan approval, must still appear before the Plan Commission under Chapter 17, effectively requiring a third appearance (PUD approval, site plan for the building, and again for each new occupant).

Mr. Henn stated that for older buildings that had never received site plan review, Chapter 17 serves its intended purpose. For PUDs with current approved site plans and specifically enumerated permitted uses, the requirement appears redundant. He asked whether language exempting PUDs from the occupancy-level site plan review could be developed, at least when the proposed use is already listed in the PUD and the site plan has been approved and no structural changes are occurring.

Mr. Parker acknowledged the concern and agreed the Chapter 17 amendment works well for pre-existing buildings but may create redundancy for modern PUD developments.

Mr. Austgen noted that the Plan Commission’s site plan review authority derives from state police power (IC § 36-7-4-700 series) and is intended to protect users and transacting parties, not just the town or developer. He acknowledged the discussion identified a potential defect and suggested the Commission consider whether PUD exemption language is warranted, noting that such a change is not something to be resolved the same evening. Members agreed to take the matter under advisement for future ordinance discussion. No action was taken.

Terry Broadhurst, 631 N. State Street, Lockport, Illinois (property at 14513 Morse Street)

Mr. Broadhurst expressed enthusiasm for the Friary Farms project and indicated he looks forward to the development. He raised substantive questions about the private lift station arrangement: specifically, the division of ownership and responsibility between the Town (from the main connection point out) and the property owner (the lift station and all internal sewer lines); accountability for service calls from water-bill-paying tenants; contract language in tenant leases regarding sewer service responsibility; and the long-term risk of infrastructure complications from a private lift station if the property changes hands or is subdivided. He suggested the Town should ensure contractual obligations regarding lift station maintenance and responsibility appear in tenant leases and future conveyance documents.

Mr. Kubiak and Mr. Wilkening responded to Mr. Broadhurst’s questions, reiterating the ownership demarcation and acknowledging that IDEM permit conditions and engineering specifications will address redundancy and backup power requirements. Mr. Wilkening acknowledged sharing similar initial concerns but indicated he was satisfied with the current framework after review. Mr. Kiepura noted Mr. Broadhurst’s time had elapsed and invited any remaining comment to be directed to staff.

Joyce Ivy, 13874 Hatteras Lane, Cedar Lake

Ms. Ivy asked two questions: (1) whether meeting packets — including site plans and drawings — are made available on the Town website alongside agendas; and (2) whether the Friary Farms parking plan (estimated at approximately 300 spaces across three parking areas shown on the conceptual plan) had been discussed in terms of Parrish Avenue queuing. On (1), Mr. Kubiak explained that packets are not routinely posted online and noted that drawings marked as concept plans are subject to change, which creates risk of public confusion if posted. Mr. Wilkening suggested that members of the public can request copies and receive them via email. On (2), Mr. Wilkening confirmed the PUD agreement requires the developer to fund and construct a turn lane on Parrish Avenue for southbound traffic. Ms. Ivy indicated she was interested in the Friary Farms plan and was encouraged to obtain a copy of the conceptual drawings from staff.

Tabled

2023-18 — Bay Bridge
2023-19 — Founders Creek
2023-20 — Red Cedars

Adjournment

Mr. Kiepura adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:53 p.m.

Next Meeting: Plan Commission Work Session — Wednesday, March 4, 2026 at 6:00 P.M., Cedar Lake Town Hall Meeting Room.