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

Minutes

The following minutes were distributed in advance and presented for approval: January 7, 2026 Work Session; January 21, 2026 Public Meeting; February 4, 2026 Work Session; and February 18, 2026 Public Meeting. No corrections were noted.

Motion to approve the minutes of the January 7, 2026 Work Session; January 21, 2026 Public Meeting; February 4, 2026 Work Session; and February 18, 2026 Public Meeting made by Mr. Parker; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 6–0.

Old Business

2023-13 – Lakeside Unit 2, Block 2 — Primary Plat Extension (Not on Printed Agenda)

Jack Huis, DVG Engineering, appeared on behalf of Cedar Lake 133 LLC. Mr. Huis explained that the Lakeside Unit 2, Block 2 primary plat covers approximately 150 homes on the south portion of the Lakeside development’s initial 80-acre project. The developer plans to complete the east side of the lake in 2026, wrapping up the overall project. A one-year extension is requested as the current primary plat approval is approaching its expiration (estimated April or May 2026).

Mr. Parker asked about the status of the water line for the Lakeside south project. Mr. Huis confirmed that to his knowledge, the Lakeside south project is on hold pending resolution of some outstanding PUD agreement items. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Huis to convey to his client that the water line issue needs to be addressed as soon as possible, as it is holding up other matters. Mr. Kubiak noted there are also disagreements regarding pipe specifications and water line locations. Mr. Sherry and Mr. Kubiak had no engineering objections to the extension itself.

Motion to approve a one-year extension of the Primary Plat for Lakeside Unit 2, Block 2, with exact dates to be confirmed by staff, made by Mr. Carnahan; seconded by Mr. Wilkening.

Motion carries, 6–0.

1. 2024-21 — DeSimmone — Railside Lot 17 — Occupancy

Mike DeSimmone, M&M Warehouse, appeared. He noted a correction to the record: the correct address for Lot 17 is 13631 Alexander Street; 13651 is Lot 18. Mr. DeSimmone stated he intends to occupy Lot 17 with his own operations and construction equipment while Lot 18 is being prepared. When a tenant is ready for Lot 18, that tenant will appear before the Commission through the standard process. Mr. Sherry and Mr. Kubiak had no objections; the site plan and parking layout were previously approved and remain in place.

Motion to approve occupancy for M&M Warehouse at 13631 Alexander Street (Lot 17, Railside Industrial Park), with address corrected to 13631 from 13651, made by Mr. Carnahan; seconded by Mr. Wilkening.

Motion carries, 6–0.

2. 2025-11 — BSC Real Estate (Friary Farms) — PUD Rezone — Favorable Recommendation to Town Council

Nathan Vis, Vis Law, appeared on behalf of BSC Real Estate LLC. Mr. Vis noted his office address has changed to 13830 Alexander Street. He stated that since the last Commission meeting, he sent minor document tweaks — a date update for the proposed Town Council meeting and corrected exhibit numbers — and that nothing substantive changed from the version reviewed at the February work session. Mr. Sherry reviewed the revised documents and found no engineering issues. Mr. Kubiak had no comments.

Commission Discussion

Mr. Wilkening led an extended discussion about moving the PUD recommendation forward responsibly. Key points raised:

• Mr. Wilkening expressed a desire to make a favorable recommendation to Town Council with contingencies: specifically, that the two legal teams (Mr. Austgen and Mr. Vis) meet to finalize outstanding details in the development agreement before signatures are applied to the ordinance. He noted his support for the project and desire to keep it moving.
• Mr. Vis pressed for specifics as to what concerns remained, noting his client needed clear direction before committing further investment. He referenced the prior September recommendation that was sent back, and his client’s need for certainty.
• Mr. Austgen clarified that his remaining comments relate to the development agreement — the town’s primary contractual protection — and are focused on ensuring conditions, monitoring requirements, liability assignments, and definitional clarity are properly captured. He characterized these as editorial and organizational rather than substantive objections to the project. He confirmed he and Mr. Vis can resolve these items. He proposed a pathway: the Commission issues a favorable recommendation tonight; he and Mr. Vis finalize the development agreement; signatures on the ordinance are withheld pending completion of that work.
• Mr. Austgen raised a broader concern about the PUD review process: projects are coming before the Commission before sufficient engineering and legal preparation is in place, leaving the Commission and Town attorney without the information needed to protect the Town’s interests. He noted this has been a recurring challenge given turnover in planning staff, and called for a more structured intake and review process going forward.
• Mr. Kubiak and Mr. Wilkening acknowledged the project arrived before the Commission earlier than it should have, but noted it is now in a workable position. Mr. Wilkening expressed comfort with the current state given the clear development parameters: nine structures on 61 acres, with defined sizes, heights, uses, and minimal hard surface coverage relative to the total property.
• Mr. Kiepura noted a technical correction: the signature block on the PUD documents listed the wrong Town Council Vice President. Mr. Vis confirmed he will update it (now Richard Thiel).

Mr. Vis summarized his understanding of the pathway forward: the Commission issues a favorable recommendation tonight, Mr. Austgen and Mr. Vis resolve outstanding development agreement items in a meeting between now and the Town Council date, and the ordinance signature is withheld until that work is complete. Mr. Austgen agreed that was a fair characterization.

Motion to confirm and forward a favorable recommendation to Town Council for the Planned Unit Development at 12921 Parish Avenue (BSC Real Estate, LLC / Friary Farms), with the contingency that Town Attorney Austgen and petitioner’s counsel Vis meet to finalize all outstanding development agreement details, and that signatures on the PUD ordinance be withheld until those items are resolved, made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Parker.

Motion carries, 6–0.

3. 2025-27 — M&L’s Adventure, LLC — Site Plan and Final Plat

Nathan Vis appeared on behalf of M&L’s Adventure, LLC. Mr. Vis reported that CBBEL’s final engineering review letter was received on March 13, 2026, and that all comments were addressed. The final plat had one remaining item: an easement was needed over the existing 10-inch sanitary main that serves off-site property. The petitioner’s engineer corrected this and resubmitted to CBBEL. Mr. Sherry confirmed that all items were resolved.

Site Plan

Discussion confirmed: the site plan is unchanged from the version reviewed over the prior months. The property acquired to the east provides adequate stormwater conveyance. The sign location is shown on the site plan; the BZA will separately determine what type of sign (standard monument or billboard variance) is approved. The building will have up to seven tenant units. The billboard, if approved by BZA, is considered an appurtenance of the property and runs with the property owner, not as a separate business.

The BZA sign variance was noted as still pending at the time of the meeting (the BZA had a reduced board the prior week and the item was not heard). Sign location approval by the Plan Commission does not constitute sign type approval.

Motion to approve the Site Plan for 2025-27 (M&L’s Adventure, LLC) at 10715 W. 133^rd Avenue, subject to all requirements in the CBBEL engineering review letter dated March 13, 2026, made by Mr. Swick; seconded by Mr. Hunley.

Motion carries, 6–0.

Final Plat

Mr. Austgen confirmed there are no legal concerns with the final plat as revised. Mr. Sherry confirmed engineering is resolved. Mr. Austgen requested confirmation that the letter of credit (surety) is in place and the Mylar is ready for submission; Mr. Vis confirmed the surety will be in place the following day.

Motion to approve the Final Plat for 2025-27 (M&L’s Adventure, LLC) for a one-lot subdivision at 10715 W. 133^rd Avenue, contingent upon delivery of all required formalities including the letter of credit (surety) and Mylar, made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 6–0.

4. 2025-35 — Diamond Towers V — Site Plan Review

Katie Harms appeared on behalf of the petitioner. She confirmed all previously requested items have been addressed in the revised plan. Mr. Sherry confirmed the petitioner complied with all engineering requests. Mr. Kubiak had no objections.

Mr. Carnahan asked about the anticipated completion date. Ms. Harms and construction representative Jamie indicated a construction start date as early as the end of May 2026, with tower completion targeted for just after mid-July 2026. Verizon will complete its own antenna installation separately.

A prior requirement for surety documents related to weed maintenance was resolved: the petitioner changed the site design to include a fully concrete compound, eliminating the need for ongoing vegetation maintenance and therefore the surety requirement. Mr. Austgen confirmed this resolved the outstanding contractual concern.

Mr. Kubiak moved to add a condition to the approval prohibiting the use of any chemicals for weed or vegetation control on the site, which Mr. Wilkening incorporated into his motion.

Motion to approve the revised Site Plan for 2025-35 (Diamond Towers V) for a cell phone tower at 13960 Morse Street, with the condition that no chemicals of any kind may be used for weed or vegetation control on the site, made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Parker.

Motion carries, 6–0.

5. 2025-44 — Culler — Final Plat — Winding Creek Subdivision

Attorney Nathan Vis appeared. He explained the final plat cleans up an outlet that was located in the middle of the subdivision — a property issue identified by staff approximately six months prior. All town staff documentation is in order and nothing has changed since the last review. Mr. Austgen noted for the record that this is a proper and lawful action correcting an existing property issue. Mr. Sherry and Mr. Kubiak had no comments.

Motion to approve the Final Plat for 2025-44 (Culler) for lot amendment in Winding Creek Subdivision at 9117 W. 137^th Avenue made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 6–0.

6. 2025-46 — Storsafe of Cedar Lake — Driveway Connection to Osborne Street

Jack Huis, DVG Engineering, appeared on behalf of Storsafe of Cedar Lake, LLC. He described the request: a gated driveway connection from the public right-of-way at Osborne Street (a dead-end street) into the Storsafe parcel, providing secondary access to the site. Stormwater will be managed via an existing drainage swale to the east and a small sediment basin connecting to an existing pipe on the west side. Mr. Sherry confirmed the plan is straightforward with no engineering concerns. Mr. Kubiak noted the improvement will provide a good access point.

In response to a question from Mr. Wilkening, Mr. Huis confirmed stormwater on both sides of the driveway entrance is addressed.

Motion to approve the driveway connection from Osborne Street to Storsafe of Cedar Lake at 13649 Wicker Avenue made by Mr. Swick; seconded by Mr. Parker.

Motion carries, 6–0.

7. 2026-02 — Municipal Complex Subdivision Plat

Legals

Mr. Austgen confirmed legals are in order.

Petitioner’s Comments

Mr. Kubiak explained the request: the police and fire stations, while physically separate buildings (approximately 10 feet apart), were never formally platted into distinct lots. This subdivision creates one lot for the fire station and one for the police station, completing a process that should have occurred during construction. The buildings are fully constructed and operational; this is a housekeeping plat.

Remonstrators

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

Commission Discussion and Decision

Mr. Parker noted his affirmative vote was difficult in light of ongoing concerns about the buildings (siding issues, outstanding construction matters), but voted yes as the subdivision plat itself is a ministerial housekeeping action.

Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat for a two-lot subdivision at 7228 Constitution Avenue (Municipal Complex — Police and Fire Stations) made by Mr. Swick; seconded by Mr. Carnahan.

Motion carries, 5–1.

8. 2026-03 — Leo’s Garden — Site Plan Waiver

Rob Henn, Henn and Sons Construction, appeared on behalf of the Govert family and Leo’s Garden. He requested a Chapter 17 site plan waiver for a 48′ × 48′ greenhouse to be constructed in the rear of the property on the north/west side. He noted he misspoke the dimensions as 45 × 45; the correct size is 48 × 48. The work session review two weeks prior was favorable. Mr. Sherry, Mr. Kubiak, and the Commission had no concerns.

Motion to approve the Site Plan Waiver for 2026-03 (Leo’s Garden) for a 48′ × 48′ greenhouse at 13406 Wicker Avenue made by Mr. Parker; seconded by Mr. Wilkening.

Motion carries, 6–0.

Letters of Credit

1. 141^st Partners — Performance Letter of Credit — Pull Date

Mr. Kubiak reported he spoke with the developer (Mr. Neubauer), who indicated intent to complete necessary as-built work and inspections before expiration. However, as-built drawings have not yet been submitted for review, and the timeline to complete before April 22 is not realistic. Mr. Austgen confirmed that a pull date needs to be set now; the town needs a minimum of approximately five to seven days after the pull date to act on the letter of credit if needed. The Commission set the pull date as April 15, 2026, providing cushion before the April 22 expiration. Mr. Kiepura directed staff to notify the developer immediately of the pull date and the expectation that outstanding work be completed.

Motion to set the pull date for the 141^st Partners Performance Letter of Credit ($473,445.50) at April 15, 2026, made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Parker.

Motion carries, 6–0.

2. Rose Garden Estates Phase 1 — Performance Letter of Credit Reduction

Motion to approve the Performance Letter of Credit reduction for Rose Garden Estates Phase 1 to $1,379,021.88 made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 6–0.

3. Rose Garden Estates Phase 2 — Performance Letter of Credit Reduction

Motion to approve the Performance Letter of Credit reduction for Rose Garden Estates Phase 2 to $566,849.69 made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 6–0.

4. Rose Garden Estates Phase 3 — Performance Letter of Credit Reduction

Motion to approve the Performance Letter of Credit reduction for Rose Garden Estates Phase 3 to $434,790.88 made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Swick.

Motion carries, 6–0.

5. Oakbrook Subdivision Phase 2 — Performance Letter of Credit Reduction

Note: Jack Huis noted on the record that the original cost figure of $1,051,430.60 may be incorrect — the LOC has already been reduced once and the true original cost was approximately $2 million. Mr. Austgen confirmed the reduction amount of $548,631.81 is the correct figure to act on regardless of the reported original cost.

Motion to approve the Performance Letter of Credit reduction for Oakbrook Subdivision Phase 2 to $548,631.81 made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Carnahan.

Motion carries, 6–0.

Tabled Items

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

Public Comment

Zoning Ordinance Cleanup — Commission Discussion

Mr. Wilkening raised the status of the zoning ordinance cleanup project, noting that approximately 22 straightforward editorial/correction items were identified last October. Mr. Austgen confirmed the list exists and that his office is prepared to issue a public hearing notice and public hearing document with a recommendation to Town Council on approximately three days’ notice. The items are genuinely ministerial corrections. No formal action was taken; the discussion was a reminder to move the cleanup forward.

PUD Review Process — Commission and Attorney Discussion

Mr. Austgen initiated a broader discussion about the PUD review process, referencing the Friary Farms matter as an example of a project that arrived before the Commission before adequate engineering, legal documentation, and planning preparation was in place. He identified the core issue as the Town not having a fully staffed and empowered planning function — a planning director or coordinator who can evaluate a petition’s readiness before it is placed on the public hearing agenda. He stated that the Town attorney’s role in the process is currently unclear given the absence of that role, and that the development agreement drafting process suffers when the town’s preparation team is not engaged from the early conceptual stage.

Mr. Kubiak and Mr. Wilkening acknowledged the Friary Farms project should not have appeared before the Commission at the conceptual stage in its initial form, but noted the project has since been brought to a workable state. Jack Huis offered the perspective that if staff were empowered to hold petitions from the public hearing agenda until submissions are complete, many of these issues would be avoided.

Mr. Parker noted that the Chapter 17 site plan review amendment — addressed in part by the Rob Henn public comment at the February meeting — and the PUD process both point to areas where the Commission and Town could benefit from clearer process standards and adequately staffed administrative support. Mr. Austgen seconded that assessment and noted the planning and budget implications go beyond this board’s direct authority but are important for Council and leadership to hear.

Joyce Ivey, 13874 Hatteras Lane, Cedar Lake

Ms. Ivey asked about the Friary Farms project, specifically whether the existing main building would be used as a restaurant on the first floor and a hotel/Airbnb on the second floor. Commission members clarified that a prospective restaurant tenant has expressed interest in the first floor of the existing building, and the concept of short-term lodging (Airbnb or similar) on the upper floor has been mentioned, but these are preliminary concepts and not fixed elements of the PUD approval. Significant additional permitting — including fire suppression, sewer infrastructure, engineering, and state reviews — must be completed before any such uses can operate. Mr. Kiepura noted the PUD approval is step one of many, and that the development plan as approved depicts the buildings, uses, sizes, and parking; no development can proceed beyond that framework without additional approvals.

Doris Mager, 9320 W. 133^rd Avenue, Cedar Lake

Ms. Mager asked how the existing building at Friary Farms could be used for a restaurant, Airbnb, or events with multiple occupants if it is not connected to the sewer system. Mr. Parker and others confirmed it cannot — the sewer connection, lift station, and related permitting must be completed before the building can be used for any such purpose beyond its current state. The PUD approval allows the zoning and use; all infrastructure must follow before any activity can occur.

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

Mr. Broadhurst addressed the Commission after Mr. Kiepura had indicated he was closing public comment on the Friary Farms discussion given the petitioner’s absence. Mr. Broadhurst stated that members of the public should not be prevented from speaking in public comment based on whether the petitioner is present, and that it is not the public’s fault if the petitioner left the meeting. Mr. Kiepura maintained that public comment had been closed before Mr. Broadhurst approached the podium. The exchange was noted for the record without further action.

Adjournment

Mr. Kiepura adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:40 p.m.