Town of Cedar Lake
Plan Commission
Work Session Minutes

Pledge of Allegiance

Mr. Kiepura called the meeting to order and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Roll Call

Old Business

1. 2026-04 — Fernandez & Bies — Final Plat — Ravine Estates

A representative of the petitioners was present. Mr. Sherry confirmed the final plat is in order with no engineering concerns. Mr. Kubiak had no building department concerns. Mr. Kiepura noted the Commission has thoroughly vetted this petition through the BZA variance and preliminary plat processes. The final plat will be placed on the May 20, 2026 public meeting agenda for formal action.

Status: No concerns identified. Placed on May 20, 2026 public meeting agenda for formal approval.

New Business

1. 2026-11 — Lighthouse Restaurant — Outdoor Patio Retractable Cover — Site Plan Amendment

Chris Pappas, 811 Ronnie Court, Crown Point, and Cory Detamore, 978 Theresa Drive, Crown Point, appeared on behalf of LH Real Estate Investment LLC.

Mr. Pappas described the project: a retractable cover system for an outdoor patio on the north side of the Lighthouse Restaurant property. The cover is constructed of polycarbonate panels (not glass) on a track system, solar-powered, and slides open and closed. It is not a freestanding structure — the track system is anchored through the patio into the footing below. A 42-inch foundation was already installed prior to the patio pour. The patio setback from the north property line is 14 feet, 11 inches. The east end is closed; the open end faces the lake (west). The cover is available in Crown Point from a local manufacturer whose structures have been installed at YMCAs and similar venues.

Mr. Kubiak clarified that a building permit for the patio foundation was already reviewed and inspected. He confirmed the footings are adequate but noted he has not yet reviewed the specifications for the track system and cover anchoring, as those will require a separate permit application.

Commission discussion focused on several items:

• Wind rating: Mr. Wilkening raised significant concern about wind loads from the lake. The open end faces the lake, which is the primary direction of high-wind events. Mr. Pappas confirmed that per the manufacturer’s guidance, the cover must be retracted during high-wind or adverse weather events. The cover has a locking system that secures the panels against collapse when retracted. Mr. Wilkening requested the manufacturer’s printed wind-load rating and engineering specifications before the Commission acts.
• Structural classification: Discussion arose as to whether the structure should be treated as temporary or permanent, given it has a permanent footing but a removable cover assembly. Mr. Kubiak and Mr. Austgen agreed it functions as a site plan amendment. Mr. Kiepura confirmed the Commission must act on it as a site plan amendment, and since this is a work session, no formal action can be taken this evening.
• HOA and lot coverage: Mr. Austgen confirmed that Town ordinances cannot supersede private HOA covenants. Mr. Kubiak noted the commercial zoning on this parcel does not carry the 25% lot coverage limitation that applies to residential zones, so coverage is not an issue.
• Building siding: Mr. Carnahan asked about exposed siding visible during the renovation. Mr. Detamore confirmed that all windows were improperly flashed when originally constructed, causing water infiltration; the siding was removed for re-flashing, and the building will be re-sided with the same material in a new color when complete.

Mr. Kiepura directed the petitioners to submit the manufacturer’s engineered drawings and wind-load specifications to the Building Department before the May 20 public meeting. The item will be placed on the May 20 agenda for formal action, contingent on Mr. Kubiak’s satisfaction with the submitted documentation.

Status: Deferred to May 20, 2026 public meeting. Petitioner to submit manufacturer’s engineered drawings and wind-load rating to Building Department prior to meeting.

Letters of Credit

1. Railside — Performance Letter of Credit

Status: Discussed. Details to be confirmed at May 20, 2026 public meeting.

2. Summerwinds Unit 2 — Performance Letter of Credit

Brad Lambert of Lambert Concrete appeared on behalf of the developer. Mr. Sherry reported a punch list was prepared by former CBBEL engineer Don Oliphant in January 2024; additional items have been identified since then, and Public Works has outstanding utility-related items to review. The punch list will not shrink — it will likely expand with an updated inspection. The primary outstanding work involves asphalt surface course, which Lambert Concrete has scheduled with an asphalt contractor as soon as weather permits.

Mr. Lambert noted he has been inspecting completed items with Mr. Sherry and completing corrections per his direction before any concrete is poured. Mr. Sherry confirmed this. The Commission expressed frustration that the LOC has been extended multiple times over approximately six years. Mr. Kiepura directed that a firm pull date be set at the May 20 public meeting, and that Mr. Sherry provide a progress report with current inspection findings and an updated punch list at that time. The developer must either demonstrate readiness to convert to maintenance or obtain an extension before the June 20 expiration.

3. Summerwinds Unit 3 — Performance Letter of Credit

Same developer and conditions as Unit 2; smaller scope. Mr. Kiepura directed the same timeline — progress report and pull date to be established at the May 20 public meeting.

Update Items

1. Cedar Lake Storage — Performance Letter of Credit

Mr. Kubiak reported the only remaining item is approximately 30 feet of sidewalk on the east end of the property, between the driveway and the property line toward the viaduct. The work has been stalled due to challenges involving mailboxes, a utility pole, and grade changes in a tight area. Mr. Kubiak will contact the developer to determine their intent and timeline. The Commission noted a pull date will likely need to be set at the May 20 meeting given the July 1 expiration.

2. Oak Brook Phase 2 — Performance Letter of Credit

Mr. Sherry reported this LOC, along with Beacon Pointe Units 6 and 7 below, has already been reduced to the maximum allowable amount. The developer intends to convert to maintenance, and the items are in relatively good shape. Given the July expiration, the Commission agreed these three items can be deferred to the June meeting for formal pull-date action.

Status: Deferred to June 2026 meeting. Conversion to maintenance anticipated.

3. Beacon Pointe Unit 6 — Performance Letter of Credit

Status: Deferred to June 2026 meeting. Same conditions as Oak Brook Phase 2.

4. Beacon Pointe Unit 7 — Performance Letter of Credit

Status: Deferred to June 2026 meeting. Same conditions as Oak Brook Phase 2.

Discussion

Proposed Backyard Chicken Ordinance

Mr. Kiepura opened the discussion, noting the Town Council referred the item to the Plan Commission at its April 21 meeting. He offered his personal views as a preface, clearly identifying them as his own and not representing the Commission’s position. Key themes from Commission discussion:

• Current ordinance: The existing Town ordinance only permits chickens on parcels of eight acres or more (agricultural classification). The Town has been in informal limbo — enforcement has been inconsistent, with many chicken owners having no complaints from neighbors and no enforcement action taken. Mr. Kubiak noted this creates an unworkable situation for the Building Department.
• Lot size: The Commission identified minimum lot size as the central issue. Parcel sizes discussed ranged from 10,000 square feet (Lowell’s standard) to one acre (Winfield’s standard, per Mr. Austgen). Mr. Parker’s suggestion of one acre drew support from several members. Very small residential lots were generally viewed as inappropriate for chicken keeping.
• Process — BZA variance vs. ordinance amendment: Mr. Swick proposed handling individual chicken requests through the BZA variance process, allowing neighbor notification, case-by-case review of lot size and conditions, and annual renewal. Mr. Kiepura leaned toward a broader ordinance amendment. Discussion was inconclusive on which approach is preferable.
• Registration and annual renewal: Mr. Kiepura suggested annual registration similar to dog licensing, with a health certification requirement. Mr. Swick agreed annual renewal is important regardless of the mechanism chosen.
• Roosters: Universal agreement that roosters should not be permitted. Mr. Kiepura noted that in rare cases a dominant hen may crow if no rooster is present, which the draft ordinance addresses with a “no crowing hens” provision.
• Quantity: The draft ordinance allows up to six hens. Mr. Kiepura suggested four as more appropriate for an urban residential setting.
• Zoning districts: The Commission noted the ordinance must specify which zoning districts would permit chickens (R-1, R-2, RM, RT, etc.).
• HOA: Mr. Austgen confirmed Town ordinances cannot supersede private HOA covenants; HOA restrictions remain enforceable by the HOA regardless of any Town ordinance.
• Enforcement: Mr. Kubiak expressed a need for clear, enforceable standards. He confirmed the Building Department handles most chicken-related complaints. Police calls are minimal.
• Existing chicken owners: Discussion of grandfathering for those currently keeping chickens (with no complaints), including the longstanding BZA approval on 142nd Avenue.
• Ordinance rewrite project: Mr. Wilkening noted an ongoing broader ordinance cleanup effort is underway, with grammar and punctuation corrections and identification of contradictions. An update is expected at the May 20 meeting.

Public Comment — Proposed Backyard Chicken Ordinance

Brandilyn Chalmers — 7416 W. 142nd Avenue

Ms. Chalmers read into the record both the petition text and an email she submitted in advance. The petition, which garnered 111 signatures through public online forums, advocates for a chicken ordinance on grounds of food security, food integrity, supply chain resilience, and sustainable living. Ms. Chalmers addressed concerns raised by opponents: noise (comparing hens favorably to dogs); droppings (noting they are commercially sold as fertilizer); disease (noting histoplasmosis is carried by many common birds including starlings, pigeons, and bats, and is asymptomatic in most healthy individuals); and predators (noting chickens have natural survival instincts and roost quietly at dusk). She advocated for a properly structured ordinance rather than a blanket prohibition.

Mary Joan Dickson — 8711 W. 132nd Place (Town Council Member)

Ms. Dickson, attending in her capacity as a Town Council member, stated she has asked for years simply to have roosters removed from residential neighborhoods. As a Council member she regularly receives early-morning calls from residents disturbed by roosters. She expressed no strong position on hens generally, but emphasized that any ordinance — whatever form it takes — must include clear penalties and a defined enforcement mechanism. Without enforcement, she noted, any ordinance is meaningless.

Terry Broadhurst — 631 N. State Street, Lockport, IL (Property at 14513 Morse Street)

Mr. Broadhurst expressed support for thoughtfully amending the existing ordinance rather than maintaining the current eight-acre standard or rejecting change outright. He acknowledged the BZA process as one reasonable path and suggested that key considerations raised during the Commission’s discussion — lot size, quantity, permitting, upkeep, and annual renewal — represent a solid framework for a workable ordinance. He encouraged the Commission to move forward with a concrete proposal.

Carol Kerr — 9900 W. 129th Place

Ms. Kerr raised concerns about disease risk associated with chickens, specifically referencing H1N1 and other diseases historically associated with poultry. She questioned whether chickens would need to be vaccinated and expressed concern about the number of diseases chickens can carry and the potential risk to children and elderly residents.

Barbara Orze — 10290 W. 138th Place

Ms. Orze spoke in support of allowing chickens. She noted she lived in Chicago, where chickens have been kept on standard 30-by-125-foot city lots without widespread problems. She expressed skepticism that a chicken ordinance would lead to a proliferation of coops and argued that chickens, like other domestic animals, can be kept responsibly. She noted concerns about ordinance enforcement apply equally to other Town ordinances. She added that she agrees with Ms. Dickson’s point — ordinances must be enforced.

Therese Badgley — 13870 Hatteras Lane

Ms. Badgley stated she is neither for nor against chickens but raised practical concerns as a devil’s advocate: waste disposal (chicken droppings cannot be placed in regular garbage; improper disposal creates odor and pathogen risk in summer heat); the fad nature of chicken keeping (concern that enthusiasm fades and coops are left to deteriorate); and enforcement of whatever ordinance is adopted. She asked whether the 111-petition signatures came predominantly from subdivision residents or those on larger lots, and noted the petition was posted to general public online forums without demographic targeting.

Following public comment, Mr. Kiepura proposed forming a three-person Plan Commission subcommittee to review the draft chicken ordinance and potentially other pending ordinance matters, and to develop a refined recommendation. He suggested the subcommittee could include a resident representative if desired. No subcommittee was formally appointed during the work session, as no formal action could be taken. The item will return at a future meeting.

Tabled Items

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

Public Comment

Public comment on the proposed backyard chicken ordinance was received during the Discussion section above. No additional public comment was received.

Adjournment

Mr. Kiepura adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:40 p.m.