Town of Cedar Lake
Plan Commission
Work Session Minutes

Pledge of Allegiance

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

Roll Call

Note: Cliff Wroe (Technology Director) was also present for the Surf Internet discussion item.

Old Business

1. 2026-08 — Robinson Outdoor LLC — Off-Premise Sign

Danny Marler (Robinson Outdoor LLC, Perryville, Missouri) returned to present further detail on the proposed off-premise digital sign. Key points:

• The sign will be 8 feet tall by 16 feet wide, V-shaped, with an overall structure height of approximately 20 feet.
• Auto-dimming technology adjusts brightness automatically for weather and time of day; nit levels are regulated by the State and the sign will remain below state maximums. No motion, flashing, or video is permitted on the display per state regulation — content changes occur instantaneously with no animation.
• Robinson Outdoor offers the Town free use of a portion of the sign's advertising capacity (typically about 20% of total display time) for emergency alerts (Amber Alert, Silver Alert, fugitive/wanted information) and community messaging, at no cost.
• Robinson Outdoor is in the process of acquiring multiple lots along the corridor (Lots 12–20); the electric cooperative that owns the adjacent substation has expressed interest in acquiring nearby lots for a substation expansion, and a nearby pizza restaurant (Rosati's) has expressed interest in using a portion of the property for customer parking, given a shortage of parking at their existing location. Mr. Marler emphasized none of this is finalized and he cannot speak for what future owners will do with adjoining lots.

The Commission raised significant concerns and requirements:

• Complete site plan required: The Commission directed that a full site plan be submitted showing the sign location, ingress/egress drive, and landscaping — not just the sign itself. Members noted that once installed, the community will live with the sign's surroundings for decades, and a finished, professional appearance (paving, landscaping) is preferred over a gravel lot with a sign in the middle of it.
• Sidewalk: Following extended discussion, the Commission clarified that a sidewalk should be required only along the frontage of the specific lots (15 and 16) where the sign is proposed — not across all lots the petitioner may eventually acquire, since development of those other lots is speculative at this time. Mr. Carnahan, drawing on his experience with the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission, advocated strongly for connectivity and walkability, referencing the Town's broader sidewalk planning goals for that commercial corridor.
• Restrictive covenant / easement: Mr. Marler explained Robinson Outdoor's typical practice: recording a small easement (dimensions of the sign footprint, e.g., 20′×20′) covering only the sign location, while the remainder of the property could be sold or leased for other development — in this case, potentially to Rosati's for parking. Any future development would then be responsible for its own site plan approval, sidewalks, and paving through the normal Plan Commission process.
• Replat question: A Commission member (attorney, arriving late) raised the concern that carving out a sign easement or small parcel from a larger unified ownership may constitute a replat under the Town's subdivision ordinance, which would trigger additional statutory requirements. Staff was directed to consider this when reviewing the final application.
• Zoning and precedent concerns: A Commission member expressed reservations about permitting this type of illuminated off-premise signage to proliferate throughout Town, particularly along corridors with significant vacant land between the current site and Town limits. Mr. Marler noted the corridor is zoned commercial for a substantial distance in each direction, with limited nearby residential (a small number of homes and a condominium development), and that the sign meets the required residential setback distance under the Town's current ordinance.
• Rendering/site plan documentation: Robinson Outdoor had prepared a digital rendering of the sign in its proposed location but it was inadvertently omitted from the packet distributed to the Commission. Mr. Marler apologized and committed to ensuring the rendering, along with the requested full site plan (landscaping, ingress/egress, sidewalk), is submitted for review before the next work session.

Scope clarification: the Commission confirmed the petitioner is only proposing the sign on Lots 15 and 16 at this time; a site plan for other lots the petitioner may acquire is not required unless and until specific development is proposed on those lots.

2. 2026-14 — Majesky — Site Plan Waiver

Attorney Roy Dominguez appeared on behalf of Norman Majesky, along with property owner Rob Henn. This item continued extensive discussion from the June 17 public meeting regarding parking configuration, waivers, and enforceable terms and conditions for the expanded automotive use across both the conforming and non-conforming portions of the property.

Parking layout:

• The Commission identified that five angled parking spaces (Lots 10, 18, 26, 30, and 34 on the site plan) positioned directly against the drive aisle are not usable, as vehicles parked there would block the drive aisle needed for emergency vehicle and delivery truck access. These spaces must be eliminated from the total count.
• The Commission directed that designated customer/staff/visitor parking be increased from 5 to 10 spaces given the scale of the operation.
• With the above adjustments, the total usable spaces were recalculated from 63 down to approximately 53.
• All parking (inventory, customer, and employee) must occur within painted, designated spaces only — no vehicles on grass or unmarked areas.
• At least one ADA-compliant space is required.
• A firm cap on the maximum number of vehicles for sale (the parties discussed a number around 52–53, to be finalized) will be written into the approval so that code enforcement can simply count vehicles on site against a known limit.

Vehicle delivery / safety:

• The Commission and Mr. Henn agreed that, effective immediately, car haulers may no longer park or unload vehicles along US 41 in front of the property. Large trucks unable to fit within the property must find an alternate unloading location; Mr. Majesky's staff will be responsible for directing delivery drivers accordingly.
• A Commission member described a specific near-miss incident involving a mini-bus-style hauler blocking sight lines onto US 41, and stated the Commission will ask the Police Department to begin enforcement of the no-unloading standard.
• Designated employee parking spaces (separate from customer and inventory spaces) are required, particularly given the anticipated increase in staff once the second building (formerly the "All Tire" building) is brought into active use.

Waivers and legal framework:

• The Commission extensively discussed whether expanding use into the second building constitutes a wholly new approval requiring a completely new list of waivers and conditions, or a restructuring of previously granted approvals. The Town Attorney (arriving partway through this discussion) confirmed that a change of this nature — sequential, progressive expansion over time — does require a new, consolidated set of terms and conditions.
• A Commission member cited approximately six pages of excerpts from 2022 Plan Commission minutes documenting prior waivers granted for the property (including waivers related to stormwater, paving, and lot dimensions for the "All Tire" expansion), and requested that staff locate and provide complete copies of all prior approvals so a single, comprehensive, enforceable document can be prepared covering both the conforming and non-conforming portions of the property.
• Staff (Cheryl Hajduk) confirmed the July 7, 2021 minutes are on file; minutes from a subsequent 2022 discussion have not yet been located. Staff will continue searching and provide all applicable historical minutes to Mr. Dominguez.
• The petitioner's representatives noted they have been requesting this documentation from the Town for over a year, including through the former Town Manager's office, and want to ensure the record is complete and accurate going into the new approval.
• The Commission acknowledged that ordinary enforcement (e.g., excessive vehicles parked on the property) has occurred in the past, and discussed whether commercial property owners can be held responsible for tenant violations similarly to residential property owners; the Town Attorney confirmed there is no legal distinction — property owners can be held responsible.

The Commission agreed the goal is a single clean, consolidated, enforceable document listing all current and historical waivers/conditions applicable to both parcels, to prevent future ambiguity. Staff was directed to compile all historical approvals for the property and provide them to counsel; the petitioner's team acknowledged the item is unlikely to be fully ready for the next scheduled work session and the Commission agreed to be realistic about the timeline given current staffing constraints at Town Hall.

New Business

1. 2025-11 — Nathan D. Vis — Final Plat Request

Scott Filler (12921 Parish Avenue) appeared again on behalf of BSC Real Estate LLC, as Mr. Vis was unavailable. Mr. Kiepura confirmed the preliminary plat was approved several weeks prior and asked whether anything had changed.

Mr. Kubiak identified two minor outstanding items:

• Lot 2 requires a formal address; the request has been submitted to the appropriate authority and is expected to be finalized within two weeks, well ahead of the next meeting.
• The final plat was being sent to Mr. Sherry for engineering review the same day; since it mirrors the previously reviewed preliminary plat, no issues are anticipated.

The Town Attorney (arriving during this item) asked whether the Town has received the surety/letter of credit report from the bonding firm identifying the amount and scope of improvements covered. Staff confirmed they would verify and follow up; if a new surety document is required, it will be provided in time for the next meeting. No concerns were raised that this documentation would not be ready.

2. 2026-15 — Little Scouts Academy — Site Plan Waiver

Melissa Martin (5814 High Grove Court, Lowell) appeared — her first appearance before the Commission — representing Little Scouts Academy, a proposed private microschool serving preschool through second grade. The Commission commended the thoroughness and quality of her submitted site plan materials.

Key details presented:

• Fencing: A 30′×60′ fenced play/learning area is proposed within a larger open grass area (approximately 45′×76′, recently surveyed by the property owner). Ms. Martin's preferred option is a black vinyl-coated chain link fence, approximately 4 feet high, with bollards (minimum 42 inches above grade) along the west and south sides where the fence borders parking areas.
• Signage: A non-illuminated monument sign, approximately 5′×5′, with landscaping and decorative foliage, positioned approximately 14 feet from the road per ordinance setback requirements.
• Parking: 10 parking spaces provided. The school is a licensed microschool (maximum enrollment of 30 students per state microschool regulations; approximately 15–20 students in year one). Staff parking requirement calculated at 3 employees. Applying the Town's standard of 0.2 spaces per student, 6 spaces are required for students/families; combined with staff parking, the petitioner's 10 spaces exceed the minimum by one space. Drop-off and pickup occur in staggered windows over approximately 1.5–2 hours, minimizing peak overlap (an estimated 2–3 vehicles present simultaneously at most).

Fence variance question:

Extended discussion addressed whether a variance is required for the fence. Mr. Kubiak clarified: a chain link fence in what would be considered the "front yard" area of the property requires a BZA variance; however, if Ms. Martin instead uses a decorative aluminum/ornamental fence between the bollards on the two sides facing parking areas (with chain link only on the remaining two sides, away from public view), no fence variance is needed at all — only the underlying Use Variance for operating a school in this location. Ms. Martin indicated she would proceed with the decorative fence option on the relevant sides to avoid the additional variance and simplify her approval timeline.

Ms. Martin's BZA hearing for the required Use Variance is scheduled for August 13, 2026 (her original target of the July 9 BZA meeting was deemed too tight a timeline by BZA staff).

The Commission agreed to a contingent approval path: the site plan waiver will be placed on the July 15, 2026 public meeting agenda for formal action, contingent upon (and effective only following) approval of the Use Variance at the August 13 BZA hearing. This allows Ms. Martin to move forward on her construction/renovation timeline without an additional work session appearance.

3. 2026-16 — Lakeview Business Park Lots 17 & 18 — Site Plan Review (Fence)

Andrew Bultema (E3 LLC / CLBD South LLC) appeared to present a proposal to install a 6-foot PVC security/privacy fence around Lots 17 and 18 of the Lakeview Business Park PUD. Lot 18 is occupied by Action Plumbing (which already has a rolling gate on site); Lot 17 is vacant.

Staff and the Town Attorney determined that fencing of this nature is governed by the existing Lakeview Business Park PUD development agreement rather than requiring independent site plan approval before this Commission. Mr. Austgen confirmed, subject to reviewing the specific development agreement language, that this type of improvement should be able to proceed directly to permitting without requiring a formal Commission vote, assuming the Development Agreement does not preclude it.

Letters of Credit

1 and 2. Beacon Pointe Units 6 and 7 — Performance Letters of Credit

Staff reported the developers intend to convert both letters of credit into a single maintenance letter of credit. Final surface asphalt has been completed; the developers are finishing their punch lists and expect to have everything ready for conversion at the July 15, 2026 public meeting, well ahead of the July 27 expiration date.

3. Birchwood Phases 1–3, 5 — Maintenance Letter of Credit

Staff reported inspections are ongoing and punch list items are being addressed. The project remains on track for the August 16 expiration.

Update Item

Cedar Lake Storage — Performance Letter of Credit Extension

Staff confirmed the sidewalk has been installed; remaining work includes grading around the sidewalk and relocation of a mailbox. With the extension to August 1, staff expressed confidence the remaining items will be completed well within the extended timeframe.

Discussion Item — Surf Internet

Pat McCauley (Surf Internet, 3325 Middlebury Street, Elkhart, Indiana) appeared to provide an update following the stop work order issued at the June 17, 2026 public meeting.

Background provided by Town staff (Cliff Wroe):

• The Town (via Mr. Wroe and the utilities/operations team) has maintained regular communication with Surf Internet and its contractor, Direct Line, since the project began — initially biweekly, now monthly. To date, this communication has resulted in only one minor incident (an unmarked multi-grounded neutral) prior to the Cedar Point Park issue. A resident complaint process has been in place and has resolved all 16 complaints received to date across thousands of feet of installed duct.
• The Cedar Point Park private property encroachment issue was not known to Town staff until it was raised during the June 17 meeting. Mr. Wroe indicated he would have addressed it immediately had he been made aware sooner; the communication gap coincided with his attendance at a conference in Indianapolis.
• A GPS survey of all structures in the affected area was conducted; Mr. Wroe estimated fewer than 10 structures in Cedar Point Park may be affected, based on available GIS data, though this estimate carries uncertainty given known GIS/plat map limitations for underground utility right-of-way information.

Surf Internet's response (Pat McCauley):

• Surf Internet learned of the possible private property issue the afternoon of June 17 (the same day as the Commission meeting) and immediately halted all work; no additional work has occurred since that date.
• The company's engineering firm, Troyer Group, has visited the Lake County recorder's office in person multiple times since the issue arose to obtain updated, verified plat information, since GIS data alone proved insufficiently reliable for locating exact right-of-way boundaries in this area.
• Surf Internet committed that any infrastructure confirmed to be on private property will be fully removed and the affected yard restored to its prior condition or better, at no cost to the property owner.
• The most likely affected area is concentrated around 134th Avenue and Cedar (and adjacent streets) within Cedar Point Park.
• Next steps: Surf Internet requested authorization to begin installing locatable mule tape into existing empty conduit beginning the following Monday (non-invasive; air-compressor based, no digging or drilling) so that exact conduit locations can be confirmed. Once locations are confirmed, remediation (removal from private property, if applicable) will follow. The Commission authorized this locate work to proceed.
• Staffing changes: Surf Internet is assigning a dedicated on-site representative solely for the Cedar Lake project going forward, in addition to Direct Line's dedicated crew lead and construction manager, to improve oversight and communication.
• Road surface issues: Complaints were also raised regarding shallow directional bores compromising pavement in some areas (reported by residents, including Skip Gachet). Mr. Kubiak confirmed Surf Internet has committed to no further shallow bores under roadways going forward and will properly cure and re-roll asphalt at the affected locations (identified as four spots on 134th Avenue) using compliant road patch methods.
• Warranty / guarantee period: Some confusion arose regarding whether a 5-year or 10-year guarantee period had previously been discussed for post-completion defects (e.g., damage to buried utilities discovered after the fact). Staff recalled the figure discussed was 5 years and will confirm against prior meeting minutes. Mr. McCauley confirmed Surf Internet stands behind its work regardless of formal guarantee period — citing an example from the company's home community of Millersburg, Ohio, where a 6.5-year-old storm drain conflict was discovered and is currently being remediated at the company's cost.

Mr. Kubiak noted the Town's standard practice with other utility providers (e.g., NIPSCO) of holding the utility responsible for damage to Town infrastructure discovered years after installation, and stated the same standard will apply to Surf Internet.

No members of the public came forward to speak specifically regarding Surf Internet when the floor was opened. Doug Machalk (7105 W. 133rd Place) voluntarily commented that he recently received Surf Internet service at his residence and praised the company's customer service and responsiveness.

Public Comment

Doug Machalk — 7105 W. 133rd Place

Following his positive comments on Surf Internet service (noted above), Mr. Machalk raised a separate matter regarding his own property. He referenced a concept presentation given at the March 4, 2026 work session regarding construction of an accessory structure (garage/storage building suitable for boat storage) on a vacant lot adjacent to his residence, which he has owned and maintained for many years (previously the site of two derelict structures, one associated with prior illegal drug activity, since demolished).

Discussion covered:

• Zoning classification question: A Commission member raised a question about whether post-frame (pole barn style) metal buildings are permitted outright in the B1 zoning district, referencing another local example (a nearby hardware store) that used a post-frame structure. Staff indicated they believe an acre minimum may apply to residential post-frame structures under current ordinance but were uncertain whether the same threshold applies in a B1 commercial district; staff committed to researching this further.
• Recommended process: Staff reiterated the Commission's prior recommendation that Mr. Machalk pursue a one-lot subdivision to consolidate his property (currently combined for tax purposes but not formally platted as one parcel) before constructing the accessory structure, which would treat the new building as a second accessory structure to his residence rather than triggering full standalone commercial development requirements (drainage, parking, stormwater detention, etc.).
• Survey requirement: Staff strongly recommended Mr. Machalk obtain an updated boundary/stake survey of the property before making further financial commitments, given he does not currently have a recent survey. Staff suggested he could obtain a variance for the building contingent on later completing the one-lot subdivision, allowing him to sequence his expenses (survey first, then variance, then subdivision) rather than paying subdivision costs before knowing whether his desired building will be approved.
• Design considerations: Commission members offered informal design guidance: siding (rather than bare metal) on any post-frame structure was suggested for aesthetic consistency with the neighborhood; a metal roof was not seen as objectionable. Mr. Machalk indicated he is considering brick or stick-built construction with more traditional detailing given the visibility of the site and its proximity to his residence.
• Drainage: Mr. Machalk acknowledged a known drainage issue in the area and stated his intent to work with the Town and any engineer to address it as part of his project; he noted he actively maintains drainage on his own property currently.
• Setback/elevation: Discussion touched on which road frontage (133rd Place versus Morse Street) would be considered the "front" of the proposed structure for elevation and setback purposes, given the site's topography; staff indicated this would be evaluated based on the location of the building's entrance/doors relative to the road.

Mr. Machalk thanked the Commission for the informal guidance and indicated he would proceed first with obtaining an updated survey.

Adjournment

The work session was adjourned at approximately 8:31 PM.