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

Minutes of the June 17, 2026 public meeting were distributed in advance.

Motion to approve the June 17, 2026 public meeting minutes made by Mr. Parker; seconded by Mr. Becker.

Motion carries, 7–0.

Agenda

1. 2025-11 — Nathan D. Vis — Final Plat RequestAPPROVED (6–1)

Nathan Vis appeared in person. He confirmed the addressing question for the outparcel has been resolved, with written confirmation from the Police Chief and coordination with the county mapping department. He described his client's plans: construction of an agricultural building and renovation of the lower level of the existing three-story building, for which a restaurant tenant is already lined up, with a target of beginning work before winter.

Performance and Maintenance Bond Dispute

A significant dispute arose regarding public infrastructure bonding. Mr. Vis explained that after the June 17 meeting, his client received a message indicating a performance bond and maintenance bond might be required, which contradicted his understanding — documented in email correspondence sent to Town staff and counsel the following morning — that both bonds had been waived due to the de minimis nature of the public improvements, consistent with discussions dating back to mid-2025 and reflected in the approved PUD ordinance.

Mr. Kiepura and Mr. Sherry clarified the source of the confusion: the water main serving the site was originally going to be private, which is why no performance security was contemplated. During the course of the project, the plan changed so that a portion of the water main will be dedicated to and become Town-owned (public) infrastructure, which under Town policy triggers a bonding requirement that did not exist under the original private-main concept.

Extensive discussion followed regarding how to resolve the inconsistency fairly:

• Mr. Parker and other members expressed frustration that the project has proceeded without engineered plans or cost estimates in place — the customary basis for calculating a performance bond amount — making it difficult to apply the Commission's standard practice.
• Scott Filler (property owner) argued that a performance bond serves no practical purpose in this case: if the water main is never installed, the property cannot be used commercially at all (no restaurant, no occupancy), which he described as a self-enforcing guarantee stronger than a bond, since the Town would have no reason to complete the water main itself if he failed to. He offered, however, to accept a maintenance bond covering the public infrastructure for three years following installation and Town inspection, consistent with standard Town practice.
• Mr. Austgen advised that the appropriate mechanism is to amend Exhibit C of the PUD ordinance (the development agreement between the Town and the petitioner) to reflect that a maintenance bond, in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer per Town standards, will be required once the water main is installed and inspected — rather than requiring an upfront performance bond given the unique circumstances.
• Mr. Parker maintained his objection, stating his concern is about setting a workable precedent and ensuring engineering and cost estimates are secured before approval on future projects, so the Commission is not placed in a similar position again.

Motion to approve the final plat for BSC Real Estate LLC (2025-11), including an amendment to Exhibit C of the PUD development agreement providing that a maintenance bond — in an amount to be determined by the Town Engineer per Town standards — will be required following final Town inspection of the public water main infrastructure, made by Mr. Austgen's recommended language, moved by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Hunley.

Motion carries, 6–1.

Following the vote, extended discussion continued regarding lessons learned. Mr. Parker stated he does not regret the Commission's efforts to work with the petitioner toward preserving a historic property, but expressed that he will be reluctant in the future to approve any project without complete engineering and cost estimates established before final approval. Mr. Austgen and Mr. Carnahan acknowledged the unusual and evolving nature of this particular project and agreed the situation offers a lesson for future PUD applications.

2. 2026-12 — Azucar Ice Cream Shop — Outdoor Seating AreaDEFERRED

Mr. Kiepura reported the petitioner was not properly advertised for the required BZA hearing for a second consecutive month, requiring a further continuance at the BZA level.

Motion to defer 2026-12 (Azucar Ice Cream Shop) to the Plan Commission work session in two weeks made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Parker.

Motion carries, 7–0.

3. 2026-13 — Star-Level Performance — Site Plan WaiverAPPROVED

Sara Jimenez, owner, and Juliana Smith, Project Manager, appeared. Ms. Jimenez explained Star-Level Performance is a youth baseball and softball training facility, to occupy the former Premier Fitness/Gym space (approximately 9,000 square feet) behind Aurelio's Pizza. No changes to the building footprint or parking are proposed; given the size of the space relative to expected use, parking was not identified as a concern.

Motion to approve the site plan waiver for Star-Level Performance (2026-13) made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Parker.

Motion carries, 7–0.

4. 2026-14 — Majesky — Site Plan WaiverAPPROVED

Norman Majesky appeared with his attorney, Roy Dominguez (7895 Broadway, Suite R, Merrillville, IN 46410), and property owner Rob Henn.

This item concluded extensive negotiation carried over from prior meetings regarding parking configuration, unloading practices, and enforceability of conditions for the expanded automotive use. Final terms reached:

• Total parking: 57 spaces — 48 for vehicles for sale, 6 customer/ADA spaces, 3 employee spaces.
• No unloading in the right-of-way: No unloading of vehicles is permitted in the US 41 right-of-way, under any circumstance (the Commission specifically removed a proposed "unauthorized" qualifier so the prohibition is absolute and unambiguous for enforcement purposes). A designated unloading area on the petitioner's own property was identified on the site plan.
• Prior waivers: All previously granted waivers and approvals affecting the property (including those from the 2018 and July 2021 "All Tire" expansion approvals) remain in effect and are incorporated by reference to the Town's public meeting minutes (Board of Zoning Appeals and Plan Commission).
• Enforceable running covenant: A recordable zoning commitment, running with the land and binding current and future owners, will be prepared by the Town Attorney to memorialize all conditions in a single enforceable instrument.

Discussion throughout was extensive, reflecting the Commission's frustration with a history of unenforced conditions at this property and the difficulty of locating and compiling all historical waivers. Mr. Parker and Mr. Dominguez both emphasized the goal of a clean, enforceable resolution going forward. Mr. Carnahan raised the public safety concern regarding vehicles unloading near the property's entrance/exit onto US 41, consistent with concerns raised at prior meetings.

Motion to approve the Chapter 17 site plan waiver for Norman Majesky (Grand Prize Cars) at 13318–13324 Wicker Avenue (2026-14), with identification and verification that all previous waivers (as referenced in Board of Zoning Appeals and Plan Commission public meeting minutes) remain in effect; a zoning commitment to run with the land, to be prepared as an enforceable, executed, and recordable document by Town Attorney David Austgen; a maximum of 48 vehicles for sale, 6 customer/ADA parking spaces, and 3 employee parking spaces; and no unloading of vehicles in the US 41 right-of-way, made by Mr. Parker; seconded by Mr. Wilkening.

Motion carries, 7–0.

5. 2026-15 — Little Scouts Academy — Site Plan WaiverAPPROVED, Contingent on BZA

Melissa Martin appeared to confirm details discussed at the prior work session: a 4-foot decorative fence with bollards spaced 6 feet on center along the west and south sides of the play area; 10 parking spaces (including one ADA space) consistent with the ordinance ratio of 0.2 spaces per student, serving up to 30 students at capacity (approximately 20 initially), with 3 employees; and a wood monument sign under 50 square feet, more than 10 feet from the roadway.

In response to a Commission question, Ms. Martin confirmed she will install wheel stops/parking blocks in front of the building as an added safety measure, given the site's slight uphill grade toward the building, to prevent a vehicle from rolling into the structure.

Motion to approve the site plan waiver for Little Scouts Academy (2026-15), including parking blocks in front of the building, contingent upon approval of the associated Use Variance at the Board of Zoning Appeals, made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Becker.

Motion carries, 7–0.

6. 2026-16 — Lakeview Business Park Lots 17 & 18 — Site Plan ReviewAPPROVED

Andrew Bultema (916 Alderbrook Court, Crown Point) appeared to confirm the fence proposal (6-foot security/privacy fence) is unchanged from the prior work session discussion — same location, height, and area.

Motion to approve the site plan for the Lakeview Business Park Lots 17 & 18 fence (2026-16) made by Mr. Parker; seconded by Mr. Hunley.

Motion carries, 7–0.

Letters of Credit

1 and 2. Beacon Pointe Units 6 and 7 — Combined into Single Maintenance LOCAPPROVED

Mr. Sherry reported the developer (Schilling) completed a short punch list and requested the two performance LOCs be converted into a single maintenance letter of credit, per a recommendation letter Mr. Sherry prepared the day of the meeting.

Motion to approve conversion of the Beacon Pointe Unit 6 and Unit 7 performance letters of credit into a single maintenance letter of credit in the amount of $177,362.83 made by Mr. Becker; seconded by Mr. Parker.

Motion carries, 7–0.

Discussion followed regarding the increasing frequency of LOC combination requests. Mr. Carnahan asked whether this is becoming a trend. Mr. Sherry indicated it is not extremely common but has happened a few times recently, generally where the timing of separate phases happens to align. Mr. Austgen noted that if such combination requests become the norm, the Commission may wish to review whether its ordinance and procedures should be updated to address it more formally, referencing the recent Summerwinds situation as a cautionary example.

3. Birchwood Farms Phases 1–3, 5 — Maintenance LOC ExtensionAPPROVED

Jeff Yatsko (Olthof Homes) appeared and requested a three-month extension, explaining that persistent June rainfall has significantly delayed the concrete contractor's work on outstanding punch list items. He indicated he expects the work to be completed well before the extended deadline.

Motion to extend the Birchwood Farms Phases 1–3, 5 maintenance Letter of Credit to November 16, 2026 made by Mr. Parker; seconded by Mr. Wilkening.

Motion carries, 7–0.

4. Cedar Lake Storage — Pull Date SetAPPROVED

Mr. Sherry reported the sidewalk itself is complete, but backfill grading around it and relocation of the mailboxes (an item separately agreed to with the owner, though not formally part of the LOC scope) remain outstanding.

Motion to set a pull date of July 29, 2026 for the Cedar Lake Storage performance letter of credit, with staff to contact the owner to ensure completion, made by Mr. Wilkening; seconded by Mr. Parker.

Motion carries, 7–0.

Other Business

Community Crossings Grant Update

Mr. Carnahan reported that the Town's appeal to INDOT for a time extension on its current Community Crossings grant project was denied, following delays attributable to NIPSCO gas line relocation work outside the Town's control. As a result, the Town cannot apply for its next Community Crossings grant cycle (applications due September) until the current project is completed. Staff are working to complete the outstanding project by the August 15, 2026 deadline to preserve eligibility for the next funding cycle.

Ordinance No. 1402 Review — Status Update

Mr. Austgen provided an extensive update on the Town Council-directed review of Ordinance No. 1402 (Zoning Ordinance), a process that began approximately 10 weeks ago under the prior Town Manager's direction. Key points:

• Phase 1 (cleanup): A review focused purely on punctuation, grammar, and formatting corrections has been completed. The redlined document was delivered this evening and will be distributed by Ms. Hajduk alongside the current version for side-by-side comparison.
• Phase 2 (contradictions): A more substantive review identifying internal contradictions within the ordinance has also been completed and will be distributed within the next few days. Mr. Austgen cautioned that his office intentionally left certain "placeholder" items for the Town's own planning judgment, since his office does not serve as the Town's land use planner.
• Next steps: Mr. Austgen recommended the Town Council's committee (Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Becker, and Mr. Parker) review the materials first and provide direction before the matter returns to the full Plan Commission for substantive hearings. Mr. Parker agreed the committee should vet the document before it comes to the Commission, to avoid spending unnecessary Commission time on it prematurely.

Public Comment

Dan Mitchell — 12534 Tall Oaks Drive

Mr. Mitchell, who has raised this matter at multiple recent Town meetings (including the July 7 Town Council meeting and the July 15 Unsafe Building Department meeting), again raised his complaint that a property in Town completed electrical work without a permit or inspection, and expressed frustration that no Town action has resulted despite raising the issue previously.

Mr. Kiepura and other members reiterated, consistent with the response given at other recent meetings, that the Plan Commission has no jurisdiction over building permit or inspection compliance matters — this falls under the Building Department, and ultimately the Town Council if a complaint is not resolved at that level. Mr. Kiepura directed Mr. Mitchell to file a formal written complaint with the front office addressed to the appropriate official (Building Commissioner, Director of Operations, or Town Council President) and to pursue the matter through that channel rather than through the Plan Commission.

Mr. Mitchell also raised a question regarding a potential conflict of interest involving the Building Commissioner, citing Indiana Code Title 36, Article 1, Chapter 27 (Ethics), and asked whether that statute was relevant to his situation. Mr. Austgen did not offer a substantive opinion on the citation in the context of Mr. Mitchell's specific allegation.

Mr. Parker's response: At Mr. Kiepura's invitation, Mr. Parker addressed the matter directly for the record. He stated that he and a Town Council member (Mr. Recupito) had previously met with Mr. Mitchell and asked him to provide supporting documentation beyond photographs and allegations, which was not provided. Mr. Parker stated he separately followed up with Building Inspector Tony Gatto and Director of Operations Tim Kubiak, both of whom confirmed no electrical permit had been pulled for the project in question and that the Building Department had not identified the unpermitted work at the time.

Mr. Parker stated that, based on his understanding, Mr. Mitchell had been performing work on the project himself without a proper license (using another contractor's license), and that he was removed from the job when this was discovered, resulting in Mr. Mitchell not being paid for his work. Mr. Parker characterized Mr. Mitchell's continued pursuit of the matter as connected to that unresolved payment dispute rather than solely a code enforcement concern, describing the underlying facts as unprovable from the Town's side ("he said, she said") given the lack of documentation on either side.

When Mr. Parker asked Mr. Mitchell directly whether he was upset because he had been removed from the job and not paid due to working without a proper license, Mr. Mitchell responded "partially," while stating that the underlying job dispute occurred approximately three years ago and asserting that he had separately permitted another contractor ("JTS") to use his license on a different, unrelated project.

Mr. Kiepura ended the exchange, directing Mr. Mitchell to pursue his complaint through the proper channel (a written complaint to the front office) rather than continuing the discussion in the Commission chamber, and reiterated that the Plan Commission has no authority to act on the underlying complaint.

Uriel Ceballos — 10093 W. 144th Court (Rose Garden)

Mr. Ceballos appeared regarding ongoing flooring problems in his Rose Garden subdivision home, built by Lennar, stating the issue was previously addressed under warranty by Lennar representatives (Eric and Brian) but has recurred and worsened, with flooring now bubbling, developing gaps, and panels shifting. He stated a recent request to Lennar for elevated assistance was declined.

Commission members referred him to two potential resources: Tom McSharry, previously involved in resolving exterior issues at Lennar developments in Town, and Todd Clemens, a Lennar contact who had previously indicated a willingness to be connected with residents experiencing issues so he could evaluate subcontractor performance. Ms. Hajduk agreed to provide Mr. Ceballos with the appropriate contact information.

Closing Note — Summerwinds

Mr. Austgen noted that the surety funds associated with the Summerwinds performance letter of credit pull remain in process with the bank (Peoples Bank) and legal counsel; documentation is still being finalized. Mr. Sherry confirmed sidewalk work is ongoing but not yet complete; the developer's position on responsibility for approximately $4,000 in additional sidewalk work remains unresolved.

No further public comment was received.

Adjournment

There being no further business, Mr. Kiepura adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:23 PM.