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: Recording Secretary Cheryl Hajduk was absent. Mr. Kubiak conducted the roll call.

Old Business

1. Monastery Woods — Final Plat (Phase 3A)

Jeff Yatsko (Olthof Homes, 8051 Wicker Avenue) appeared. He confirmed the project is part of the former Monastery subdivision (this phase is the east section; a future west section, separated by a wetland/conservation area, is anticipated as Phase 3B at approximately 43 lots). The letter of credit amount has been reviewed and is at the maximum allowable reduction; Mr. Yatsko confirmed the LOC will be ready before the next meeting, and the item is expected to return for final plat approval in two weeks.

Mr. Sherry confirmed all infrastructure is installed and the project is recommended for the maximum 25% reduction based on his review. No concerns were raised.

Status: On track for final plat approval at the next public meeting.

2. Azucar Ice Cream Shop — Outdoor Seating Area

Mr. Kiepura noted no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. He explained the item was placed on this work session specifically to confirm the petitioner had his BZA advertising requirements in order before the upcoming BZA hearing, given the item failed proper advertisement in each of the two preceding months. Staff indicated they do not believe the required advertising has been completed this cycle either, and that the petitioner has been difficult to reach since the original meeting. A commissioner noted having driven by the property and was uncertain whether outdoor furniture had already been placed without approval; another commissioner indicated the property appeared unchanged as of a few days prior.

Status: Petitioner did not appear. Advertising requirements remain unresolved heading into the BZA hearing; the Commission expects this will again fail to meet the advertising deadline.

New Business

1. Jessup Concept Plan

Mr. Jessup appeared and explained he has already rezoned the property within Lake County and intends to subdivide it into five individual lots (not a platted subdivision) — four outer lots of approximately 1.6 acres each and a center parcel of approximately 2.5 acres, on which he intends to build his own house. The property (the former "old barn field") will remain in unincorporated Lake County; he is not seeking annexation into the Town at this time, citing the distance to Town water and sewer service (nearest connection near 149th and Lynnsway).

Key discussion points:

• Each lot would have an individual driveway exiting directly onto Parish Avenue, with a minimum 50-foot setback from the road.
• Mr. Jessup plans to include a covenant requiring any accessory/pole structures to match the main house in exterior finish (e.g., brick base and matching siding), and to require secondary garages for RV/camper storage so such vehicles are not left outdoors.
• The lots will be served by well and septic, with the potential to connect to Town water in the future if it is extended to the area.
• Mr. Kubiak confirmed this stretch of Parish Avenue is maintained by the Town (part of the Town's Road inventory) even though the development itself is in the county; accordingly, Mr. Jessup will need a driveway/culvert permit from the Town. Mr. Sherry confirmed the Town's culvert and driveway standards are very similar to the county's, and does not anticipate a conflict.
• Mr. Austgen confirmed Indiana Code requires connection to sanitary sewer only within a 300-foot separation distance; the nearest Town sewer line (149th/Lynnsway area, with the West Side Interceptor being extended down Parish) is well beyond that distance, so no mandatory sewer connection applies at this time.
• Mr. Sherry indicated no significant elevation or drainage concerns based on a preliminary look at the site; Mr. Jessup noted his engineering firm (DBG) found drainage generally flows north toward a neighboring property's drain tile.

The Commission was generally supportive and directed Mr. Jessup to work with Mr. Kubiak on the specific culvert/driveway permit requirements going forward. No formal action was required for a concept plan review of a project remaining in unincorporated Lake County.

2. Concept Plan — Transitional Home for Women and Children

The petitioner, representing the organization "For the Love of the Arts" (operating the Shine Recovery Cafe program in Crown Point since 2015), appeared to present a concept plan for a certified recovery transitional home, funded through a $200,000 two-year renewal grant from the Lake County Commissioners via Opioid Settlement Funds. Key details discussed:

• Program: A certified recovery home for women and children (up to age 12) transitioning out of homelessness/recovery situations, distinct from domestic-violence-focused facilities such as the Caring Place (Valparaiso) or St. Jude House. Typical stay: 6 months to 1 year. Residents pay a reduced program fee (approximately $300–350/month) toward sustainability once state certification and per-bed funding are obtained.
• Capacity: Maximum occupancy of 9 (8 residents — a mix of women and children — plus 1 on-site staff person), in a 4-bedroom, 2-bath house. Two bathrooms; petitioner noted the state requirement is approximately 6 occupants per bathroom.
• Parking: One company vehicle plus a 2-car garage; petitioner proposed a maximum of 4 vehicles on site, with any overflow to be stored at a partner location (Momentum Church, Crown Point). The Commission emphasized parking will need to be clearly shown and limited in the eventual site plan submission, given neighborhood concerns about on-street parking.
• Building condition: Petitioner indicated the house is largely move-in ready, requiring only interior painting and conversion of one room to an office; safety/exit signage will be added per state certification checklist requirements, which were shared with Ms. Horta.
• Screening/eligibility: Sex offenders and individuals with extreme mental health needs would not be accepted; standard intake screening applies.
• Township coordination: Petitioner was asked whether she would coordinate with the Hanover and Center Township Trustees; she indicated she is not yet familiar with them but is open to establishing a relationship, and already partners broadly across the county through the SAFE Coalition (Lake County Against Substance Use).

Commission members (particularly Mr. Hunley/a member pressing on operational specifics) raised extensive questions the petitioner will need to answer in detail at the BZA hearing and any subsequent Plan Commission site plan review: exact number of residents with vehicles/driver's licenses, a written agreement or lease clearly defining use and property-owner responsibility for violations (e.g., noise, gatherings), sidewalk/on-street parking impact, and a marked site plan showing all parking. One member also raised a question regarding new 2026 HUD guidelines potentially applicable to group-home-style uses, recommending the Commission and petitioner both review those requirements.

Procedural timeline confirmed by Mr. Kiepura: the petitioner's BZA special use hearing is anticipated for the following month; if favorable, the item would return to a Plan Commission work session (tentatively October) to work through outstanding questions before proceeding to a Plan Commission public meeting for site plan approval. Mr. Kiepura cautioned the petitioner's hoped-for October 1 opening date is not realistic given this sequence.

Status: Concept plan reviewed; no formal action required at this stage. Petitioner to proceed to BZA for special use variance.

Letters of Credit

Rose Garden Estates Phase 1 — Performance Letter of Credit

Mr. Sherry reported the developer intends to roll this into maintenance; a punch list carried over from last year (concrete and asphalt items) was delayed into this spring. He is confirming remaining items and will reinspect, with a fuller update expected at the next meeting. No major issues anticipated in meeting the October deadline.

Discussion Items

1. Grand Prize Auto

Brief status check. Mr. Austgen confirmed a contract/zoning commitment document has been prepared but not yet executed. No further discussion; commissioners confirmed they have copies.

2. Give and Gather — Parking Complaint Resolution

Nathan Vis appeared on behalf of the property owner (Give and Gather / Grand Prize Cars-adjacent parcel). Mr. Vis explained a parking complaint had been received regarding vehicles parking on a separate but commonly-owned parcel to the north of the building (owned by the same ownership group as the Schilling-affiliated property). He proactively brought the matter to the Commission's attention by letter rather than allow it to escalate.

Discussion clarified: the area in question is part of the same paved parking lot and the ownership has a right to use it; markings/striping originally proposed adjacent to the building and along US 41 were installed, but after repaving work removed old parking blocks and metal stops, patrons began creating informal additional parking rows further north than originally marked. Mr. Vis proposed striping two additional formal rows to legitimize and organize this existing paved area, keeping the same distance from US 41 as previously approved. Mr. Sherry confirmed the area is paved and the plan appeared reasonable; the Commission did not require the item to return as a formal site plan amendment, treating the striping as a resolution.

3. Food Truck License — Extensive Discussion, Referred Back to Town Council

The Commission engaged in a lengthy discussion of the draft food truck licensing framework (prepared by Monica Horta based on other communities' ordinances), following complaints from brick-and-mortar business owners concerned about untaxed, unlicensed competition. Key points raised:

• History: Food truck activity in Town has occurred informally since approximately 2018–2020 (pre-COVID), beginning with a single vendor who rented Town-owned property near Holy Name for $25/day under a special event permit; this expanded during COVID and has continued on an ad hoc basis without a dedicated ordinance, using the Town's general special event permit for lack of a better mechanism.
• Core concern: Brick-and-mortar business owners, who pay property taxes, stormwater fees, and permitting costs, object to food trucks operating nearby without comparable costs or oversight.
• Proposed direction: Strong sentiment among several members that food trucks should be limited to bona fide special events (with a defined maximum frequency, referencing the state's statutory definition of a "special event") rather than permitted as a standing, year-round license as currently drafted.
• Definitional challenges: Extended discussion on how to define "food truck" versus a farm stand (produce sales), a food tent, or a semi-trailer selling frozen meat — members generally agreed a food truck involves prepared/cooked food on a mobile (wheeled, motorized or towed) unit, but acknowledged the definition needs to be precise to avoid loopholes.
• Commissary kitchen requirement: Noted that a recent change in state health regulations requires food trucks to be based out of a certified "commissary kitchen" (a health-department-certified commercial kitchen, such as a restaurant or hall kitchen) rather than a private home.
• Comparison to Valparaiso: Members discussed Valparaiso's well-attended downtown food truck presence (Central Park Plaza) as a model of a healthy, high-traffic environment where food trucks may add value, contrasted with Cedar Lake's situation of standalone trucks competing directly with specific nearby restaurants.

The Commission concluded this item should be referred back to the Town Council with a recommendation to: (1) restrict food truck activity to defined special events rather than a standing annual license; (2) adopt the state's statutory definition and frequency limits for "special event"; (3) clearly define "food truck" to exclude farm stands and similar uses while still capturing prepared-food trailers; (4) ensure any policy applies consistently to special events as well (trash, noise, etc.). Ms. Horta's draft was acknowledged as a good starting point.

Status: Referred back to Town Council with the above recommendations; no formal Plan Commission vote (procedural referral only).

Public Comment

Carol Kerr — 9900 W. 129th Place

Ms. Kerr raised a process concern: that the public has no opportunity to comment on an agenda item before the Commission votes on it, citing the prior SpaceX Satellite Earth Station Antenna site plan approval as an example where she felt residents had no meaningful opportunity for input despite significant opposition.

Mr. Austgen and Mr. Kiepura explained that all Commission actions follow required state statutory notice and publication procedures, and that the current practice allows public comment only at the general public comment period (not specifically before each vote). Mr. Becker suggested the Commission could consider adopting a format similar to the Town Council's, allowing public comment on agenda items specifically at the start of the meeting.

Discussion became extended and at points contentious. Ms. Kerr maintained that even though the SpaceX site was properly zoned for the use, the Commission could still have chosen to deny the application, and expressed continued frustration with the outcome. A commissioner clarified that the property in question was privately owned (not Town-owned) at the time of approval. Mr. Kiepura stated that matter is concluded and reiterated the Commission's position that remonstrance opportunities (via mailed notice to surrounding property owners ahead of a vote) already provide a structured opportunity for input on site-specific matters.

The exchange grew heated at points, including a personal remark directed at a Commission member regarding an unrelated permitting matter involving a family member's home; the Commission member did not substantively engage with that remark. Mr. Kiepura ultimately directed that a request to consider adding a public comment period on agenda items, prior to voting, be brought back as a future agenda item for the full Commission's consideration, since it could not be adopted or acted on during a work session.

Status: No action taken (procedural, work session). A proposal to consider adding a pre-vote public comment period on agenda items, similar to the Town Council's format, to be placed on a future agenda for Commission consideration.

Terry Broadhurst — 631 N. State Street, Lockport, Illinois

The commenter identified himself as representing the business (not personal) address that owns his Cedar Lake property, and stated he is a brick-and-mortar business owner himself. He offered detailed input on the food truck discussion based on his experience obtaining special event permits in Lake County:

• Food truck licensing/safety typically falls under the Lake County Health Department, which inspects trucks/trailers/cook tents for each special event and requires a visibly displayed health certificate.
• Multiple presentation formats are allowed at a special event beyond a truck — grills, cook tents, and other outdoor food preparation — provided proper temperature control and health department sign-off.
• Commissary kitchens: Clarified for the Commission that this is a relatively recent (2026) state health requirement: food truck operators must prepare and store food out of a health-department-certified commercial kitchen (a "commissary kitchen") rather than a private home; an existing certified kitchen (such as at a restaurant or a hall like the Knights of Columbus, if certified) can serve this purpose if the operator arranges to use it during off-hours.
• Recommended the Commission coordinate closely with the Lake County Health Department as it develops its food truck policy, since much of the needed regulatory framework already exists at the county level.

The Commission thanked him for the information, which will inform the recommendation being sent to Town Council.

No further public comment was received.

Adjournment

There being no further business, Mr. Kiepura adjourned the meeting.