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.

Meeting Called to Order: 6:12 p.m.

Roll Call

Old Business

1. 2025-45 — RHB Properties c/o Vis Law — Site Plan Approval (Fence)

Nathan Vis appeared on behalf of RHB Properties. He recapped the property's history: the petitioner's client purchased the site following a 2020–2021 subdivision process and continued the existing commercial use, believing it grandfathered; the Commission previously determined (at the petitioner's November 2025 appearance) that the grandfathering period had lapsed, and that a site plan bringing the property closer to current standards would be required, including a buffer to the adjacent residential areas to the west and south. Per the Commission's prior direction, the petitioner obtained an updated plat of survey (received early this summer) and arranged an on-site visit with Mr. Sherry in late February/March to assess drainage under wet conditions.

The proposed plan includes a 6-foot fence along the western property edge and a landscape buffer of 4-foot arborvitae, spaced at 50% intervals, along the western and southern edges. No outdoor storage is proposed; all storage (serving three tenant businesses, primarily HVAC/radiator equipment) is interior to the existing buildings.

Discussion:

• Mr. Sherry confirmed no drainage concerns were observed during the site visit.
• Mr. Kubiak asked about a 10-foot drainage and utility easement shown on the survey running behind the metal pole barn, which appears to be encroached upon by the existing building; Mr. Vis confirmed the building predates the easement documentation and has been in that location for many years.
• Mr. Becker raised a technical concern: as drawn, the 6-foot fence extends along the full property edge, but should step down to a 4-foot fence once it passes the building setback line, consistent with standard treatment in this zoning classification. Mr. Vis agreed and indicated he would revise the plan to end the 6-foot fence segment at the building setback line, continuing the 4-foot arborvitae buffer beyond that point.
• Mr. Wilkening confirmed the request is limited strictly to this modification (fence and buffer) and does not constitute blanket approval for any other use of the property; Mr. Vis confirmed.

Mr. Vis committed to resubmitting a corrected, clearly drawn plat survey addressing Mr. Becker's point before the next meeting.

Status: To return to the September 16, 2026 public meeting with a revised site plan reflecting the corrected fence height transition at the building setback line.

New Business

1. 2026-20 — Dotson Farm c/o Vis Law — Concept Plan

Nathan Vis appeared on behalf of Cedar Lake Commercial LLC, together with Bonnie Dotson (31204 South Gates Avenue, Beecher, Illinois 60401) of Dotson Farms, a third-generation family farm business that sells produce at markets throughout the Chicago area, including Cedar Lake's own farmers market, and has recently expanded into a seasonal flower/floral arrangement business.

The proposal: operate a temporary, movable farm and flower stand on Saturdays, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (aligned with Give and Gather's hours), from approval through the end of 2026, as a trial run. The stand would consist of four 10′×10′ canopy tents (approximately 40 feet by 10 feet total footprint), fully set up and broken down each operating day, located at the far northern end of the parking lot (not currently used or striped for Give and Gather parking), with no permanent structures or outdoor storage between operating days.

Extensive discussion followed, primarily regarding traffic safety and site logistics:

• Traffic and parking safety: Mr. Wilkening raised strong concerns about the potential for patrons to park along the US 41 road shoulder, which he characterized as unsafe, and cited a recent incident (unrelated to this petitioner) of a semi-trailer improperly parked in the same lot corner as an example of the area's history of misuse. He requested a to-scale drawing clearly showing tent locations, designated parking, and ingress/egress routing before the item returns.
• Classification/permitting question: Mr. Wilkening asked whether this should instead require a BZA special use permit given its extended, recurring duration (as opposed to a single-day or weekend event). Mr. Kubiak indicated the extended timeframe makes it more than a typical one-time special use, drawing a parallel to the Commission's ongoing, unresolved discussion of a food truck ordinance. Mr. Vis explained his view that Plan Commission approval is required because the request adds an additional business use to a site with multiple existing uses (storage in the rear building, Give and Gather retail in front), consistent with how the Commission has previously required approval even for uses arguably otherwise allowed.
• Town benefit discussion: Mr. Swick referenced the Commission's prior position on food trucks — concern that such uses do not generate tax revenue comparable to brick-and-mortar businesses. Mr. Vis responded that while there is no direct pecuniary benefit to the Town, the benefit to Town residents in having convenient access to locally grown produce is significant.
• Ingress/egress: Mr. Swick suggested the stand use the existing Give and Gather entrance for ingress/egress rather than creating a separate access point directly adjacent to the tents, to reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflict. Discussion also touched on existing light pole/post locations that could assist with cordoning off the area on operating days (without permanent fencing, which Mr. Wilkening specifically discouraged).
• Facilities: No portable restroom is planned, consistent with the vendor's practice at its other market locations; an existing facility at Give and Gather could be used if needed, subject to a letter of reciprocal use to be provided by Give and Gather.
• Scope confirmation: Ms. Dotson confirmed this is a single-family business (not a multi-vendor market), and that no Christmas trees will be sold (decorative wreaths/bows only, seasonally).
• Regional context: Mr. Carnahan noted that, per information from the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission, INDOT does not plan a turn lane for this stretch of US 41 until 2029.

Mr. Austgen recommended the approval be memorialized in a formal zoning commitment or development instrument specifying: Saturdays only, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., through December 2026; maximum tent footprint of 40′×10′; a Commission-approved parking plan; an ingress/egress plan; and the property boundary survey, all incorporated into the approval document.

Mr. Vis committed to returning with a dimensioned, to-scale site plan addressing parking, ingress/egress, and boundaries, along with the reciprocal-use letter from Give and Gather, before the September 16 public meeting.

Status: Concept plan reviewed; no formal action taken. Petitioner to return to the September 16, 2026 public meeting with a detailed, dimensioned site/traffic plan.

Additional Item — Friary Farms PUD Development Agreement Amendment

Mr. Kiepura confirmed with Mr. Austgen that no formal agenda amendment is required to discuss this item at a work session. Nathan Vis, on behalf of the Friary Farms (BSC Real Estate) project, requested a 60-day extension — from September 15 to November 15, 2026 — of the PUD development agreement deadline by which an application for sewer and water tie-in must be on file with both the Town and the applicable state authority.

Mr. Vis explained that an engineer has been retained since the development agreement was approved; site topography has proven complicated, and the design team has been awaiting subcontractor information on lift station and infrastructure requirements. Engineering is approximately 80% complete, with a same-day conference call between the project engineer and Mr. Sherry, and the engineer has expressed confidence in reaching 100% completion within approximately 25 days.

Mr. Sherry and Mr. Kubiak clarified, in response to a question from Mr. Wilkening, that the development agreement requires only that the application be submitted/on file by the deadline — not that it be fully approved by that date; subsequent review and back-and-forth with the Town's engineers (including sanitary review) would naturally continue afterward. Mr. Vis confirmed a formal written extension request will be submitted, to be addressed at the September 16 public meeting.

The Commission expressed general informal support for the extension.

Timing Consideration — September 15 Deadline vs. September 16 Meeting

Later in the meeting, Mr. Wilkening observed that the Commission's own next public meeting (September 16, 2026) falls one day after the current September 15 development agreement deadline, raising a question of whether the deadline would technically lapse before the Commission or Town Council could formally act on the extension.

Mr. Austgen clarified that, because this is a PUD with a development agreement, final action on any amendment rests with the Town Council (acting on this Commission's recommendation), not the Commission alone. He recommended the Town Council take up the extension at its meeting on or before September 15 so that the two approval steps are properly sequenced and no technical breach of the agreement occurs. Ms. Hajduk confirmed she would communicate this timing consideration to Mr. Vis.

Letters of Credit — Updates

1. Beacon Pointe East — Unit 3 — Maintenance Letter of Credit

Mr. Sherry reported inspections remain on his to-do list but are expected to be completed soon; this is a small unit (24 lots) and nothing appeared to be a significant concern. A fuller update is expected at the next meeting.

2. Centennial Villas, Phase 1 — Maintenance Letter of Credit

Mr. Sherry reported the punch list letter was sent Monday, August 31; items identified were minor. With two months remaining before expiration, the timeline appears workable.

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

Mr. Sherry reminded the Commission this LOC was previously extended three months due to concrete work delays; some progress has been made, with a fuller update expected at the next meeting or the one following.

Public Comment

Mr. Kiepura called for public comment. No public comment was received.

Adjournment

There being no further business, Mr. Kiepura adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:58 p.m.