Ordinance No. 1534 — Ordinance or Resolution for Appropriations and Tax Rates
Packet Pages 1–3
State Form 55865 (7-15)
Approved by the State Board of Accounts, 2015
Prescribed by the Department of Local Government Finance
Budget Form No. 4
Generated 10/02/2026 03:14:24 PM
Ordinance / Resolution Number: 1534
Be it ordained/resolved by the CEDAR LAKE CIVIL TOWN that for the expenses of CEDAR LAKE CIVIL TOWN, Lake County for the year ending December 31, 2027 the sums herein specified are hereby appropriated and ordered set apart out of the several funds herein named and for the purposes herein specified, subject to the laws governing the same. Such sums herein appropriated shall be held to include all expenditures authorized to be made during the year, unless otherwise expressly stipulated and provided for by law. In addition, for the purposes of raising revenue to meet the necessary expenses of CEDAR LAKE CIVIL TOWN, Lake County, the property tax levies and property tax rates as herein specified are included herein. Budget Form 4-B for all funds must be completed and submitted in the manner prescribed by the Department of Local Government Finance.
This ordinance/resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval by the CEDAR LAKE CIVIL TOWN.
| Name of Adopting Entity / Fiscal Body | Type of Adopting Entity / Fiscal Body | Date of Adoption |
|---|---|---|
| Cedar Lake Town Council | Town Council | 10/20/2026 |
Estimated Maximum Property Tax Levy
The data below represents the current estimate of the maximum amount of property taxes that can be raised for funds that are subject to a maximum property tax levy.
| Property Tax Max Levy Type | Estimated Maximum Property Tax Levy | Total Property Tax Levies | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil | $6,956,515 | $6,956,515 | At Estimated Maximum Levy |
Funds
| Property Tax Max Levy Type | Fund Code | Fund Name | Adopted Budget | Adopted Tax Levy | Adopted Tax Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil | 0101 | General | $8,497,800 | $6,005,301 | $0.6026 |
| Debt | 0180 | Debt Service | $1,432,500 | $1,432,500 | $0.1437 |
| Debt | 0182 | Bond #2 | $325,128 | $325,128 | $0.0326 |
| Debt | 0283 | Lease Rental Payment | $421,000 | $0 | $0.0000 |
| Civil | 0342 | Police Pension | $197,000 | $0 | $0.0000 |
| Not Eligible | 0706 | Local Road & Street | $425,000 | $0 | $0.0000 |
| Civil | 0708 | Motor Vehicle Highway | $979,400 | $305,000 | $0.0306 |
| Not Eligible | 2379 | Cumulative Capital Imp (CIG Tax) | $25,000 | $0 | $0.0000 |
| Civil | 2391 | Cumulative Capital Development | $557,800 | $586,214 | $0.0500 |
| Civil | 2430 | Redevelopment — General | $75,500 | $60,000 | $0.0060 |
| Debt | 2482 | Redevelopment Bond | $169,100 | $169,100 | $0.0170 |
| Total | $13,105,228 | $8,883,243 | 0.8825 | ||
Home-Rule Funds (Not Reviewed by DLGF)
| Fund Code | Fund Name | Adopted Budget |
|---|---|---|
| 9500 | Lake County Solid Waste | $98,000 |
| 9501 | Casino Gaming | $70,000 |
| 9502 | Park Non-Reverting Operating | $19,000 |
| 9503 | Law Enforcement Continuing Education | $39,500 |
| 9504 | CEDIT | $490,000 |
| 9505 | 2260 — Building and Construction Related Fees | $496,260 |
| 9506 | LOIT Public Safety | $425,000 |
| Total | $1,637,760 | |
Vote Record
In the original form, each member has Aye, Nay, and Abstain checkboxes and a signature line. All checkboxes and signature lines are blank.
| Name | Vote (Aye / Nay / Abstain) | Signature |
|---|---|---|
| Robert H. Carnahan | Not marked | Blank |
| Julie Rivera | Not marked | Blank |
| Nicholas A. Recupito | Not marked | Blank |
| Chuck Becker | Not marked | Blank |
| Greg Parker | Not marked | Blank |
| Mary Joan Dickson | Not marked | Blank |
| Richard C. Thiel Jr. | Not marked | Blank |
| Name | Title | Signature |
|---|---|---|
| Jennifer N. Sandberg | Clerk-Treasurer | Blank |
Statements of Intent
| Statement | Response |
|---|---|
| In accordance with IC 6-1.1-17-16(k), we state our intent to issue debt after December 1 and before January 1 | Yes (checked) |
| In accordance with IC 6-1.1-17-16(k), we state our intent to file a shortfall appeal after December 1 and before December 31 | Neither Yes nor No is checked |
Claims and Payroll — October 6, 2026
Packet Page 4
| Fund / Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| All Town Funds | $198,120.72 |
| Wastewater Utility | $85,889.88 |
| Water Utility | $59,618.15 |
| Storm Water Utility | $10,110.15 |
| Payroll 09/24/26 & 10/01/26 | $295,004.31 |
Proclamation — Fire Prevention Week, October 4–10, 2026
Packet Pages 5–6
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE
PROCLAMATION
OCTOBER 4–10, 2026
FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
WHEREAS, lithium-ion batteries are increasingly used in everyday devices such as smartphones, tablets, laptops, e-cigarettes, e-bikes, power tools, and children’s toys, making them a common presence in homes and workplaces;
WHEREAS, lithium-ion battery fires can spread rapidly, release toxic gases, and be difficult to extinguish, creating unique dangers for residents, property, and first responders;
WHEREAS, proper handling, storage, charging, and disposal of lithium-ion batteries, along with public awareness of safe charging practices, can greatly reduce the risk of fires and injuries;
WHEREAS, the National Fire Protection Association recommends safe-charging practices, including using only manufacturer-supplied or manufacturer-approved chargers, charging devices on hard, flat surfaces away from beds, couches, and exits, and unplugging devices once fully charged;
WHEREAS, fire and overheating incidents involving lithium-ion-powered devices have been reported nationwide, underscoring the importance of public education regarding the safe charging, storage, and disposal of lithium-ion batteries;
WHEREAS, the residents of the Town of Cedar Lake can take important steps to increase fire safety and protect themselves, their families, homes, and community;
WHEREAS, the 2026 Fire Prevention Week theme, “Charge Into Fire Safety: Safe Charging Is a Superpower,” strives to educate everyone about how to safely purchase, charge, use, store, and dispose of lithium-ion batteries;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Indiana, hereby proclaims October 4–10, 2026, as “Fire Prevention Week” in the Town of Cedar Lake and encourages all residents to practice safe lithium-ion battery habits, including purchasing products that meet appropriate safety standards, charging devices safely, and properly disposing of and recycling batteries.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Town Council encourages all residents to learn more about fire prevention and to support the efforts of the Cedar Lake Fire Department and other public safety personnel in promoting fire safety throughout our community.
PROCLAIMED this 6th day of October, 2026.
TOWN COUNCIL – TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, INDIANA
- Nicholas A. Recupito, Council President
- Rich Thiel, Council Vice President
- Mary Joan Dickson, Council Member
- Greg Parker, Council Member
- Julie A. Rivera, Council Member
- Robert H. Carnahan, Council Member
Attest: Town Clerk-Treasurer
Signature lines are blank in the original document.
Tag Day Request — Hanover Central High School Cheer
Packet Pages 7–9
Tag Day Information Letter (Continued)
The packet begins this letter partway through; the text below reproduces the portion included in the packet.
Town of Cedar Lake, Indiana, a Municipal Corporation, as additional insured in minimum amounts of $500,000 per person and $1,000,000 per incident, minimum, for each solicitation day and activity permitted”. All requirements and provisions are subject to revision, modification, alteration and amendment at any time, related to the event and public safety.
For a tag day, it is customary to give each donor a small token of appreciation, such as a lollipop, sticker, or small charm, to thank them for their contribution. Please ensure that on your tag day chosen you are able to provide such items.
| Tag Day | Rain Date |
|---|---|
| 04/04/26 | 04/11/26 |
| 04/18/26 | 04/25/26 |
| 05/02/26 | 05/09/26 |
| 05/16/26 | 05/23/26 |
| 06/06/26 | 06/13/26 |
| 06/20/26 | 06/27/26 |
| 07/11/26 | 07/18/26 |
| 08/01/26 | 08/08/26 |
| 08/15/26 | 08/22/26 |
| 09/05/26 | 09/12/26 |
| 09/19/26 | 09/26/26 |
| 10/03/26 | 10/10/26 |
| 10/17/26 | 10/24/26 |
If your organization wishes to request a Tag Day, please complete the form enclosed and submit to: Town of Cedar Lake, Attn: Administration Assistant, PO Box 707, Cedar Lake, IN 46303; drop the completed form in the parking lot drop box located at the Town Hall located at 7408 Constitution Avenue; or email mhorta@cedarlakein.gov. Approved organizations will be notified by mail, email, or phone.
Respectfully,
Monica Horta
Administrative Assistant
Tag Day Request — Application Form
Town of Cedar Lake
Office of the Town Manager
7408 Constitution Ave – PO Box 707 – Cedar Lake, IN 46303
Tel (219) 374-7400 – Fax (219) 374-8588
The application form is completed by hand. Fields redacted in the original packet are noted as “Redacted.”
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Name of Organization | Hanover Central High School Cheer |
| Address | 10120 W 133rd Ave, Cedar Lake IN 46303 |
| Phone | Redacted |
| Fax | Blank |
| Contact Person — Name | Kristin Zuzich |
| Contact Person — Email | Redacted |
| Contact Person — Phone | Redacted |
| Date of Tag Day Request — 1st Choice | 9/19/26 |
| Date of Tag Day Request — 2nd Choice | 10/3/26 |
| Nature of Tag Day | Fundraising for uniforms/equipment |
| Locations of Tag Day | 133rd and 41 AND 133rd and Parrish |
| Signature of Contact Person | Redacted |
| Date | 3/30/2026 |
On a separate sheet of paper, list the individuals participating in the activity on behalf of the organization. All solicitation activities permitted are to start no earlier than 8:00 am and finish in four (4) consecutive hours. All solicitation activities will be completed by 1:00 pm on the approved day, regardless of the time of commencement.
Please ensure that your organization is providing a small token to donors once you receive a donation as a token of appreciation.
PROOF OF INSURANCE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS REQUEST. INCOMPLETE REQUESTS WILL BE RETURNED.
| Field | Entry |
|---|---|
| Date Received | Blank |
| Approximate Time | Blank |
| Received by (Name/Title) | Blank |
| Date Approved by Town Council | Blank |
| Date Contact Person Notified of Approval | Blank |
| Notified via (Email – Phone – Letter) | Not selected |
Certificate of Liability Insurance (ACORD 25)
The original is a scanned ACORD 25 (2016/03) form, transcribed below. Policy numbers are redacted in the original packet.
THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Certificate Date | 4/8/2026 |
| Form Reference | HANOCOM-01 / AMIKOVETZ |
| Producer | World Insurance Associates, LLC, 216 E Joliet St., Crown Point, IN 46307 |
| Contact Name | Audrey Mikovetz |
| Phone | (219) 663-2483 646 |
| audreymikovetz@worldinsurance.com | |
| Insured | Hanover Community School Corp., 14525 Wicker Avenue, Cedar Lake, IN 46303 |
| Insurer A | Liberty Insurance Corporation (NAIC 42404) |
| Insurer B | Accident Fund General Insurance Company (NAIC 12304) |
| Certificate Holder | Town of Cedar Lake, P.O. Box 707, Cedar Lake, IN 46303 |
| Description of Operations / Locations / Vehicles | Re: Hanover Central Cheerleading / Kick the Can |
| Authorized Representative | Signed |
| Insurer | Type of Insurance | Policy Number | Policy Effective | Policy Expiration | Limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Commercial General Liability — Occurrence; General aggregate limit applies per policy | Redacted | 1/1/2026 | 1/1/2027 | Each Occurrence: $1,000,000 Damage to Rented Premises (Ea occurrence): $500,000 Med Exp (Any one person): $5,000 Personal & Adv Injury: $1,000,000 General Aggregate: $2,000,000 Products – Comp/Op Agg: $2,000,000 |
| — | Automobile Liability | None listed | — | — | None listed |
| — | Umbrella / Excess Liability | None listed | — | — | None listed |
| B | Workers Compensation and Employers’ Liability — Per Statute; Proprietor/Partner/Executive Officer/Member Excluded: N/A | Redacted | 1/1/2026 | 1/1/2027 | E.L. Each Accident: $500,000 E.L. Disease – Ea Employee: $500,000 E.L. Disease – Policy Limit: $500,000 |
Cancellation: Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, notice will be delivered in accordance with the policy provisions.
ACORD 25 (2016/03). © 1988–2015 ACORD Corporation. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD.
Ordinance No. 1533 — Amending Ordinance No. 462, Section 150.06 Permits Required
Packet Pages 10–12
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA
ORDINANCE NO.: 1533
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TOWN ORDINANCE NO.: 462, BEING, “AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, REPAIR, LOCATION AND USE OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES IN THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, INDIANA, INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE BUILDING RULES, CODES AND STANDARDS REQUIRED TO BE ENFORCED UNDER I.C. §36-7-2-9; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH”, AND REPEALING ALL TOWN CODE SECTIONS AND ORDINANCES, OR PARTS THEREOF, IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, AND ALL MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana (hereinafter “Town Council”), is the duly elected legislative body of the Town of Cedar Lake, with authority to adopt Ordinances in conformance with the substantive and procedural requirements of Indiana Law, as amended (hereinafter, the “600 Series”); and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the present text provisions of the Town Zoning Code, and specifically Title XV, Chapter 150, Section 150.06, as amended from time to time, regarding Permits Required in the Town of Cedar Lake; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has met in a duly noticed Public Meeting, in conformance with applicable law, to consider the advisability and necessity of amending provisions of the Town Code, Title XV, Chapter 150, Section 150.06, as amended from time to time, regarding Permits Required in the Town of Cedar Lake; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has, at the conclusion of its Public Meeting review, determined that it is appropriate, advised, and in the best interests of the residents of the Town of Cedar Lake that the Town Code, Title XV, Chapter 150, Section 150.06, as amended from time to time, regarding Permits Required in the Town of Cedar Lake; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council, having reviewed these matters and proposed text amendments to the Town Code, Title XV, Chapter 150, Section 150.06, as amended from time to time, regarding Permits Required in the Town, now concurs that it is advisable, appropriate, and in the best interests of the residents and property owners of the Town of Cedar Lake that certain text provisions of the Town Code as amended from time to time, be amended and modified regarding Permits Required in the Town.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION ONE: That Section 150.06, entitled “PERMITS REQUIRED”, of Title XV of the Town Code, as amended from time to time, be, and the same is hereby amended, to read and provide hereafter as provided on the attached amended Title XV, Section 150.06 provisions document, consisting of one (1) page, which is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, and which terms are, upon adoption, incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION TWO: That all existing Town Code Sections and Ordinances, or parts thereof, in conflict with the provisions of this Amendatory Ordinance, are hereby repealed, and declared to be null, void, and of no legal effect.
SECTION THREE: That if any section, clause, provision or portion of this Amendatory Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect any other section, clause, provision or portion of this Amendatory Ordinance.
SECTION FOUR: That this Amendatory Ordinance shall take effect, and be in full force and effect, from and after its passage and adoption by the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana, pursuant to applicable law.
ALL OF WHICH IS PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, THIS ____ DAY OF ________, 2026.
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, TOWN COUNCIL
- Nicholas A. Recupito, President
- Richard C. Thiel Jr, Vice-President
- Robert H. Carnahan, Member
- Julie A. Rivera, Member
- Mary Joan Dickson, Member
- Greg Parker, Member
- Chuck Becker, Member
ATTEST:
Jennifer N. Sandberg, IAMCA, CMC, CPFIM, CMO
Clerk-Treasurer
Signature lines are blank in the original document.
Exhibit A
Packet Page 12
§150.06 Permit Required
A permit shall be obtained before beginning construction, alteration, or repair of any building or structure, the cost of which exceeds $15,000.00, using forms furnished by the Town Building Administrator, and all fees required by this subchapter shall be paid to the Town.
Memorandum of Understanding — Lake County Sheriff’s Department Animal Impound Services
Packet Pages 13–17
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between Lake County Sheriff’s Department
and Town of Cedar Lake
For Animal Impound Services
Recitals
WHEREAS, the Lake County Sheriff operates the Lake County Sheriff’s Animal Control and Adoption Center (“Center”) for the purpose of housing and caring for animals; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Cedar Lake desires to utilize the Center solely for the impoundment and housing of stray animals originating from within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Lake County Sheriff does not provide field animal control services, enforcement, or response to calls for the Town of Cedar Lake under this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, all services provided under this Agreement shall remain under the sole direction and control of the Lake County Sheriff;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
Article 1 – Scope of Services
1.1 The Center shall accept stray animals delivered by the Town of Cedar Lake, pending approval and available space.
1.2 The Center does not provide animal pickup, field response, enforcement, or complaint response services.
1.3 The Town of Cedar Lake is responsible for transporting all animals to the Center.
1.4 Public drop-offs are not accepted under this Agreement.
1.5 All animals must be accompanied by a completed Release Form at intake.
1.6 The Center reserves the right to refuse any animal based on capacity, medical condition, behavior, or operational limitations.
1.7 The Center reserves the right to refuse any animal with a known bite history involving a human or another animal.
1.8 The Town of Cedar Lake shall ensure that animals are transported in a safe and humane manner and shall disclose any known medical or behavioral concerns at the time of intake.
Article 2 – Intake Procedures
2.1 A supervisor from the Town of Cedar Lake must contact the Director or Assistant Director prior to transport.
2.2 Voicemail, text message, or unanswered communication does not constitute approval.
2.3 Animals shall only be accepted seven (7) days per week between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.
2.4 The Town of Cedar Lake is responsible for holding animals outside of these hours until the Center reopens.
2.5 The Center will not accept after-hours drop-offs unless approved in advance by the Director or Assistant Director.
Article 3 – Stray Hold & Owner Responsibility
3.1 When a stray animal is held by the Town of Cedar Lake, the required stray hold period shall be in accordance with the Town of Cedar Lake’s ordinance.
3.2 The Town of Cedar Lake is responsible for holding animals for the required stray hold period under its ordinance prior to transport to the Center.
3.3 If the Town of Cedar Lake is unable to hold an animal and requests intake at the Center, the animal shall be held in accordance with Lake County stray hold requirements and policies.
3.4 When an animal is housed at the Center during the stray hold period, the Town of Cedar Lake remains responsible for the case and legal requirements.
3.5 During the stray hold period, euthanasia decisions are the responsibility of the Town of Cedar Lake, unless otherwise authorized.
3.6 Upon completion of the applicable stray hold period, ownership transfers to Lake County, and the Center may determine disposition in accordance with Lake County Sheriff’s Office policies.
3.7 If an owner reclaims an animal, the owner is responsible for all fees set by Lake County ordinance.
3.8 If the owner does not pay, the Town of Cedar Lake is responsible for costs incurred during the stray hold period.
3.9 The Town of Cedar Lake shall make reasonable efforts to locate an owner prior to intake.
3.10 If an animal is reclaimed prior to sterilization, the Town of Cedar Lake remains responsible for the impound fee.
Article 4 – Compensation & Fees
4.1 The Town of Cedar Lake shall pay a fee of $125.00 per animal impounded, which includes routine intake care and sterilization.
4.2 All fees shall be invoiced monthly on an itemized bill.
4.3 Canines under six (6) months of age shall not be charged an impound fee.
4.4 Litters of kittens under eight (8) weeks old shall be charged $125.00 per litter.
Article 5 – Routine Veterinary Care
Cats
- Spay/Neuter
- Rabies vaccine
- FVRCP vaccine
- Microchip
Dogs
- Spay/Neuter
- Rabies vaccine
- DHPP vaccine
- Bordetella vaccine
- Heartworm test
- Microchip
Article 6 – Medical & Emergency Care
6.1 The Center does not provide non-routine veterinary care during the stray hold period, except in cases where treatment is necessary to prevent immediate suffering.
6.2 Emergency situations (e.g., animal struck by vehicle) are the responsibility of the Town of Cedar Lake, not to exceed $200 per animal, unless otherwise approved.
6.3 The Center may authorize emergency care when necessary to prevent suffering.
Article 7 – Failure to Follow Up (Stray Hold Only)
7.1 The Town of Cedar Lake is responsible for providing direction and maintaining communication during the stray hold period.
7.2 If the Town of Cedar Lake fails to provide direction or maintain communication during the stray hold period, the Center may proceed in accordance with Lake County policies and applicable stray hold requirements.
7.3 The Town of Cedar Lake remains responsible for all costs incurred during the applicable stray hold period, regardless of communication.
Article 8 – Arrests, Accidents & After-Hours Incidents
8.1 In arrest situations, the Town of Cedar Lake shall make reasonable efforts to locate a responsible party to take custody of the animal.
8.2 In vehicle accidents or similar incidents involving injured animals, the Town of Cedar Lake is responsible for transport to an emergency veterinary facility.
8.3 The Director or Assistant Director must be notified in such situations. Any response by Lake County Sheriff Animal Control personnel shall be based on approval and department policy.
8.4 Nothing in this Agreement requires Lake County Sheriff Animal Control staff to respond after hours. Any such response is at the sole discretion of the Director or Assistant Director.
Article 9 – Animal Bond & Surrender (Cruelty/Neglect/Abandonment Cases)
9.1 In cases involving cruelty, neglect, or abandonment, the Town of Cedar Lake is responsible for working with the appropriate prosecuting authority to pursue cost-of-care (animal bond) remedies in accordance with applicable law.
9.2 The Town of Cedar Lake may seek voluntary surrender of animals when appropriate.
9.3 Additional guidance regarding these procedures may be provided separately by Lake County Sheriff’s Animal Control.
Article 10 – General Provisions
10.1 This Agreement shall be for a term of two (2) years.
10.2 Either party may terminate with thirty (30) days written notice.
10.3 This Agreement represents the entire understanding between the parties and may only be modified in writing.
10.4 The Town of Cedar Lake agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Lake County, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, arising out of or resulting from the acts or omissions of the Town of Cedar Lake, its officers, employees, or agents in connection with this Agreement.
Approved and Adopted the ____ Day of __________ 202__, by the ________________ Town Council.
- Town Council President
- Attest: Clerk-Treasurer
Approved the ____ day of _____________, 20___ by the Sheriff of Lake County, Indiana.
- Oscar Martinez, Jr., Sheriff of Lake County
Signature lines and dates are blank in the original document.
Resolution No. 1282 and 2021 Interlocal Cooperation Agreement — Animal Control Services
Packet Pages 18–23
Resolution No. 1282
Packet Pages 18–19
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA
RESOLUTION NO. 1282
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ENTRY INTO A JOINT INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, AND THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT, AND ALL MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana (hereinafter, the “Town”), is considering the approval of an Agreement with Lake County, Indiana (hereinafter, “Lake County”), for animal control services to be rendered by Lake County for the Town pursuant to the terms set forth therein; and
WHEREAS, the Town has been informed and advised that the provisions of § I.C. 36-1-7, et seq., as amended from time to time, permit local governmental units and entities to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling governmental units to mutually agree to the animal control services to be provided for the mutual benefit of the participating governmental entities; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana, is a Municipal Corporation empowered by the terms and provisions of § I.C. 36-1-7, et seq., as amended from time to time, to enter into agreements with participating governmental units for the purposes stated herein; and
WHEREAS, Lake County, Indiana, is a political subdivision empowered by the terms and provisions of § I.C. 36-1-7, et seq., as amended from time to time, to enter into agreements with other local governmental units for the purposes of animal control services to be provided for the mutual benefit of the participating governmental units; and
WHEREAS, the Town and Lake County both seek to enter into a joint interlocal cooperation agreement with each other based upon the terms and provisions of § I.C. 36-1-7, et seq., as amended from time to time, together, to commence the animal control services to be rendered to the Town by Lake County for the mutual benefit of the participating governmental units; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana (hereinafter, the “Town Council”), has determined that entry into a joint interlocal cooperation agreement with Lake County, Indiana, for animal control services to be rendered to the Town by Lake County, is in the best interests of the residents of the Town of Cedar Lake, and therefore, has determined that it is advisable to enter into such a joint agreement pursuant to applicable provisions of State Law, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA:
SECTION ONE: That the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana, shall take all appropriate and legal measures to enter into a Joint Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Lake County, Indiana, for the provision of animal control services to be rendered to the Town by Lake County, for the mutual benefit of the two (2) participating entities.
SECTION TWO: That the President of the Town Council is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Joint Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for the provision of animal control services to be rendered to the Town by Lake County, for the mutual benefit of the Town and Lake County, pursuant to the applicable provisions of § I.C. 36-1-7, et seq., as amended from time to time; further, the Town Clerk-Treasurer is hereby authorized to attest the execution of said Agreement by the President of the Town Council.
SECTION THREE: That a copy of the proposed Joint Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the Town and Lake County shall be attached to this Resolution, and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION FOUR: That this Resolution shall take effect, and be in full force and effect, from and after its passage and approval by the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana, and like Resolution approval of Lake County by its duly authorized and jurisdictional body for entry hereto.
ALL OF WHICH IS PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 18 DAY OF May, 2021, BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA.
The day, month, and year are handwritten in the original.
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, TOWN COUNCIL
- Randell C. Niemeyer, President — signed
- Richard Sharpe, Vice-President — signed
- Robert H. Carnahan, Member — signed
- John C. Foreman, Member — signed
- Colleen Schieben, Member — signed
- Ralph Miller, Member — signed
- Julie A. Rivera, Member — signed
ATTEST:
Jennifer N. Sandberg, IAMC, Clerk-Treasurer — signed
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Between the Lake County Sheriff and the Town of Cedar Lake for Animal Control Services
Packet Pages 20–23
Recitals
This Interlocal Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered between the Lake County Indiana Sheriff’s Department and the Town of Cedar Lake.
WHEREAS, the Lake County Sheriff provides animal control service through the Lake County Sheriff’s Animal Control and Adoption Center (“Center”); and
WHEREAS, the Town of Cedar Lake desires to have the Lake County Sheriff provide animal control services to the Town of Cedar Lake to ensure the safety and welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, the Lake County Sheriff agrees to provide animal control services to the Town of Cedar Lake under the sole and exclusive direction of the Sheriff and Chief of Police.
THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, provisions, and mutual promises herein contained which fairly compensate the performing party, it is mutually agreed as follows:
Article 1 – Scope of Services
The Lake County Sheriff shall perform the following animal control services by and through the Center under the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, and the Town of Cedar Lake hereby agrees to the following terms and conditions:
1.1 The Center agrees to accept stray animals delivered by Town of Cedar Lake personnel pending cage space availability. The Center will not pick up any animals or respond to calls/complaints from the Town of Cedar Lake.
1.2 Town of Cedar Lake stray animals may be accepted by the Center upon inspection of health condition, temperament, species, breed and/or age.
1.3 The Center reserves the right to refuse acceptance of any animal, where, in the opinion of the Center personnel, it does not have facilities, capacity, or expertise appropriate or available to accommodate the needs of such animal.
1.4 The Center has the right to refuse acceptance of any Town of Cedar Lake stray animal with a bite history on a human or another animal.
1.5 Any person, police officer or animal control officer who delivers a Town of Cedar Lake stray animal to the Center shall obtain a Town of Cedar Lake Release Form from Cedar Lake Town Hall and deliver said completed Release Form to the Center along with the stray animal.
1.6 Upon acceptance of a Town of Cedar Lake stray animal, the Center shall provide daily care, feeding and reasonable veterinary services. Exhibit A is a current list of services provided in-house by the Center. Exhibit A is provided solely for illustrative purposes. At the sole discretion of the Center, services provided and their associated costs may change without prior notice to the Town of Cedar Lake.
1.7 The Center shall administer the following vaccines upon intake of all animals unless contraindicated due to suspected pregnancy, low weight, obvious sickness, or other condition:
- Cats:
- Feline Rhinotracheitis Calici Panleukopenia Vaccine (3 way)
- Dogs:
- Canine Parainfluenza – Bordatella Bronchiseptica Vaccine
- Canine Distemper – Adenovirus Type 2 – Parainfluenza – Parvovirus Vaccine
1.8 The Center has complete discretion to humanely euthanize an animal upon the recommendation by a licensed veterinarian in the State of Indiana. The Center shall notify the Town of Cedar Lake of said recommendation.
Article 2 – Compensation
2.1 The Town of Cedar Lake shall pay the Center a fee of $50.00 per animal, per month, for the daily care and feeding of said animal.
2.2 In addition to the fee set forth in section 2.1, the Town of Cedar Lake shall be responsible for all other charges related to the necessary treatment of any Town of Cedar Lake animal accepted by the Center. These charges include but are not limited to the reasonable veterinary services as set forth in Exhibit A of section 1.5.
2.3 All fees set forth in this Article shall be invoiced by the Center and paid by the Town of Cedar Lake on a monthly basis.
Article 3 – General Provisions
3.1 The initial term of the Agreement shall be for two (2) years commencing January 1, 2021 and ending on December 31, 2023.
3.2 Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause upon thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party.
3.3 Complete Agreement. This Agreement expresses the entire contract of the parties and may not be modified in any way unless such modification is reduced to writing and jointly approved by the parties.
3.4 Indemnification. The Town of Cedar Lake shall defend, indemnify and hold Lake County, its elected and appointed officers, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from all claims for injuries, damages and losses, including attorney fees and expenses related to litigation arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement in any matter including, but not limited to, claims for negligent act or omission by Lake County, its elected and appointed officers, employees, agents and volunteers and claims related to the enforcement or failure to enforce any law.
3.5 Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, void, illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be impaired or affected thereby, and each term, provision, and part shall continue in full force and effect and shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the intent of the parties.
3.6 Assignment Barred. Neither party may assign its rights or duties under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party
3.7 Governing Law and Venue. The laws of the State of Indiana shall govern this Agreement. Any lawsuit regarding this Agreement must be filed in a Court within the boundaries of Lake County, Indiana.
3.8 Relationship of Parties. The Center and Town of Cedar Lake shall not be construed as joint ventures or general partners, and neither shall have the power to bind or obligate the other party.
3.9 Third Party Rights. The provisions of this Agreement are intended solely for the benefit of, and may only be enforced by, the parties hereto. None of the rights or obligations of the parties herein set forth is intended to confer any claim, cause of action, remedy, defense, legal justification, indemnity, contribution claim, set-off, or other right whatsoever upon or for the benefit of any third party. This Agreement does not create any legal duty by any of the parties, except such contractual duties between them as explicitly stated in the Agreement.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18 day of May, 2021 by the Cedar Lake Town Council.
The day, month, and year are handwritten in the original.
- Robert Carnahan – Ward 1 — signed
- John Foreman – Ward 2 — signed
- Julie Rivera – Ward 3 — signed
- Ralph Miller – Ward 4 — signed
- Randy Niemeyer – Ward 5 — signed
- Colleen Schieben – Ward 6 — signed
- Richard Sharpe – Ward 7 — signed
ATTEST: Jennifer Sandberg, Clerk/Treasurer — signed
APPROVED this ______ day of __________________, 202__ by the Sheriff of Lake County, Indiana.
Oscar Martinez, Sheriff of Lake County
The Sheriff’s approval date and signature line are blank in the original.
Request — Jean Eberle Parade of Lights, November 21, 2026
Packet Page 24
Letter printed over a faded Cedar Lake Chamber of Commerce logo watermark.
September 15, 2026
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing today to officially ask for permission and any assistance or guidance the Town would be willing to bestow on the annual Jean Eberle Parade of Lights Parade to be held on November 21st 2026.
The plan is to leave Hanover Central High School’s parking lot traveling down 133rd around the lake to the new Fire Station on Town Grounds. If one of the fire trucks and some of our first responders would be available to be in the parade, leading, and ending, it would be appreciated!
I truly appreciate your guidance and permission on helping the Chamber continue this tradition!
Sincerely,
Lynn Spinks
Cedar Lake Chamber of Commerce Secretary
Shared Ethics Advisory Commission — 2026 Ethics Summit
Packet Page 25
Event flyer. The top of the flyer shows the Shared Ethics Advisory Commission logo, a torch over an outline of the State of Indiana, with the tagline “Serving NWI Since 2005.” The lower left shows a portrait photograph of the keynote speaker in judicial robes. The flyer notes the event is supported by The Times Media Company (nwi.com).
2026 Ethics Summit — Tuesday, Oct. 27
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Date | Tuesday, October 27 |
| Registration & Breakfast | 8–8:30 a.m. |
| Program | 8:30–11:30 a.m. |
| Location | Avalon Manor, 3555 U.S. 30, Merrillville, IN |
| Keynote Speaker | Hon. Elizabeth F. Tavitas, Chief Judge, Indiana Court of Appeals |
| Admission | Event open to the public. Free event; registration required. |
| Registration | Register online at sharedethics.com |
| RSVP Deadline | Friday, October 16 |
Supporting Collaborator Agreement — Celebration Promenade at Park of the Red Cedars
Packet Pages 26–27
The document header shows the logo of the Crown Point Community Foundation’s One Million Dollar Challenge.
Supporting Collaborator Agreement Template
- Cedar Lake Historical Association
- Celebration Promenade at Park of the Red Cedars
This Supporting Collaborator Agreement confirms the roles, responsibilities, and shared commitments of the organizations participating in Celebration Promenade at Park of the Red Cedars. This agreement is intended to document each Supporting Collaborator’s role in the proposed initiative, support shared accountability, and demonstrate the collaborative structure of the project.
3. Supporting Collaborator Organization
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Supporting Collaborator Organization Name | Cedar Lake Town Council |
| Mailing Address | P.O. Box 707, Cedar Lake, IN 46303 |
| Website | cedarlakein.gov |
| Executive Director / CEO | Nick Recupito, Town Council President |
| Primary Contact Name and Title | Mary Joan Dickson, Town Council Member |
| Primary Email | maryjoan.dickson@cedarlakein.gov |
| Primary Phone | 219-306-2919 (personal cell) |
4. Summary of Supporting Collaborator Role
The Town of Cedar Lake is the legal owner of the property and will be providing administrative oversight for the initiative and facility improvements, which includes final plans being presented through the appropriate town boards and/or committees for permission to proceed. Where possible and when necessary, the Town Council will direct town staff to execute tasks, review bids and documents, and work alongside the initiative steering committee to bring projects to fruition.
5. Specific Responsibilities
The Supporting Collaborator organization agrees to support the initiative by carrying out the following responsibilities:
- Operational
- Zoning
- Legal
- Insurance
6. Resources, Expertise, or Contributions
The Supporting Collaborator will contribute the following resources, expertise, services, staff time, facilities, funding, in-kind support, data, community relationships, or other assets to the initiative:
- Personnel
- Community Relationships
- Facility
7. Partnership Coordination and Communication
The Supporting Collaborator agrees to participate in regular communication and coordination activities related to the initiative, which may include planning meetings, implementation updates, evaluation discussions, reporting activities, and other coordination efforts as needed.
Primary Coordination Contact / Expected Planning Meeting Participant: Mary Joan Dickson, maryjoan.dickson@cedarlakein.gov
8. Shared Accountability
The Supporting Collaborator agrees to work in good faith with the lead applicant and other partners to support successful implementation of the initiative. This includes timely communication, completion of agreed-upon responsibilities, participation in evaluation or reporting activities, and collaboration to address challenges or barriers that arise during the project period.
9. Data, Reporting, and Evaluation Support
The Supporting Collaborator agrees to provide information that is reasonably needed to support grant reporting, evaluation, learning, and accountability. This may include program data, participation information, outcome data, narrative updates, or other documentation related to the Supporting Collaborator’s role in the initiative.
At the direction of the Town Council, the Town of Cedar Lake staff will collaborate with the initiative steering committee to define roles, responsibilities, and deliverables, fulfill reporting requirements, build accountability mechanisms, and ensure transparency and communication. In the absence of a Town Manager, the sitting Town Council President, Clerk Treasurer, and Administrative Assistant will support the initiative.
10. Agreement and Signatures
By signing below, the supporting collaborator confirms its commitment to participate in the initiative as described in this agreement. If there is not an Executive Director/CEO, the Board Chair must sign.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Supporting Collaborator | Town of Cedar Lake Town Council |
| Executive Director / CEO Name | Nick Recupito |
| Title | Town Council President |
| Signature | Blank |
| Date | Blank |
Indiana Municipal Backyard Chicken Ordinance Comparison — v5
Packet Pages 28–29
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA
INDIANA MUNICIPAL BACKYARD CHICKEN ORDINANCE COMPARISON
16-Municipality Survey | Office of the Technology Director | October 2026 | Reflects Draft Ordinance v5
This survey compares backyard chicken rules in sixteen Indiana municipalities with Cedar Lake’s current zoning and the proposed Draft Ordinance v5. Cedar Lake’s current rules are shown in yellow; the v5 proposal in green. “Not recorded” means the provision was not captured in staff’s survey notes and should be checked against that municipality’s ordinance before being cited.
In this accessible version, the Cedar Lake rows are identified by their labels “Cedar Lake — CURRENT” and “Cedar Lake — PROPOSED v5.”
| Municipality | Max Hens | Roosters | Min Lot | Coop Setback | Coop Size / Space | Covered Run | Rear Yard | No Slaughter | Permit / Fee | Key Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lake County Neighbors | ||||||||||
| Lake Station (Lake Co.) | 5 (parcels < 5 ac) | No | Applies < 5 acres | 10 ft all lines | 10 sq ft/bird; max 75 sq ft, 10 ft tall | No | Yes | Yes | Yes — $10/yr; expires Dec. 31 | Proof of $100K liability insurance; Building Commissioner inspection and approval of all coops; coop tag displayed. Ord. 2020-14. |
| Lowell (Lake Co.) | Not stated | No | 10,000 sq ft | 10 ft all lines | 10 sq ft/bird; max 75 sq ft, 10 ft tall | No | Yes | Yes | No | Also covers rabbits; corner lots approved by Town Manager. § 92.16.1 (Ord. 2019-15). |
| Hobart (Lake Co.) | 4 | No | None | 10 ft property line / 60 ft from dwelling (40 ft with fence) | Not recorded | No | Not recorded | Yes | No | Largest dwelling separation among Lake County neighbors. |
| Griffith (Lake Co.) | 10 | No | 85 × 85 ft backyard | 35 ft from dwelling | Not recorded | No | Not recorded | Yes | Neighbor consent req'd | Highest hen limit among Lake County neighbors; neighbor consent required. |
| Winfield (Lake Co.) | 8 per single-family lot | No | 1 acre (R-1); nonconforming AG lots 1–4 ac | Accessory structure standards (§ 156.041) | 4 sq ft permeable land/bird + enclosed shelter | Yes — wire on all sides and top | Not specified | Not stated (personal use only) | Yes — Building Dept. permit for coop | Ord. 23-B, adopted Mar. 8, 2022 as zoning text amendment after Plan Commission hearing. One coop/pen per lot; Hobby Farms exempt. § 156.042. |
| Porter County | ||||||||||
| Chesterton (Porter Co.) | 4 (lots < ½ ac) | No | None | 10 ft from property line | 10 sq ft/bird | No | Yes | Yes | No | Ord. 2014-18. |
| Valparaiso (Porter Co.) | 4 (parcels < 5 ac) | No | Applies < 5 acres | 10 ft all lines | 10 sq ft/bird; max 75 sq ft, 10 ft tall | No | Yes | Yes | No | Corner lots: Building Commissioner approves location. Ord. 13-2016. |
| Kouts (Porter Co.) | 4 (any lot) | No | None | 10 ft all lines | 10 sq ft/bird; max 75 sq ft, 10 ft tall | No | Yes | Yes | No | Mirrors Valparaiso model. Town Code § 93.20. |
| Other Indiana Municipalities | ||||||||||
| Indianapolis (Marion Co.) | 12 | 1 allowed (cooped dusk–dawn) | None | District setbacks; not in front yard | Not specified | No | No front yard | Yes | License if > 12 | Personal livestock framework; also ducks, quail, pigeons. Code § 743. |
| Carmel (Hamilton Co.) | 6 | No (allowed in AG-1 only) | None | Not stated | Not recorded | No | Not recorded | Yes | No | — |
| Kirklin (Clinton Co.) | 6 (R-3 district) | No | R-3 district only | 10 ft from property lines | Secure coop required | No | No front yard / ROW | Yes | No | Also rabbits (6) and ducks (2, special exception). UDO 1102.05. |
| Ellettsville (Monroe Co.) | 9 | No (no drakes) | None (non-ag zones) | 5 ft from property line | 12–20 sq ft/hen coop + run; max 7 ft tall | Yes — unless flightless | Not between house and front line | Yes | No | HOA covenants prevail if more restrictive; one coop per property. § 96.02. |
| Clarksville (Clark Co.) | 4 | No (incl. crowing hens) | Single-family only | Per zoning code | Not stated | No | Not stated | Yes | Yes — $10 per 24 months | Coop lock-up 9 p.m.–6 a.m.; odors not detectable at property line; 3 cu ft waste max. Ord. 2020-G-3. |
| Bloomington (Monroe Co.) | 5 | No | None | 12 ft property line / 20 ft from buildings | Not recorded | No | Not recorded | No — permitted with permit | Yes — free annual | Only surveyed town allowing on-property slaughter. |
| South Bend (St. Joseph Co.) | 6 | No | 1–2 unit dwellings | 15 ft property line / 20 ft from dwelling | 2 sq ft/bird | Yes | Not recorded | Yes | Yes — $20/yr + metal tag | Coop explicitly excluded from accessory building count (Ch. 21). |
| Evansville (Vanderburgh Co.) | 6 | No ban stated | None | 50 ft from dwelling | Not recorded | No | Not recorded | Yes | Not stated | — |
| Cedar Lake | ||||||||||
| Cedar Lake — CURRENT | N/A | N/A | 8 acres (Ag zone only) | 1,000 ft from any residential zone | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Effectively prohibited on residential lots. Zoning Ord. 1402, Ch. 5; § 90.13 (Ord. 369). |
| Cedar Lake — PROPOSED v5 | 6; more by special permit | No (incl. crowing hens) | None (open item) | 10 ft all lines (open item) | 10 sq ft/hen min; 75 sq ft max (std flock), scales for special-permit flocks; 10 ft tall | Not required (open item) | Yes | Yes | Yes — $50 one-time (renewal open item) | Sunset–7 a.m. lock-up; odors not detectable at property line; site plan + final inspection; posted tag; easement waiver; HOA/PUD savings clause; Class C infraction. |
Regional Norms
- Maximum hens: 4–6 is most common. Higher: Griffith 10, Ellettsville 9, Winfield 8, Indianapolis 12. Cedar Lake v5: 6, more by special permit.
- Roosters: Prohibited for residential keeping in every surveyed town except Indianapolis (one, cooped dusk to dawn). Evansville’s ordinance does not state a ban. Clarksville and Cedar Lake v5 also exclude crowing hens.
- Minimum lot size: Most impose none. Lowell: 10,000 sq ft. Griffith: 85 × 85 ft backyard. Winfield: 1 acre, the most restrictive in the survey.
- Setback: 10 ft from property lines is the Lake/Porter County norm (Lake Station, Lowell, Chesterton, Valparaiso, Kouts). Some add a distance from neighboring homes: South Bend 20 ft, Bloomington 20 ft, Griffith 35 ft, Evansville 50 ft, Hobart 60 ft (40 ft with fence).
- Covered run: Required by Winfield, Ellettsville (unless flightless), and South Bend — 3 of 16.
- Slaughter: Prohibited in every surveyed town except Bloomington (with permit). Winfield limits keeping to personal use without addressing slaughter.
- Permits: About half require none. Ongoing permits: Lake Station $10/yr; Clarksville $10/24 months; South Bend $20/yr; Bloomington free annual. Winfield requires a building permit for the coop. Griffith requires neighbor consent.
- Lake County: Lake Station, Lowell, Hobart, Griffith, and Winfield all permit backyard chickens. Cedar Lake is the only surveyed municipality that prohibits them.
Sources: Lake Station Ord. 2020-14; Lowell § 92.16.1 (Ord. 2019-15); Winfield Ord. 23-B / Town Code § 156.042; Chesterton Ord. 2014-18; Valparaiso Ord. 13-2016; Kouts Town Code § 93.20; Indianapolis-Marion County Code § 743; Kirklin UDO 1102.05; Ellettsville Town Code § 96.02 (Am. Ord. 2020-23); Clarksville Ord. 2020-G-3; Hobart, Griffith, Carmel, Bloomington, South Bend, and Evansville from staff survey notes (May 2026); Cedar Lake Zoning Ord. 1402 and Ord. 369 (§ 90.13); Cedar Lake Draft Ordinance v5 (Oct. 2026).
Backyard Chicken Ordinance — Changelog, Draft v5 (October 2026)
Packet Pages 30–31
Changes since the v2 draft included in the March 2026 Plan Commission referral packet
1. Changes from Internal Discussions and Staff Review
| Provision | Change from v2 (March 2026 Plan Commission packet) | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| § 90.14(G) | New. Easements: permanent coops may not be placed in a recorded easement; portable or skid-mounted coops may be, with a signed waiver requiring relocation on request. | Staff discussion; modeled on the Town’s existing fence-in-easement practice. |
| § 90.14(K), (D) | New. Nighttime confinement: chickens secured in the coop from sunset to 7:00 a.m., coop closed and latched. (D) cross-references the outdoor-enclosure allowance. | Staff decision. |
| § 90.14(M) | New. Permit required for all chicken keeping (v2 required a permit only for exceptions). Application on a Building Department form. | Staff review. |
| § 90.14(M) | One-time permit fee of $50, paid at application. | Director of Operations and Building Administrator Bower. |
| § 90.14(M) | Site plan showing coop location and dimensions required with the application. | Building Administrator Bower. |
| § 90.14(M) | Sequencing: permit issued on review of the application; final inspection after the coop is placed. | Building Administrator Bower. |
| § 90.14(M) | Permit to remain posted for as long as chickens are kept on the property. | Building Administrator Bower. |
| § 90.14(M) | Permit tag shows the address and number of hens authorized. Permit does not expire while the owner stays in compliance; a new permit and inspection are required on change of ownership or occupancy, number of hens, or coop location. Building Department keeps permit records. | Staff drafting review. |
| § 90.14(N) | New. Private covenants, HOA rules, and PUD conditions are not superseded; a Town permit is not a determination that private restrictions allow chickens. | May 6, 2026 Plan Commission work session (Town Attorney confirmed covenants are not superseded); staff analysis of HOA/PUD documents that are silent on poultry. |
| § 90.14(E) | Coop may be larger for flocks approved by special permit: 10 sq ft per hen plus 15 sq ft for nesting and roost area. 10 sq ft per hen minimum emphasized as binding. | Staff drafting review. |
| § 90.14(O) | Special permit (formerly (K)) must be posted on or next to the coop. (C) now cross-references it. | Staff drafting review. |
| Structure | Subsections re-lettered from (A)–(L) to (A)–(P) to accommodate new provisions. | Drafting. |
| Open items | Eight unresolved questions flagged inline (orange boxes). | May 6 work session; Building Administrator Bower; staff. |
2. Changes from Review of Other Communities
| Provision | Change from v2 (March 2026 Plan Commission packet) | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| § 90.14(B) | Crowing hens prohibited, in addition to roosters. | Clarksville § 91.146(A). |
| § 90.14(J) | Odors from chickens, manure, or related substances may not be detectable from the property line. | Clarksville § 91.146(B)(2)(b). |
| Recitals | Names four Lake County neighbors that permit chickens: Lake Station, Hobart, Griffith, and Winfield (v2 said only “communities within Lake County”). | Regional survey, expanded from 10 to 16 municipalities. |
| § 90.14(N) | HOA/PUD clause approach. | Comparable provisions: Ellettsville § 96.02(B)(4)(g); South Bend. |
| § 90.14(K) | Nighttime confinement (hours set by staff). | Comparable: Clarksville § 91.149 (9:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m.). |
| Open items | Comparisons cited in open-item boxes: lot size (Lowell, Winfield); enclosed run top (Winfield, Ellettsville, South Bend); setback (Hobart, Evansville, South Bend); tag durability (South Bend); renewal (Lake Station, Clarksville, South Bend); accessory structure (South Bend); approval path (Winfield). | Ordinances of the listed municipalities. |
| Winfield | Reviewed adopted Ord. 23-B (Oct. 2026). Confirmed Lake County; adopted March 8, 2022 as a zoning text amendment after a Plan Commission hearing (Jan. 27, 2022); 8 hens on R-1 lots of one acre or more; outdoor pen enclosed on all sides and top. | Winfield Ord. 23-B; Town Code § 156.042. |
3. Open Items Remaining Before Introduction
- Minimum lot size — § 90.14(C)
- Enclosed top for outdoor pen/run — § 90.14(E)
- Setback approach — § 90.14(E)
- Permit tag durability — § 90.14(M)
- Annual renewal vs. one-time permit — § 90.14(M)
- HOA/PUD acknowledgment on permit application — § 90.14(N)
- Accessory structure classification — Zoning Ord. 1402, Ch. 11, Sec. A
- Approval process (standard ordinance, BZA variance, or special exception)
Ordinance number to be assigned by the Clerk-Treasurer upon introduction. All provisions subject to review by Town Attorney Austgen prior to introduction.
Backyard Chicken Ordinance — Open Items / Subcommittee Decision Guide
Packet Pages 32–36
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, INDIANA
Backyard Chicken Ordinance — Draft v5 (October 2026)
OPEN ITEMS / SUBCOMMITTEE DECISION GUIDE
October 2026 | 8 Items to Resolve Before Introduction
This document identifies every provision of Draft Ordinance v5 (§ 90.14 — Backyard Chickens) that has not yet been resolved by the subcommittee. For each open item, the relevant ordinance section, the options, and any comparison data from neighboring municipalities are provided. Items 1–6 are policy choices for the subcommittee. Items 7–8 also need Town Attorney review. The subcommittee can record its decision at the bottom of each item so the ordinance text can be finalized.
Summary of Open Items
| # | Section | Issue | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | § 90.14(C) | Minimum lot size | Subcommittee |
| 2 | § 90.14(E) | Enclosed top for outdoor pen/run | Subcommittee |
| 3 | § 90.14(E) | Setback approach (property line vs. dwelling separation) | Subcommittee |
| 4 | § 90.14(M) | Permit tag durability | Subcommittee |
| 5 | § 90.14(M) | Annual renewal vs. one-time permit | Subcommittee |
| 6 | § 90.14(N) | HOA/PUD acknowledgment on permit application | Subcommittee |
| 7 | Zoning Ord. 1402, Ch. 11 | Accessory structure classification | Town Attorney review |
| 8 | Whole ordinance | Approval process (ordinance, BZA, or special exception) | Town Attorney review |
Open Item 1: Minimum Lot Size | § 90.14(C)
| Topic | Detail |
|---|---|
| Question | Should the ordinance set a minimum lot size for keeping chickens, and if so, what? |
| Why it matters | A minimum lot size limits chickens to parcels with room for a coop away from neighbors. Too high a threshold excludes most Cedar Lake residential lots. |
| Current draft | No minimum. The 10-foot setback and the permit/site-plan review act as the practical screen. |
| Comparison | Lowell: 10,000 sq ft. Winfield: R-1 lots of 1 acre or more (and nonconforming Agricultural lots of 1–4 acres). Chesterton, Kouts, Ellettsville, Indianapolis: no minimum. Lake Station and Valparaiso: rules apply to parcels under 5 acres. |
| Discussion so far | No consensus at the May 6 work session. Commissioners Wilkening and Caran preferred one acre. The Director of Operations noted a one-acre threshold would apply to very few Cedar Lake residential parcels. |
| # | Option | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No minimum (current draft) | Setback and permit review screen out lots that cannot fit a compliant coop. | Most inclusive; matches most surveyed towns. |
| 2 | 10,000 sq ft | Matches Lowell. | Middle ground. |
| 3 | 1 acre | Matches Winfield. | Would exclude most residential parcels. |
Subcommittee Decision: ________________ Date: ________ (blank in original)
Open Item 2: Enclosed Top for Outdoor Pen/Run | § 90.14(E)
| Topic | Detail |
|---|---|
| Question | Must the outdoor pen or run be enclosed on all sides including the top? |
| Why it matters | A covered run keeps hens from flying out and keeps hawks and owls out. It adds construction cost for the resident. |
| Current draft | The coop must be impermeable to predators and chickens must be securely enclosed at all times, but no covered run is required. |
| Comparison | Winfield § 156.042(2): outside pen enclosed with wire on all sides and top. Ellettsville § 96.02(B)(4)(b): wire fencing on all sides including top, unless birds are rendered flightless. South Bend: enclosed run including top. |
| # | Option | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Covered run required | Outdoor pen enclosed with wire on all sides and the top. | Matches Winfield and South Bend. |
| 2 | Required unless flightless | Top may be omitted if wings are clipped. | Matches Ellettsville; harder to verify. |
| 3 | Not required (current draft) | Owner responsible for keeping hens enclosed. | Lowest cost; more escape risk. |
Subcommittee Decision: ________________ Date: ________ (blank in original)
Open Item 3: Setback Approach | § 90.14(E)
| Topic | Detail |
|---|---|
| Question | Keep the 10-foot property-line setback, or add a minimum distance from neighboring dwellings? |
| Why it matters | A property-line setback is simple to check on a site plan. A distance from neighboring homes better targets noise and odor, but depends on where the neighbor’s house sits. |
| Current draft | 10 feet from all property lines; corner lots approved by the Building Commissioner. |
| Comparison | 10 ft from property lines: Lake Station, Lowell, Valparaiso, Kouts, Chesterton. Ellettsville: 5 ft. Bloomington: 12 ft from property lines / 20 ft from buildings. South Bend: 15 ft / 20 ft from neighboring dwelling. Hobart: 10 ft / 60 ft from dwellings (40 ft with fence). Griffith: 35 ft from dwelling. Evansville: 50 ft from dwelling. Winfield: its accessory structure setbacks (§ 156.041). |
| # | Option | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10 ft from property lines (current draft) | Single, easy-to-check standard. | Matches nearest neighbors. |
| 2 | Add dwelling separation | Keep 10 ft plus a minimum distance from neighboring homes (e.g., 20 ft as in South Bend). | Better neighbor protection; harder to verify. |
| 3 | Use zoning accessory setbacks | Coop follows the district’s accessory structure setbacks. | Ties to Item 7. |
Subcommittee Decision: ________________ Date: ________ (blank in original)
Open Item 4: Permit Tag Durability | § 90.14(M)
| Topic | Detail |
|---|---|
| Question | Should the Town issue a weather-resistant tag for permanent outdoor display? |
| Why it matters | The draft requires the tag to stay posted for as long as chickens are kept. A paper tag will not last outdoors. Building Administrator Bower raised this question. |
| Current draft | Tag shows address and number of hens; posted on or next to the coop for as long as chickens are kept. Material not specified. |
| Comparison | South Bend: durable metal tag. Lake Station: coop tags displayed prominently (material not specified). |
| # | Option | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Durable tag issued by Town | Metal or laminated tag. | Small per-tag cost; lasts. |
| 2 | Building Commissioner sets tag standard | Ordinance requires posting; tag specs set administratively. | Flexible. |
| 3 | Post only through final inspection | Tag need not remain posted afterward. | Simplest; loses the visible compliance check. |
Subcommittee Decision: ________________ Date: ________ (blank in original)
Open Item 5: Annual Renewal vs. One-Time Permit | § 90.14(M)
| Topic | Detail |
|---|---|
| Question | Keep the one-time $50 permit, or require periodic renewal? |
| Why it matters | Renewal gives the Town a regular compliance check and keeps the permit list current. It adds staff work and recurring cost for residents. Raised at the May 6 work session. |
| Current draft | One-time $50 fee; permit does not expire while in compliance; new permit on change of ownership, hen count, or coop location. |
| Comparison | Lake Station: $10/year, expires December 31. Clarksville: $10 per 24 months. South Bend: $20/year. Bloomington: free annual registration. |
| # | Option | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | One-time permit (current draft) | $50 once. | Least staff and resident burden. |
| 2 | Annual renewal | Smaller annual fee (comparables $10–$20). | Regular check; recurring staff time. |
| 3 | Two-year renewal | Matches Clarksville. | Middle ground. |
Subcommittee Decision: ________________ Date: ________ (blank in original)
Open Item 6: HOA/PUD Acknowledgment on Application | § 90.14(N)
| Topic | Detail |
|---|---|
| Question | In addition to the savings clause, should the permit application ask the applicant to confirm they have reviewed their HOA/PUD documents? |
| Why it matters | Many HOA/PUD documents are silent on poultry. An attestation puts residents on notice before they build, without the Town interpreting private covenants. |
| Current draft | § 90.14(N) states that private covenants, HOA rules, and PUD conditions are not superseded and that a permit is not a determination that they allow chickens. |
| Comparison | Ellettsville § 96.02(B)(4)(g): more restrictive private covenants apply. South Bend uses a similar savings approach. |
| # | Option | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Savings clause only (current draft) | No change to the application. | Simplest. |
| 2 | Add checkbox/attestation | Applicant confirms no HOA/PUD applies, or that it does not prohibit chickens. | Administrative only; no ordinance text needed. |
Subcommittee Decision: ________________ Date: ________ (blank in original)
Open Item 7: Accessory Structure Classification | Zoning Ord. 1402, Ch. 11, Sec. A
| Topic | Detail |
|---|---|
| Question | Should a chicken coop count as an accessory building under Zoning Ordinance 1402, Chapter 11, Section A (toward the two-structure limit and lot coverage)? |
| Why it matters | If coops count, a lot that already has a shed and detached garage could not add a coop. If they don’t, the ordinance should say so. |
| Current draft | Not addressed. |
| Comparison | South Bend: coops explicitly excluded from the accessory structure count. Ellettsville lists chicken coops as an example of an accessory structure. |
| Discussion so far | Staff recommends coops count, because they are used for feed, tool, and waste storage. Final language needs Town Attorney Austgen’s review. |
| # | Option | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Coops count (staff recommendation) | Subject to the two-structure limit and lot coverage. | Consistent with existing zoning. |
| 2 | Coops excluded | Explicit exclusion, as in South Bend. | More lots qualify. |
Subcommittee Decision: ________________ Date: ________ (blank in original)
Open Item 8: Approval Process | Whole Ordinance
| Topic | Detail |
|---|---|
| Question | Proceed as a standard ordinance (current draft), through BZA variances, or as a special exception / conditional use? |
| Why it matters | This decides the structure of the whole ordinance and is the threshold question for the subcommittee. |
| Current draft | Standard ordinance: zoning text amendment to Ord. 1402, Ch. 5, Sec. A, plus new § 90.14. Building Commissioner special permit for exceptions (§ 90.14(O)). |
| Comparison | Winfield (Lake County) adopted its rules in 2022 as a zoning text amendment after a Plan Commission public hearing (Ord. 23-B). All other surveyed towns regulate by ordinance. |
| Discussion so far | At the May 6 work session Commissioner Wilkening favored the BZA route; most other participants and the public favored a standard ordinance. A variance is generally tied to circumstances of a specific property, which may fit poorly with a town-wide policy. Town Attorney Austgen should advise before direction is set. |
| # | Option | Description | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Standard ordinance (current draft) | Town-wide rules plus permit. | Predictable; Winfield precedent. |
| 2 | BZA variance | Each resident petitions the BZA. | Case-by-case; public notice and hearing each time. |
| 3 | Special exception / conditional use | Chickens listed as a special exception in residential districts. | Middle ground; still a hearing per applicant. |
Subcommittee Decision: ________________ Date: ________ (blank in original)
Recommended Next Steps
| Who | Action | Timing |
|---|---|---|
| Subcommittee | Decide Items 1–6 at the next work session; record decisions on this form. Give direction on Item 8 once the Town Attorney has advised. | Next work session |
| Building Administrator / Building Commissioner | Advise on tag durability (Item 4), renewal workload (Item 5), and the application form for an HOA/PUD attestation (Item 6). | Before work session |
| Town Attorney Austgen | Advise on the approval process (Item 8) and accessory structure language (Item 7). Review the v5 text, including the Chapter 5, Section A zoning amendment. | Priority |
| Plan Commission | Public hearing on the zoning amendment and recommendation to Town Council (IC 36-7-4-602 et seq.). | After subcommittee and attorney review |
| Town Council | Introduction, readings, and adoption vote; publication. | After Plan Commission recommendation |
Memorandum — Cedar Lake Police Department Chicken-Related Call Statistics
Packet Pages 37–41
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, INDIANA
Plan Commission
May 7, 2026
cedarlakein.gov
MEMORANDUM
Cedar Lake Police Department Call Statistics
Chicken-Related Complaints — Plan Commission Reference
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| To | Cedar Lake Plan Commission |
| From | Cliff Wroe, Technology Director |
| Re | Chicken-related CLPD call data — follow-up to Commission action item |
| Date | May 7, 2026 |
| Note | Tim Kubiak was tasked with obtaining this data from CLPD. The CAD export was obtained and analyzed by Cliff Wroe on his behalf to facilitate timely delivery to the Commission. |
1. Background and Data Source
At a prior Plan Commission meeting, a member requested that police call statistics related to chicken complaints be compiled for reference during the ongoing backyard chicken ordinance review. Tim Kubiak was assigned to follow up with the Cedar Lake Police Department. This memorandum presents the results of that data pull.
The source data is a Cedar Lake Police Department CAD (Computer-Aided Dispatch) export queried for all records containing the word “chicken” in the call comment field. The raw export contained 85 records spanning calendar years 2000 through 2025.
Methodology — False Positive Filtering
Because the CAD keyword search is text-based, it returns any record containing the word “chicken” regardless of context. Each of the 85 records was reviewed individually. Twenty-nine (29) records were identified as false positives and excluded from analysis. False positive categories included:
- Traffic / pedestrian incidents involving the phrase “playing chicken”
- Medical calls involving food (choking, allergic reaction)
- Restaurant or business references (e.g., “Adowee Chicken & Ribs”)
- Cooking-related fire or smoke calls
- References to chicken wire used as dog fencing
The remaining 56 records constitute genuine chicken-keeping-related calls and form the basis of this analysis.
2. Summary Statistics
Total records in CAD export: 85 | False positives excluded: 29 | Genuine chicken-related calls: 56 | Date span: 2000 – 2025 (25 years)
| Category | Call Count | % of Genuine Calls | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dog / predator attacks on chickens | 18 | 32% | Chicken keeper is the victim; dog containment failure |
| Chickens at large / roadway hazard | 18 | 32% | Directly addressable by containment requirements |
| Nuisance / neighbor dispute | 7 | 13% | Encroachment, property condition, general complaints |
| Other / informational | 5 | 9% | Officer checks, coop inspections, misc. |
| Theft / criminal (chicken-related) | 2 | 4% | Larceny report; dumped dead roosters |
| Chicken coop fires | 2 | 4% | Structure fires; fire department response |
| Noise — crowing / rooster | 2 | 4% | Both calls same address, same morning (Jul. 30, 2021) |
| Animal neglect | 1 | 2% | Multiple livestock species; not chicken-specific |
| Odor / sanitation | 1 | 2% | Combined complaint (chicken noise + drug complaint); no action |
| Total | 56 | 100% | 2000 – 2025 (25 years) |
Note: Percentages rounded to nearest whole number.
Chart: Genuine chicken-keeping calls by category (2000–2025, n=56). A horizontal bar chart showing the same counts as the table above, from largest to smallest: Dog / predator attacks 18; Chickens at large 18; Nuisance / neighbor dispute 7; Other / informational 5; Theft or criminal 2; Coop fires 2; Noise (crowing / rooster) 2; Animal neglect 1; Odor / sanitation 1.
Chart: Genuine calls per year — notable increase post-2020. A vertical bar chart of calls by year from 2000 to 2025, with bars shaded by volume (8–10, 5–7, 3–4, 1–2, or 0 calls). The data is reproduced in the table below. Calls are sparse before 2017, rise from 2017 to 2019, drop to zero in 2020, and peak at 10 calls in 2022.
| Year | Calls |
|---|---|
| 2000 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2008 | 3 |
| 2009 | 0 |
| 2010 | 3 |
| 2011 | 1 |
| 2012 | 1 |
| 2013 | 0 |
| 2014 | 2 |
| 2015 | 0 |
| 2016 | 1 |
| 2017 | 4 |
| 2018 | 6 |
| 2019 | 5 |
| 2020 | 0 |
| 2021 | 7 |
| 2022 | 10 |
| 2023 | 7 |
| 2024 | 2 |
| 2025 | 2 |
| Total | 56 |
3. Plan Commission Focus Areas
The Commission specifically requested data delineating four complaint types. The following table and chart address those categories directly.
| Complaint Type | Calls (25 yrs) | Avg / Year | Ordinance Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chickens at large | 18 | 0.7 | Enclosed run / containment standard; setback requirement |
| Nuisance complaints | 7 | 0.3 | Flock size cap; setback; coop maintenance standards |
| Noise — crowing / rooster | 2 | < 0.1 | Rooster prohibition would reduce to near-zero |
| Odor / sanitation | 1 | < 0.1 | Not a documented enforcement problem; no action taken on record |
Graphic: Commission focus areas — the four requested complaint types. Four summary tiles: 18 Chickens at large (addressable by containment rules); 7 Nuisance / neighbor (setback & flock size cap); 2 Noise (crowing) (rooster ban reduces to ~zero); 1 Odor / sanitation (essentially not documented).
4. Key Findings for Commission Consideration
Finding A — Dog Attacks Are the Dominant Call Type
The single largest call category — tied with chickens at large — is dogs or other predators attacking chickens kept by residents (18 calls, 32%). In every instance of this type, the chicken keeper is the victim of a neighbor’s unsecured animal. These calls are not generated by the act of keeping chickens; they are generated by dog containment failures at neighboring properties. If opponents of a backyard chicken ordinance cite total call volume as a concern, it should be noted that nearly one-third of all genuine chicken calls would exist regardless of any chicken ordinance.
Finding B — Containment Requirements Address the Largest Controllable Category
The 18 “chickens at large” calls represent the most directly ordinance-addressable complaint type. These calls document repeated escapes from specific addresses, chickens walking in roadways (at least two classified as traffic hazards), and ongoing encroachment into neighboring properties. A requirement for a fully enclosed run — not merely a fence — would address the majority of these incidents.
Finding C — Noise Is Not a Significant Issue; Roosters Are the Cause
Only two confirmed noise/crowing complaints were documented over 25 years, and both originated from the same property on the same morning (July 30, 2021 — two separate callers reporting the same rooster). A rooster prohibition, a standard provision in most Indiana municipal backyard chicken ordinances, would reduce this complaint category to near-zero.
Finding D — Odor Is Not a Documented Enforcement Problem
One record in 25 years references chicken odor. That call combined a report of hearing a chicken with a report of smelling marijuana from the same residence; officers found nothing actionable. There is no record of any odor complaint resulting in enforcement action. Odor does not appear to be a material concern in Cedar Lake’s historical experience.
Finding E — Call Volume Is Low and Concentrated in Recent Years
Fifty-six genuine calls over 25 years represents a modest enforcement footprint — fewer than 2.5 calls per year in years with any activity. Notably, call volume increased after 2020, with 2022 being the peak year at 10 calls. This trend likely reflects the national surge in backyard poultry keeping during and after the COVID-19 period, and suggests that residents in Cedar Lake are already keeping chickens at increasing rates under the existing regulatory ambiguity. An ordinance with clear standards would provide an enforcement framework for the calls that are already occurring.
Finding F — Prior Ordinance Context
A November 2014 CAD record documents an officer responding to a report of 8–10 chickens in a yard, verifying they were “in coupe per ordinance,” and noting “No Violation.” This suggests Cedar Lake has addressed chicken-keeping complaints under prior ordinance language. The historical record confirms the department has operational experience with these calls.
5. Ordinance Design Implications
Based on the call data, the following ordinance provisions would address the documented complaint patterns most effectively:
- Enclosed run requirement: Fully enclosed, predator-resistant structure to address at-large calls
- Rooster prohibition: Eliminates the only documented noise complaint category
- Setback standards: Coop and run setbacks from property lines to address encroachment nuisance calls
- Flock size cap: Limits scaled to lot size, consistent with peer municipality practice
- Coop maintenance standards: Basic sanitation requirements to preempt any odor concerns
These provisions are consistent with the draft § 90.14 framework under development and align with the comparative survey of Indiana municipal practices.
Data source: Cedar Lake Police Department CAD export (keyword: “chicken”). All 85 records individually reviewed by staff. CSV source file retained on file.
AI disclosure: This memorandum was prepared with the assistance of an AI language model (Anthropic Claude, claude.ai). AI was used to analyze the CAD data, categorize call records, and assist in drafting narrative content. All data, categorizations, findings, and conclusions were reviewed and verified by staff prior to distribution. Prepared in accordance with the Town of Cedar Lake AI Acceptable Use Policy.
Draft Ordinance — Backyard Chickens, § 90.14 (Draft v5)
Packet Pages 42–48
DRAFT — FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. All provisions subject to review and revision by Town Attorney David Austgen (Austgen Kuiper Jasaitis P.C.) prior to formal introduction. This document does not constitute legal advice and shall not be introduced or adopted without prior legal review.
The original document marks unresolved questions with orange “Open Item” boxes placed after the related subsections. They are reproduced below as boxes labeled “Open Item.”
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TOWN CODE OF THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, INDIANA, BY ADDING SECTION 90.14 TO CHAPTER 90 REGULATING THE KEEPING OF BACKYARD CHICKENS WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS; AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE TO PERMIT THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, OR PARTS THEREOF, IN CONFLICT THEREWITH.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority vested in the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana, by the provisions of Title 36 of the Indiana Code, as amended from time to time, the Town Council is authorized to adopt ordinances for the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the Town of Cedar Lake; and
WHEREAS, Section 90.13 of Chapter 90 of the Town Code of the Town of Cedar Lake currently restricts the keeping of animals or fowl at any single residence to no more than three dogs or three cats, with an exception for keeping incidental to an animal hospital, kennel, or agricultural pursuit located in an appropriate zone within the Town, but does not provide specific regulations governing the keeping of backyard chickens in residential areas; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Cedar Lake, Ordinance No. 1402, as amended from time to time, currently restricts the keeping of livestock, poultry, and fowl to tracts of land consisting of eight (8) acres or more within the Agricultural (A) Zoning District, and further restricts the feeding or sheltering of poultry in penned enclosures within one thousand (1,000) feet of any residential zoning district, which provisions effectively prohibit the keeping of backyard chickens on residential lots throughout the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that numerous municipalities throughout the State of Indiana, including four neighboring municipalities within Lake County — Lake Station, Hobart, Griffith, and Winfield — have adopted ordinances permitting the keeping of small flocks of backyard chickens for personal, non-commercial use in residential areas; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the keeping of a limited number of female chickens on single-family residential parcels, when conducted in accordance with reasonable regulations designed to prevent nuisance, odor, noise, and unsanitary conditions, is compatible with residential land use and serves the general welfare of the residents of Cedar Lake; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to establish clear and enforceable regulations governing the keeping of backyard chickens so as to protect the health, safety, and welfare of neighboring property owners while permitting residents of single-family dwellings the opportunity to maintain a small personal flock,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana, as follows:
That Chapter 90 of the Town Code of the Town of Cedar Lake be and is hereby amended by adding the following Section:
90.14 Regulation of Backyard Chickens
Notwithstanding any provision of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Cedar Lake, Ordinance No. 1402, as amended from time to time, which may conflict herewith with respect to residential zoning districts, chickens shall be allowed to be kept within the corporate limits of the Town of Cedar Lake, Indiana, on single-family residential parcels in strict accordance with all of the following requirements:
(A) A chicken is a gallus gallus domesticus, a domestic bird typically kept on a farm. This definition does not include other fowl, such as, but not limited to, peacocks, turkeys, or waterfowl.
(B) No roosters (male chickens) or crowing hens shall be kept under the provisions of this Section.
(C) There shall be no more than six (6) hens allowed on any single-family residential parcel, unless a special permit authorizing a greater number is obtained pursuant to subsection (O) of this Section.
Open Item — Minimum lot size: The subcommittee has not yet determined whether a minimum lot size will be required. Options discussed at the May 6 work session: none (most inclusive); 10,000 sq ft (Lowell); or one acre (Winfield, which limits chickens to R-1 lots of one acre or more). The Director of Operations noted a one-acre threshold would apply to very few Cedar Lake residential parcels. This subsection may need a minimum lot size once that decision is made.
(D) Chickens must be kept completely and securely enclosed and under the control of the owner and on the owner's property at all times, except as provided in subsection (K) of this Section.
(E) A chicken coop, an enclosed structure for housing chickens that provides shelter from the elements, shall be provided. The chicken coop must provide adequate sun, shade, and ventilation and must be impermeable to rodents, wild birds, and predators, including cats and dogs. The coop shall provide a minimum of ten (10) square feet of interior floor space per hen kept therein. For flocks of six (6) or fewer hens, no chicken coop shall exceed seventy-five (75) total square feet in size; provided, however, that where a special permit authorizes a flock of more than six (6) hens, the maximum coop size shall be calculated at ten (10) square feet per authorized hen, plus an additional fifteen (15) square feet for nesting and roost area. No chicken coop shall exceed ten (10) feet in height. The chicken coop shall be situated a minimum of ten (10) feet from all property lines. For corner lots, the chicken coop shall be situated as near as possible to the middle of the lot; the Building Commissioner shall approve the location of the chicken coop on all corner lots.
Open Item — Outdoor pen/run, enclosed top: The subcommittee has not yet determined whether the outdoor pen or run must be fully enclosed on all sides including the top (required by Winfield, Ellettsville, and South Bend to prevent aerial predator access). Subsection (E) may need to be supplemented with an outdoor pen requirement.
Open Item — Setback approach: Current draft uses a 10-foot property line setback. Alternatives include a dwelling-to-dwelling setback (Hobart: 60 ft base / 40 ft with fence; Evansville: 50 ft; South Bend: 20 ft from neighboring dwelling). Subcommittee to confirm preferred approach.
(F) Chickens and chicken coops shall be confined to the rear yard of the property and shall not be located in the front yard or in any side yard abutting a public street.
(G) Easements. No chicken coop that is permanently affixed to the ground shall be placed within any recorded easement area on the parcel. A portable or skid-mounted chicken coop that is not permanently affixed to the ground may be placed within a recorded easement area only upon the execution of a waiver, on a form provided by the Building Department, in which the property owner acknowledges that: (i) the coop is located within a recorded easement; (ii) the coop must be relocated at the owner's sole expense upon written request by the Town or any utility, drainage authority, or other entity holding rights within the easement; and (iii) the Town and any such entity shall not be liable for any damage to or removal of the coop in connection with the exercise of easement rights. The executed waiver shall be submitted to the Building Department and shall be maintained in the permit file for the property.
(H) Chickens shall be provided with access to feed and clean water at all times.
(I) All feed for said chickens shall be stored in containers so as to protect against intrusion by rodents and vermin.
(J) The chicken coop and any outdoor enclosure shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, free from offensive odors, and in compliance with all applicable health regulations of the State of Indiana, Lake County, and the Town of Cedar Lake. Odors from chickens, manure, or related substances shall not be detectable from the property line.
(K) Nighttime Confinement. All chickens shall be secured within the chicken coop between the hours of sunset and 7:00 a.m. Chickens may be allowed to move freely within their outdoor enclosure during daylight hours only. The chicken owner shall be responsible for ensuring that the coop is securely closed and latched during the nighttime confinement period.
(L) Any chickens kept in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall be for non-commercial, personal use only. No chickens shall be slaughtered on the property.
(M) Permit Required. Prior to keeping any chickens under the provisions of this Section, the owner shall obtain a backyard chicken permit from the Building Department. Application for a permit shall be made on a form provided by the Building Department and shall state: the name and address of the owner; the address of the property where chickens will be kept; the number of hens to be kept; and a site plan with the location and dimensions of the coop on the property. A one-time permit fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) shall be paid at the time of application. The Building Commissioner or designee shall review the application and, upon determining that the proposed coop and enclosure as described in the application and site plan would meet all requirements of this Section, shall issue the permit. The permit authorizes the owner to proceed with placement of the coop and the keeping of chickens in accordance with the approved application. Following placement of the coop, the Building Commissioner or designee shall conduct a final inspection to verify that the coop and enclosure as installed conform to the approved application and all requirements of this Section. Upon issuance of the permit, the Building Department shall issue a permit tag stating the property address and the maximum number of hens authorized. The permit tag shall be posted on or immediately adjacent to the chicken coop in a visible location and shall remain so posted for as long as chickens are kept on the property. A permit issued under this subsection does not expire provided the owner remains in compliance with this Section. A new permit and inspection shall be required upon change of ownership or occupancy of the property, or upon any change in the number of hens or the location of the coop. Permit records shall be maintained by the Building Department and shall be available for inspection upon request.
Open Item — Permit tag durability: Should the Town issue a weather-resistant or laminated tag for permanent outdoor display (South Bend issues a durable metal tag), or does the posting requirement apply only through final inspection? Building Administrator Bower raised this question. Subcommittee to confirm.
Open Item — Annual renewal: The work session discussion included reference to annual permit renewal as a potential requirement. Current draft uses a one-time $50 permit with no expiration. Subcommittee to determine: one-time permit (current draft) or annual renewal with fee? Comparable: Lake Station $10/yr; Clarksville $10/24-month; South Bend $20/yr.
(N) Private Covenants and HOA Restrictions. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to supersede, modify, or otherwise affect any private covenant, deed restriction, homeowners’ association (HOA) rule or regulation, or planned unit development (PUD) condition applicable to a parcel. Residents are advised to review their applicable HOA governing documents, PUD conditions, and any other private restrictions before obtaining a permit or keeping chickens under this Section. Issuance of a permit under subsection (M) does not constitute a determination by the Town that keeping chickens is permitted under any private covenant or HOA restriction applicable to the property.
Open Item — HOA/PUD acknowledgment: Subsection (N) states that private covenants are not superseded. The subcommittee may also wish to require the permit application to include a checkbox or attestation that the applicant has reviewed any applicable HOA/PUD governing documents. Not yet decided.
(O) Any person who desires to keep more than six (6) hens, to keep chickens on a parcel of land other than a single-family residential parcel, or to otherwise deviate from the requirements of this Section, shall apply for a special permit from the Building Commissioner. The Building Commissioner may grant such permit upon a finding that the proposed keeping of chickens will not create a nuisance or be injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare, and may impose such reasonable conditions upon any such permit as deemed necessary. A special permit issued under this subsection shall itself be posted on or immediately adjacent to the chicken coop at all times.
Open Item — Accessory structure classification: The Plan Commission subcommittee has not yet determined whether a chicken coop should count as an accessory building under Zoning Ordinance No. 1402, Chapter 11, Section A (toward the two-structure limit and lot coverage). Staff recommends: yes, coops count. South Bend model: explicit exclusion. Final language pending subcommittee guidance and Town Attorney Austgen review.
Open Item — Approval process: The subcommittee has not yet determined whether to proceed with a standard ordinance (current draft), a BZA variance, or a special exception/conditional use. This entire ordinance structure is contingent on that decision. Town Attorney Austgen should advise on legal suitability before direction is finalized. For reference, Winfield (Lake County) adopted its chicken rules in 2022 as a standard zoning text amendment following a Plan Commission public hearing (Ord. 23-B).
(P) A violation of this Section shall constitute a Class C Infraction. In addition to the penalties for this Section, any person violating this Section may be ordered to abate the nuisance. Penalty, see § 90.99.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
That the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Cedar Lake, Ordinance No. 1402, as amended from time to time, Chapter 5 — Agricultural Zoning District, Section A (Agricultural Uses), is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph at the end of said Section A:
Notwithstanding the foregoing eight (8) acre minimum and the one thousand (1,000) foot buffer from residential zoning districts set forth in this Section A, the keeping of backyard chickens on single-family residential parcels shall be permitted as an accessory residential use in all Residential Zoning Districts of the Town of Cedar Lake, subject in all respects to the regulations set forth in Section 90.14 of the Town Code, as may be amended from time to time. This exception shall not authorize the keeping of roosters, commercial poultry operations, or any livestock or fowl not specifically addressed in Section 90.14.
If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect any other section, clause, provision, or portion of this Ordinance.
All existing Ordinances, or parts thereof, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance, are hereby deemed null, void, and of no legal effect, and are specifically repealed.
This Ordinance shall take effect, and be in full force and effect, from and after its passage by the Town Council of the Town of Cedar Lake, Lake County, Indiana, in conformance with applicable law.
ALL OF WHICH IS PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, THIS ______ DAY OF __________________, 20____.
TOWN OF CEDAR LAKE, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA, TOWN COUNCIL
- Robert Carnahan, Ward 1
- Julie Rivera, Ward 2
- Nick Recupito, Ward 3
- Chuck Becker, Ward 4
- Greg Parker, Ward 5
- Mary Joan Dickson, At-Large
- Richard C. Thiel Jr., At-Large
ATTEST:
- Jennifer N. Sandberg, IAMCA, CMC, CPFIM, Clerk-Treasurer
- Margo Nagy, IAMCVCMC, CPS, CMO, Chief Deputy Clerk
Signature lines are blank in the original document.