Village of Hinsdale Board of Trustees met Jan. 23.
Here is the minutes provided by the Board:
The specially scheduled meeting of the Hinsdale Village Board of Trustees was called to order by Village President Tom Cauley in Memorial Hall of the Memorial Building on Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 6:32 p.m., roll call was taken.
Present: Trustees Christopher Elder, Michael Ripani, Luke Stifflear, Gerald J. Hughes, Matthew Posthuma, Neale Byrnes and President Tom Cauley
Absent: None
Also Present: Village Manager Kathleen A. Gargano, Assistant Village Manager/Finance Director Darrell Langlois, Assistant Village Manager/Director of Public Safety Brad Bloom, Police Chief Brian King, Fire Chief John Giannelli, Director of Public Services George Peluso, Director of Community Development/Building Commissioner Robb McGinnis, Village Planner Chan Yu, Village Forester John Finnell, Administration Manager Emily Wagner, Management Analyst Jean Bueche and Village Clerk Christine Bruton
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
President Cauley led those in attendance in the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) Regular Meeting of January 9, 2018
Following suggested changes to the draft minutes, Trustee Elder moved to approve the draft minutes from the regular meeting of January 9, 2018, as amended. Trustee Stifflear seconded the motion.
AYES: Trustees Elder, Ripani, Stifflear, Hughes, Posthuma and Byrnes NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
Motion carried.
CITIZENS’ PETITIONS
None.
VILLAGE PRESIDENT’S REPORT
President Cauley reported recent dealings with the Tollway Authority. By way of background, he said he was contacted by Tollway Authority Chairman Mr. Bob Schillerstrom in August 2016 to discuss a possible tollway expansion through Hinsdale. He told Mr. Schillerstrom he had three primary concerns; moving the sound walls would adversely affect homes, parks and a school, lost sales tax revenue from the removal of the Oasis; and increased noise and pollution. By November 2016, the Tollway and BNSF representatives shared finalized plans for the removal of the bridge over the tollway to accommodate the widening of the tollway. When the Tollway Authority was confronted, they admitted they had already decided to expand the Tollway. President Cauley reported all meetings and efforts since that time to address this problem and the Tollway’s misleading comments about the number of lanes. They indicated they planned to expand the tollway from the existing four lanes in each direction to five or six lanes in each direction. Based upon these representations, the Village of Hinsdale hired an engineer to design a tollway through Hinsdale that would be modeled after the plan the Tollway Authority publically presented in April 2017 to its Customer Service and Planning Committee and was approved by their Board. Our engineer was able to expand the tollway to six lanes in each direction and meet all necessary safety standards without moving the sound wall on either side of the tollway, by adjusting the center line through Hinsdale and Western Springs. In October 2017, these plans were reviewed with Mr. Schillerstrom, who agreed to consider them. Shortly thereafter, in November 2017, the Tollway Authority informed Village staff that the plan was to increase the number of lanes to seven in each direction, a total of 14 lanes. Additionally, the Tollway Authority took the drawings Hinsdale prepared using the six lane configuration that kept the sound walls where they are, and added a seventh lane on the Western Springs side. Without our knowledge, they discussed those drawings with Western Springs officials. Due to the addition of the seventh lane, the sound wall on the Western Springs side was moved; this was never part of the Hinsdale engineer’s plan. The Tollway Authority misrepresented the Village’s plan to Western Springs.
President Cauley stated he is extremely disappointed with the shabby way the Tollway Authority has treated Hinsdale, and their newly unveiled plan of expanding the existing eight lanes to 14 lanes will likely have a devastating effect on Hinsdale and Western Springs. They have done little to justify almost doubling the width of the Tollway, at a cost of well over $4 billion, up from $1.4 billion estimate reported in early 2017. They have not considered the future effects of self-driving cars and trucks, or fixing the I-294 and I-290 interchange north of Hinsdale, or the use of reversible lanes during rush hour traffic. The Tollway Authority has the money from tolls and is of the opinion that Illinois residents don’t care about this expense because the money doesn’t come from property taxes. He would like to believe that Illinois residents are smart enough to know this massive expansion of the tollway is unnecessary and wasteful. He encouraged residents to organize an opposition to fight this expansion. He asked that people email tollway@villageofhinsdale.org to volunteer to help.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Due to an error in the Board materials, this item will be postponed to the next meeting of the Board.
FIRST READINGS – INTRODUCTION
Zoning & Public Safety (Chair Stifflear)
a) Approve an Ordinance approving Lot Size and Lot Width Variations from Section 3- 110 of the Village of Hinsdale Zoning Ordinance at 640 Mills Street, Hinsdale, IL – Case Number V-07-17
President Cauley introduced the item that comes to the Board from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). They are recommending the Board approve the subdivision of 640 Mills Streets into two properties; Lots 20 and 21. The current resident resides on Lot 21, and wants to sell Lot 20 to one of their children to build a home on the property. Under the current zoning code, if a structure straddled a lot line prior to 1988, a resident cannot subdivide the lots to create two non-conforming lots. He explained the drafters of the code recognized there were many non-conforming lots in all zoning districts of the Village, but did not want to create more of them, thereby increasing density. This property is in the R4 zoning district where a conforming lot is 70’ feet x 125’ feet, and must be 10,000’ square feet total. In this case, prior to the current owner’s purchase in 2002, a home straddled the lot line, and because subdividing the property would create two non-conforming lots, the owner cannot subdivide as a matter of right. Therefore, the applicant brought this matter to the ZBA to request a variance to create two lots that would be 60’ feet across and 7,500’ square feet total lot size. The ZBA approved the variance by a vote of 6-0. President Cauley noted the previous owner brought this request to the ZBA in 2001, and it was denied. He referenced the standards used to grant a variance, which include hardship, unique physical condition, not self-created, denial of substantial right, not special privilege, code and plan purpose, essential character of area, and no other remedy. President Cauley asked the applicant or their representative to address the Board and discuss how this is different from the matter the Board denied last year on Fourth Street and Woodside. Mrs. Vida Chenier, homeowner, addressed the Board stating that all the lots in this area are 60’ feet wide. She and her husband made the application, but he is out of town this evening. They followed the procedures suggested by President Cauley and the Village Attorney, to construct a home next door so that one of her children can be nearby because of her medical issues. After the ZBA public hearing it was unanimously found they had met the requirements for approval without exception. She noted the aerial views of the property that illustrate all the lots in the area are non-conforming, and these two lots would be just like the others. She believes her case is different from the Woodside case because she has the unanimous support of her neighbors.
President Cauley noted the ZBA suggested a text amendment to address these issues, however, Director of Community Development Robb McGinnis explained the Zoning Board has not had that discussion yet.
Ms. Chenier explained that the home that straddled the lot was demolished before they bought the property from the builder. She noted that the vacant lot has a separate pin number, and there are existing gas and water lines to the vacant property. Trustee Stifflear commented he wants to grant this request, but struggles with the 1988 code that recognizes there are non-conforming lots, but doesn’t want to increase the density of the community moving forward; new homes should be on lots of 10,000 square feet. If this is granted, how is that in line with the original thought of the code? Ms. Chenier commented homes are being torn down on these non-conforming lots, and new homes are being built, their request isn’t anything different than what other homeowners are doing.
Discussion followed regarding the intent of the code, what this means going forward, and trying to be consistent with previous decisions. Ms. Chenier added there have been two pin numbers on this property since 1908, there is no other benefit to her than having her child live next door, there is no financial gain.
Ms. Laura LaPlaca, 726 S. Elm, addressed the Board and stated she has been helping the Chenier’s with their application. She stated she understands the issue of precedence, but the Chenier’s came to the ZBA because they felt this was a compelling case. She agrees the Board should get on top of this issue with a code change, but the Board shouldn’t make the Chenier’s wait. She believes this case is distinguishable from the Woodside case; there is no economic benefit for these owners, in fact, this property is across from the tollway. She asked the Board to make a decision that is fair for the Chenier’s.
Trustee Stifflear asked how many zoning lots of record might be subject to this type of subdivision. Mr. McGinnis did not have that number, but alluded to the two sets of bulk zoning regulations in the code, and the problems that result.
The Board agreed to move this forward for a second reading on February 6th, however, Mrs. Chenier may have a conflict, but will confirm the dates. Otherwise, the item will appear on the February 20th Board agenda.
Trustee Hughes commented this is a difficult decision, but believes the key issues of the Woodside case are totally different including the compelling issue of preservation of an historic home, significant neighbor opposition, the diminishment of the economic viability of old homes, and the cost of taxes on large lots. In that case there was the question of no other remedy and whether that was met, but this case is different. This is not self-created; the current owner did not create this situation, nor is this a lot that doesn’t look like any others. The unique physical condition is that it simply isn’t big enough to subdivide. President Cauley commented he is reluctant to give petitions signed by neighbors a lot of weight, because neighbors may feel like they have to be neighborly and will sign. The zoning code is designed to protect residents with uniform application. Trustee Byrnes added that in terms of essential character of the neighborhood, this will not alter at all, but on Woodside it would have had an effect in that neighborhood. The Board agreed to move this item forward for a second reading either at their February 6th or February 20th meeting.
b) Approve an Ordinance Approving a Site Plan and Exterior Appearance Plan for Redevelopment for an Auto Dealership – Bill Jacobs Land Rover – 336 E. Ogden Avenue
President Cauley introduced the item and noted this is a first reading only, and that no vote will be taken on this matter tonight. Land Rover is moving from 300 E. Ogden Avenue to 336 Ogden Avenue. They will use the existing 3.2 acre vacant GM Training Facility building. This site is zoned B3, and a car dealership and repair shop is a permitted use. This is a one-story 20’ ft. tall building, located 40’ feet from south lot line. The can use the property and any existing non-conformity if they use it for a permitted use. They could build a two-story building and one twice the size, and 20” from south lot line, however, a 10’ foot buffer would be required. The code would require a 6” fence. This item comes to the Village Board from the Plan Commission with a recommendation for approval with certain parameters that the Jacobs Group has addressed.
Mr. Kevin Jacobs, owner, addressed the Board stating he grew up in Hinsdale and is looking to find the best use for the building, and be a good neighbor. To that end, they will keep the existing building, but create a better showroom in the front. He explained that the Land Rover Company imposes stringent material requirements, and interior and exterior look restraints for their businesses. There are global requirements, and any exceptions must be approved by the corporate office in New Jersey. They are maintaining the same setback for the showroom and the existing footprint of the building, but will be gutting the interior. There are no garage doors on the south side of the building, except one for parts delivery and such. They rearranged the service department and moved it all to the east side to address the concerns of neighbors. The existing curb cuts will remain; their intent is to have customers and employees use the Oak Street access. Air conditioning will be installed, so that no doors and windows will need to be left open during business hours in order to help with noise mitigation. He noted that all deliveries are made during business hours.
They will be adding significant green space, and are working with the Village arborist to determine the best plants to use. Along the south property line, 10’ ft. arborvitae will be planted that can grow to 15’ feet. They will maintain the existing shrubs on Oak Street, but they will be trimmed down and cut back at the curb cuts to help with sidewalk and street visibility for safety.
With respect to lighting, Mr. Jacobs explained they are removing the six wall-packs on the building, which will be replaced with lights that will shine on the building not off the building. He noted that along the property line the foot candle measurement is 0.0 foot candles. There might be some sections that measure.1 or.2, but all are well below the.5 foot candle requirement of the code. Discussion followed regarding security lighting, but Mr. Jacobs stated he is happy to work with residents if they are concerned about lights bothering them. He added he is also concerned about security, inventory and employee safety.
Regarding the fence on the south side of the lot, all different fence iterations have been discussed at length with neighbors and staff. A slatted cedar fence was the first proposal, but most recently an 8’ foot half pre-cast concrete and half cedar structure has been proposed. He noted that a full concrete fence is cost prohibitive. He is recommending a solid cedar fence with brick columns as the best compromise. He believes this will be a nicer, more uniform look. Additionally, based on the sound study, it would be well within noise regulations, providing the same noise insulation as concrete.
Mr. Nate Sevenor, from Soundscape Engineering, the consultants that provided the acoustical assessment and report, addressed the Board. He explained the first step is to measure sound as it currently exists near a project site, in this case, south of the dealership. He described the commercial acoustic software available to propagate sound, stating there are lots of variables, such as sound absorption, walls, and topography. Then the sound sources must be defined. They measured existing Land Rover dealership service department pneumatic tools and lug wrenches. They included dryer noise from a car wash, but the new site won’t have that. They made some other measurements at other locations, too, to propagate and compare to Illinois Pollution Control Board daytime regulations and found some exceedances. They looked at how to mitigate these excesses and found that an eight foot sound wall would do so. The taller the wall the more sound will be blocked. Sounds will refract over the top of the wall, ending up with an ‘acoustic shadow’. The taller the wall the more shadow you will have, which is a good thing. He added they did not account for the arborvitae, because they don’t provide a sound benefit. They are a good visual barrier, but not a sound barrier. They included an idling truck in the model. He noted the summary table provided which illustrates the sound under different conditions. The 8’ foot wall will block Ogden Avenue noise, resulting in a 10 decibel reduction on the south side. Discussion followed regarding noise measurements. It was stated that 50 decibels in an outdoor environment is reasonably quiet, and meets most daytime noise requirements. Mr. Sevenor said with the cedar fence, the noise level should get below the existing noise, even with the added noise of the dealership. He said there is no advantage to concrete fencing; the decision regarding the material for the sound wall comes down to the mass of the material. They recommend 2 lbs. per square foot, and added the more important factor is that the barrier is solid with no gaps.
Mr. Jacobs said the current timeline is to begin construction in May, and be in the facility by March 2019. He added that the corporate office also has to give a final approval of proposed plans.
Mr. Nick Skokna of 808 N. Oak, addressed the Board stating he is a vice-president of a lighting supply company and has installed lights in 14 auto dealerships. He advised the Board to be cautious with foot candle measurements, and the LED light information is misleading. He believes if Land Rover installs 500+ wattage lighting it will look like a football field. He has never used a fixture this big. If they dim the light by 30% to 400 watts, it will still be too bright all night long. It was clarified the lights will be dimmed at night to 30% of the total instead of by 30%, but Mr. Skogna thinks it’s still too bright. He believes 72 watts is sufficient. Mr. Jacobs explained they are using the manufacturer recommendations, but all the lights will have dimmers. Mr. Jerry Mortier, architect for the project, explained wattage doesn’t indicate the amount of light, but rather the energy used. President Cauley said Land Rover wants the light for security, and he feels confident if a neighbor complains, they will accommodate.
Mr. Skogna said a realtor told him he’s lost a $100,000 on the value of his house; he wants something nice along the fence and he’s worried about the safety of his children with a wooden fence.
Mr. Michael Stick of 802 Franklin addressed the Board regarding two issues, the lighting and the barrier on the south side of the property.
Regarding lighting: He believes even if the ground level measurement is 0 foot candles, if you lift your eyes up, you will see a football field. He expressed his concern regarding ‘night sky pollution’. He said there are two components with respect to lighting, brightness and color temperature. The color temperature on the Oak Street Bridge is 3,000, Land Rover is recommending 4,000 for their parking lots. Residents are asking for 3,000 here, too. Mr. Jacobs said he would have to talk to Jaguar corporate about what might be permitted.
Mr. Stick stated Land Rover has claimed they need lighting at night for security reasons. They currently have 100 cars on the lot, with no lights. Mr. Jacobs said the entrances are blocked now with cars, but the fire department will not allow this. He is also concerned for the security and safety of his employees on the lot and going to their cars.
Regarding the barrier: Mr. Stick referenced a petition signed by the residents of 28 homes in the immediate vicinity. They support requiring a brick or pre-cast wall on the southern edge of Land Rover property. The Plan Commission unanimously recommended the same. President Cauley explained two things have changed with respect to the material of the barrier; the results indicated by the sound study, and some residents didn’t want the half cedar, half pre-cast option. The brick or pre-cast option is too expensive. Regarding cost, Mr. Stick said the more expensive fence option is about 1% of the project budget. Trustee Elder asked Mr. Stick what concrete provides residents that cedar will not. Mr. Stick said they want concrete because it’s a better noise barrier, a safer barrier and will require less maintenance. He doesn’t believe Land Rover will maintain a wooden fence, and they will let it rot. He also believes the concrete is a greater aesthetic value to residents.
With respect to noise, Mr. Stick quoted the Village code stating it is ‘unlawful to produce any unreasonable noise’ but the code does not establish sound standards. Consequently, consultants rely on Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) standards to prevent noise pollution. The regulations are a minimum standard in Illinois. Land Rover has been saying for five months they will not increase the noise pollution in the area, but the study indicates that is not so. Land Rover will create noise pollution, and absent a barrier, they will be in violation of regulations. He believes Hinsdale’s standards regarding noise pollution should be higher than the State standards. Discussion followed regarding whether the cedar fence will satisfy a standard that should be higher in Hinsdale. Mr. Stick believes Hinsdale and it’s residents deserve something better, and that a concrete wall will reduce sound by an additional 28 decibels than the cedar fence. Village Attorney Michael Marrs added the Village could require an annual inspection of the fence, and require it be fixed or maintained.
Mr. Stick contends that the assumptions made by the noise study are faulty, although he acknowledged he is not an acoustic professional, but added that experts can manipulate results. The numbers in this report are based on assumptions at best. They should have measured the current operation and factored in increased noise levels, as the new business will be twice the size of the current operation. The sound study did not include numbers for ingress and egress of motor vehicles, which is a primary concern for residents, just an idling truck. It is not clear how many service bays are in operation at once and how many cars are serviced per hour. Only sounds from the interior are factored in; sounds from an impact wrench for 20 seconds per hour and mechanical hammers for 80 seconds per hour, this might be correct, but what about other types of noises. In order to comply with noise regulations, they simulated a barrier at 6 ft. and 8 ft., but the report does not indicate the noise reduction level of each barrier. He also pointed out that the report indicates that the STC level of 22 was met, but does not address the level of frequency of the noises measured.
He also noted that the Plan Commission approved the application subject to continued discussions between Land Rover, neighbors and staff to come to a conclusion. No one has reached out to him as a representative of the neighbors. He asked the Board to adopt the Plan Commission recommendations on the fence.
Mr. Dany Bassil of 803 Franklin stated that in his opinion all the decisions in the sound study, when looking at the graphs, are neither decisive nor conclusive. He has issues with the assumptions of the study. Additionally, the noise in his yard is more than 50 decibels; he can hear traffic and voices. He believes the concrete fence in terms of cost is a small margin for the dealership, and that if his child is in the yard and an accident happens, it will cost Jacobs far more than a concrete fence.
Mr. Junguo Bian of 811 N. Oak Street stated he is a new resident, but would not have bought his home if he knew a dealership was moving across the street. He noted the current dealership doesn’t meet the Jaguar facility standards. Mr. Jacobs said that is true, which is why they have to move from the current facility. Mr. Bian referenced the November Plan Commission meeting and discussion regarding the bushes along Oak Street. They are currently at 12’ feet, and they will be cut to 6’ feet. He doesn’t think they need to be cut, just widen the driveway entrance. President Cauley assured him they will be kept as tall as possible and still be healthy.
Ms. Debbie Hopkins of 740 N. Franklin, expressed concern with President Cauley’ s comment that he won’t know if the lights are too bright until he sees them. She noted the Oak Street Bridge is Village property, but Land Rover is not. She explained that Land Rover misrepresented information regarding doors on the south side of the building, and as a result she doesn’t trust them. Mr. Jacobs explained that when they first presented to the Plan Commission, some of the details of the project were not ‘fully baked’. He apologized to Ms. Hopkins and said they were not trying to deliberately mislead anyone.
Ms. Debra Braselton of 802 Franklin distributed handouts to the Board with respect to B3 residential districts. She said in other B3 districts there is a street between the residences and the commercial property, but not in this case. She also recommended the Village code enforcement officer inspect the current Land Rover operation, because there are code violations.
Mr. Peter Coules, attorney for the residents, pointed out the draft ordinance in the packet only mentions findings from the Plan Commission by reference to an exhibit. He believes these conditions should be part of the ordinance language, and there is no mention at all regarding outside speakers. He said the residents did see the change to a cedar only fence until tonight, and the noise study does not account for open service bay doors, only closed. He noted that offering public car washes in the bays should be treated as a special use. He reiterated concerns about showing half the parking lot at 0 foot candles. He said the price difference between the concrete fence and the cedar fence is the sale of one car. He added the neighbors have done their homework.
Mr. Sevener responded stating the study does address doors when open and closed. He explained why measuring the noise at the existing facility is incorrect, as the two facilities do not have the same layout and bays. He said this could be done in some cases, but there is too much noise from Ogden Avenue in this case. Therefore, they measure close to the noise source, and propagate to lot line. He added the report does not present a range of numbers because this is not a financial analysis, but they do report the worst case scenario. They average the sounds over an hour period using a logarithmic average. According to IPBC standards of noise pollution, an STC rating of 51 is ‘overkill’. He explained the original intent of an STC measurement is for interior walls, and determined in an acoustical lab. An outdoor wall is different because sound goes over the barrier. There is no additional sound contribution through the wall, but rather what is above and going over the wall. Discussion followed regarding Ogden Avenue noise impact.
Village Manager Gargano recapped resident concerns with the sound study; all bays should be counted and the number of cars per bay, a measurement during low and high Ogden traffic, and including more traffic in the parking lot.
Trustee Ripani recapped the differences between the Land Rover lighting recommendations and those recommended by residents. Regarding the wooden barrier vs. concrete, he pointed out that a wooden fence will not last as long as concrete. If the incremental cost is $100,000 and the wooden fence needs to be replaced once or twice over the life of concrete, the cost is reduced. He hopes Land Rover will recognize and appreciate this is a great location for their dealership.
The Board agreed to move this item forward for a second reading at their next meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
Administration & Community Affairs (Chair Hughes)
a) Trustee Posthuma moved Approval and payment of the accounts payable for the period of January 10, 2018 to January 23, 2018, in the aggregate amount of $814,518.13 as set forth on the list provided by the Village Treasurer, of which a permanent copy is on file with the Village Clerk. Trustee Byrnes seconded the motion.
AYES: Trustees Elder, Ripani, Stifflear, Hughes, Posthuma and Byrnes
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion carried.
SECOND READINGS / NON-CONSENT AGENDA – ADOPTION
Administration & Community Affairs (Chair Hughes)
a) Approve a month to month contract subject to the approval of the Village Manager with Mac Strategies Group Inc., Chicago, Illinois (Mac Strategies) in an amount not to exceed $6,500 per month for the period of December 20, 2017 through February 28, 2018 for lobbyist services related to the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (Tollway) expansion project (First Reading – January 9, 2017)
President Cauley introduced the item; Trustee Hughes noted the end date of the agreement is February 28th, by recommendation of the Board at their last meeting.
Trustee Elder moved to Approve a month to month contract subject to the approval of the Village Manager with Mac Strategies Group Inc., Chicago, Illinois (Mac Strategies) in an amount not to exceed $6,500 per month for the period of December 20, 2017 through February 28, 2018 for lobbyist services related to the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (Tollway) expansion project. Trustee Hughes seconded the motion.
AYES: Trustees Elder, Ripani, Stifflear, Hughes, Posthuma and Byrnes
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion carried.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
a) Update on proposed I-294 Tollway expansion
Item addressed at Presidents Report.
b) Approval of extension of Hinsdale Platform Tennis Association (HPTA) contract
Trustee Hughes said HPTA is making progress, the have divided into committees and are taking the work seriously. Recognizing they are in the middle of their competitive season, he is encouraged by the progress. It makes sense to extend the contract, and give them time to work through the details. The Board concurred.
DEPARTMENT AND STAFF REPORTS
a) Police
b) Fire
c) Public Services
d) Engineering
The report(s) listed above were provided to the Board. There were no additional questions regarding the content of the department and staff reports.
REPORTS FROM ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
CITIZENS’ PETITIONS
None.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS
Trustee Elder reported that Nick the Barber commended the Public Services Department and Village Manager Gargano regarding the efficient snow removal in front of his business.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Board, President Cauley asked for a motion to adjourn. Trustee Elder moved to adjourn the specially scheduled meeting of the Hinsdale Village Board of Trustees of January 23, 2018. Trustee Hughes seconded the motion.
AYES: Trustees Elder, Ripani, Stifflear, Hughes, Posthuma and Byrnes
NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m.
http://www.villageofhinsdale.org/document_center/VillageBoard/2018/01JAN/VBOT%2018%2001%2023%20minutes.pdf
Alerts Sign-up