East Dundee continues talks on redevelopment of former Hager site as developer offers lower‑density options

East Dundee trustees and village staff continued discussions June 16 about redeveloping the former Hager site at 7 Maiden Lane, receiving revised proposals from Brinchor Development and public comment urging lower density, traffic limits and preservation of local history.

The proposal by Brinchor, a mixed‑income developer, offered three build options that reduce density from an original 136‑unit plan to alternatives of 119, 104 and 89 units and increase on‑site parking, while proposing to preserve central historic buildings and a riverfront plaza. Village Administrator Erica Storley told the board the site is a designated brownfield and that the village has spent about $700,000 so far on testing, legal and maintenance costs.

The financial question is central: Storley said proper site remediation could add roughly $3.5 million to $5 million on top of the $700,000 already spent, and the village would likely need to use a tax‑increment financing (TIF) reimbursement approach if a developer proceeds. She said the village currently receives about $32,000 a year in taxes from the property, with roughly $4,000 flowing to a hypothetical TIF base now, and that a redevelopment would have to generate several‑hundred thousand dollars annually in incremental taxes to cover remediation reimbursements.

Why this matters: the property sits adjacent to neighborhood homes, a church and a school and has frequent trespass and safety problems. Residents told trustees the wrong scale of development would change the small‑town character, increase traffic near children, and place new burdens on local schools. Charlie Myers, a Maiden Lane resident who spoke during public comment, told the board that "this development could bring in 500 new residents to a town of just 3,000," and urged the village to prioritize single‑family homes, riverfront retail or lower‑density alternatives.

Brinchor Senior Vice President Mike Bowde presented the three revised options and explained tradeoffs. He said the developer is a long‑term owner and typically leverages Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and other programs to create mixed‑income projects. His slides showed that the original concept (136 units) could be reduced to 119 units by lowering building height, to 104 units with three‑story townhomes that include tuck‑under garages, or to 89 units with two‑story townhomes. Bowde said the multifamily options generally have lower per‑unit construction costs and that the townhome options are more expensive per unit.

Trustees and staff also discussed contamination and the scope of remediation. Storley described testing already done (about 17 soil borings on the main parcel), and said remaining unknowns include conditions on the west parcel (proposed park) and a north parcel (parking). She provided the village’s current estimate ranges: above‑ground hazardous material abatement $350,000–$2,000,000 (depending on roof/windows and asbestos/lead), demolition $825,000–$1,000,000, and soil removal/encapsulation raising site remediation to the multi‑million dollar range. If the village were to clean the site without a developer, Storley said it would likely need to borrow and service debt or identify new revenue sources.

Board and public concerns focused on scale, parking, traffic and school impacts. Trustee comments favored preserving historic elements and reducing density where feasible. Trustee Mahoney and other trustees asked Brinchor for more cost detail and for scenarios that would increase for‑sale units and senior‑friendly elevator apartments; Bowde said he would explore whether a modest for‑sale component could be added but warned that their LIHTC‑based financing model generally supports mixed‑income rental units.

The village also flagged potential grant support for converting the west parcel to park space; Storley said Illinois state grant programs could fund up to 50 percent of that park work if the village secures awards, and any grant would require a municipal match.

What the board decided: trustees did not vote on a final development plan. Instead they asked Brinchor to refine proposals, return with updated cost estimates and hold a public open house in July for more community input. Several trustees said they were not yet prepared to abandon alternate approaches, including single‑family options, until comparative costs and funding scenarios (including how much the village would need to contribute beyond a TIF reimbursement) were available.

Next steps: Brinchor will be invited back with pricing and a public‑facing presentation; the village will continue pursuing testing and grant options for the park parcel and will commission traffic and fiscal‑impact analyses to better estimate school and service costs if any option proceeds.