Just under 11% of the village support the measure strongly enough to vote for it. Not 54%. Only 20% of the local electorate voted at all.
On that basis, it's probably a good thing the measure is unenforceable.
After all this is the way the US conducts its elections. Many elections have very low turnout, yet the results are binding.
Abstaining leads to your opinion not being represented, which is to be expected. It doesn't follow that therefore other people's vote hence represent you.
For the vote mentioned in the article, which is non-binding, non-enforceable, and ridiculous in its scope, I'd guess that most abstainers' real opinion on the matter, is that it's a waste of their time to participate.
Democracy is working great here and everybody is really happy about it.